tjhayko@THUNDER.LAKEHEADU.CA (09/27/90)
Well, unfortunately, you Apple users have it all wrong again (just joking guys :) The newest version of Amax (A-Max II) has support for Apple talk and will run with the newest 50 Mhz 68030 accelerator card for the Amiga 2000. How's a 50 Mhz 68030/68882 stand up against a pokey old Mac IIfx? ********************************************************** * Tom Hayko * only the Amiga /// * * tjhayko@thunder.lakeheadu.ca * (if only Commodore /// * * * knew that) \\\/// * * * \XX/ * ********************************************************** QUIT
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (09/28/90)
In article <9009270159.AA03907@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca> tjhayko@THUNDER.LAKEHEADU.CA writes: > > >The newest version of Amax (A-Max II) has support for Apple talk >and will run with the newest 50 Mhz 68030 accelerator card for >the Amiga 2000. How's a 50 Mhz 68030/68882 stand up against a >pokey old Mac IIfx? I see your A2000 with 50MHz accelerator card and raise you a Mac II with 24-bit color and Daystar 50MHz accelerator card. (with Mac II compatibility built in, of course :-) ) (note Followup line) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
tjhayko@THUNDER.LAKEHEADU.CA (09/29/90)
Well, the interesting thing to talk about in all this is cost. How much does a Mac II with a 50 Mhz accelerator card cost? An Amiga 2000 with A-Max II costs about $1200 under the educational discount program. I don't even think you can get one of the forthcoming "Classic" Macs for that little. ************************************************************* * Tom Hayko * only the Amiga /// * * tjhayko@thunder.lakeheadu.ca * (Commodore is starting/// * * * to know that) \\\/// * * * and it's about time\XX/ * ************************************************************* QUIT
whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) (09/29/90)
|The newest version of Amax (A-Max II) has support for Apple talk |and will run with the newest 50 Mhz 68030 accelerator card for |the Amiga 2000. How's a 50 Mhz 68030/68882 stand up against a |pokey old Mac IIfx? Actually, the Mac IIfx can beat out 50Mhz acceleratros for the older Mac IIs. Lot of the bottlenecks removed as well, and of course Amiga doesn't have full 32-bit slots or capable of displaying 24-bit graphics or it's expandiblity. I find it amusing how Amiga users always compare their machines against the Mac IIs. Face it Amiga always comes in as runner up at best. Mac IIs maybe expensive, but at least you get what you pay for. /s
don@brahms.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) (09/29/90)
In article <0093D687C82BA920.00000725@dcs.simpact.com> whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) writes: >|The newest version of Amax (A-Max II) has support for Apple talk >|and will run with the newest 50 Mhz 68030 accelerator card for >|the Amiga 2000. How's a 50 Mhz 68030/68882 stand up against a >|pokey old Mac IIfx? > >Actually, the Mac IIfx can beat out 50Mhz acceleratros for the older Mac IIs. >Lot of the bottlenecks removed as well, and of course Amiga doesn't have full >32-bit slots or capable of displaying 24-bit graphics or it's expandiblity. The 3000 does have full 32-bt slots. A lot of the bottlenecks were removed from the IIfx, but unfortunately most of the improvements still aren't supported by the OS so they don't get used. Every amiga has DMA and multiple coprocesors to speed things up... the IIfx is the only Mac offering things like this, and, as I said, most of them still aren't really supported. As for 24-bit graphics, there are a number of solutions available. There are frame buffers, devices like HAM-E and DCTV, and even transputers (that doesn't even take the Video Toaster into account :-). In what way does the Amiga not have a Mac's expandability? The 3000 can go to 8MB on the motherboard, will autoconfigure 1.7 GB, and will support even more, up to the 4 GB the '030 can address, using a little program called addmem. It uses standard (not Mac-style non-standard) SCSI. The 2000 series also has multiple XT/AT slots which can be used with IBM hardware in conjunction with a bridgeboard. So exactly how does it lack expandibility? > >I find it amusing how Amiga users always compare their machines against the Mac >IIs. Face it Amiga always comes in as runner up at best. >Mac IIs maybe expensive, but at least you get what you pay for. I find it amusing how Mac II owners always think they've gotten what they paid for, when they can always get an Amiga with more features for a lower price. (Not to mention that Mac software costs a LOT more, and requires more memory, for the most part. Did you know the Mac is 3rd (behind PC's and Amiga) in software sales volume?)
