Classic_-_Concepts@cup.portal.com (08/30/89)
George, don't worry, any of us who has been 'out there' knows that the
Amiga is still a dark horse and wouldn't misinterpret those comments you heard
and repeated as flames. I hear that sort of thing DAILY. People go on to say,
after I describe the capabilities of the Amiga, that there must be 'something
wrong with it then, if they've never heard about it' (sigh).
Worse than ignorance though, is the spreading of incorrect information in
written articles. Case in point ...
In the recent VERBUM 4D issue, Gregory MacNicol wrote an article on video
on microcomputers. The first article I saw by the same author was in the Dec.
1988 issue of Computer Graphics World. In the latter, he devotes quite a bit
of space to the difficulty of converting computer signals to video signals and
doesn't give credit to the Amiga's NTSC signal or the array of Amiga Genlocks
now available. Check it out, then read what he wrote in this issue of Verbum.
(By the way, I PHONED Computer Graphics World and complained, but later
found out that a letter carries far more weight. Gregory carries pretty good
credentials and makes some correct statements, but he's still off-base enough
to be doing a disservice to those who trust what they read and look to current
journals for correct information.) In the Verbum article he writes,
"The Amiga is limited in color (compared to IBM-PC/AT and Mac systems),"
(This writer has a responsiblity to specify the configuration and prices if
making such sweeping generalizations, i.e., which graphics card, off the shelf
or with add-ons, etc.) Then he goes on to say,
"Perhaps the most impressive developments in low-cost computer animation
have taken place in the IBM-PC/AT world. The 286 and 386 pc's are relatively
inexpensive (AT clones can be had for under $1000)....
Well, I have yet to see an AT clone or 386 machine in the under-$1000
range which makes the Amiga look limited in color. In fact, most machines I've
seen in that price range are black and white or, at most, CGA and the
occasional EGA card. None of these compares to an off-the-shelf Amiga. Those
cheap AT-clones also don't have graphics coprocessors, they don't have
multitasking, they don't have an NTSC signal without expensive add-ons and they
don't have the abundance of quality, low-cost animation software. They also
don't have consistent file formats like IFF and ANIM so animations can be
traded around between applications programs, thus utilizing the strengths of
each. Sorry, I work on IBMs almost daily, and I've seen nothing in the under-
$6,000 range that comes close to making possible what I do on my $1500 Amiga at
home. And the above statement is in direct contrast to the following statement
by the same author in the CGW Dec. article where he wrote,
"For example, one of the least expensive VGA-to-video converters costs
about $10,000."
So, since writing is more effective than phoning, and since many people
on the net DO care about the proliferation of incorrect information, why
not read the Computer Graphics World Article and the recent Verbum article
and WRITE to the editors. VERBUM, P.O. Box 15439, San Diego, CA 92115 or
MCI MAIL: Verbum Telex 650 302 0249. and Computer Graphics World, One
Technology Park Drive, POB 987, Westford, MA 01886
Mr. MacNicol said nice things about the Amiga too, but I prefer accuracy,
and he's not quite there yet.
J. Petersen