U3364521@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Lou Cavallo) (09/30/90)
G'day, TS> In article <0093D687C82BA920.00000725@dcs.simpact.com>, TS> whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) writes: > |The newest version of Amax (A-Max II) has support for Apple talk > |and will run with the newest 50 Mhz 68030 accelerator card for > |the Amiga 2000. How's a 50 Mhz 68030/68882 stand up against a > |pokey old Mac IIfx? TS> Actually the Mac IIfx can beat out 50Mhz acceleratros for the older Mac IIs. Thanks for the info. I've been needing another data point for the IIfx. > Lot of the bottlenecks removed as well, and of course Amiga doesn't have full > 32-bit slots or capable of displaying 24-bit graphics or it's expandiblity. Just a factual correction. Most Amigas do not have 32 bit slots. The Amiga 3000 does and each slot has throughput of around 20 Mbits/sec (they don't run at a fixed clock rate) on the 25Mhz models. The normal Nubus slots on the IIfx run at around 5 Mbits/sec I've read. Can any one confirm/deny this? The IIfx has a faster 20 MHz buss connection to the CPU however but I forget if that is the processor direct slot. > I find it amusing how Amiga users always compare their machines against the > Mac IIs. Face it Amiga always comes in as runner up at best. I agree that Amax II will only give a 50 MHz (with that accelerator) Mac Plus emulation. I think many Amiga owners ask about this because they don't know as much about the Macintosh CPUs as others do. With the Amiga 3000 I do not believe it is a runner up against the appropriate h/w (perhaps Mac IIci) but then this is a topic for comp.sys.amiga not here. > Mac IIs maybe expensive, but at least you get what you pay for. > /s This is an Apple II group no? Perhaps if you'd like to discuss your other views we can do that via e-mail? {I'm studying very hard at the moment I may not reply for quite a while. Sorry.} yours truly, Lou Cavallo.
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (10/03/90)
In article <9009290002.AA27349@thunder.LakeheadU.Ca> tjhayko@THUNDER.LAKEHEADU.CA writes: > > >Well, the interesting thing to talk about in all this is cost. >How much does a Mac II with a 50 Mhz accelerator card cost? An >Amiga 2000 with A-Max II costs about $1200 under the educational >discount program. I don't even think you can get one of the >forthcoming "Classic" Macs for that little. ERROR ERROR BAIT AND SWITCH. It was an Amiga 3000 before... Besides, I said 'I raise you', and you seem to be trying to undercut me. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.
whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) (10/06/90)
|The 3000 does have full 32-bt slots. A lot of the bottlenecks were removed |from the IIfx, but unfortunately most of the improvements still aren't |supported by the OS so they don't get used. Every amiga has DMA and multiple |coprocesors to speed things up... the IIfx is the only Mac offering things |like this, and, as I said, most of them still aren't really supported. |As for 24-bit graphics, there are a number of solutions available. There are |frame buffers, devices like HAM-E and DCTV, and even transputers (that |doesn't even take the Video Toaster into account :-). In what way does the |Amiga not have a Mac's expandability? The 3000 can go to 8MB on the |motherboard, will autoconfigure 1.7 GB, and will support even more, up to |the 4 GB the '030 can address, using a little program called addmem. |It uses standard (not Mac-style non-standard) SCSI. The 2000 series also |has multiple XT/AT slots which can be used with IBM hardware in conjunction |with a bridgeboard. So exactly how does it lack expandibility? | |> |>I find it amusing how Amiga users always compare their machines against the |>Mac IIs. Face it Amiga always comes in as runner up at best. |>Mac IIs maybe expensive, but at least you get what you pay for. | | I find it amusing how Mac II owners always think they've gotten what |they paid for, when they can always get an Amiga with more features for |a lower price. (Not to mention that Mac software costs a LOT more, and |requires more memory, for the most part. Did you know the Mac is 3rd |(behind PC's and Amiga) in software sales volume?) | Well, if, you insist. No, the A3000 DOESN'T have full 32-bit slots. Their STILL 16-bits!!! They have to multiplex the 16-bit bus to get 32-bits. Amiga co-processors are jokes when compared to the 24-bit graphic boards with 32-bit graphic co-processors. The Amiga DMA... OOOOHHH... too BAD they interfere with DMA cards, like DMA SCSI controller cards and the like. No one even sells DMA SCSI controllers for the Amiga. HAM-E... haha, comparing 320x200 (can't do 400 without flickering) with what 700,000 colors to a 1200x1024 any of the 16.8 colors to each pixel... go shovel it someplace else. Transputers, oohh, you can add various processor to the Mac IIs... and you can use many of them transpartently thanks to NuBuses Multi-master capablity. 1.7GigaBytes, isn't that nice... 2Gs for the Mac II, bub and lots more through virtual memeory via the 68030. Surprise, what do you know the MAc II uses a 68030, too. Non-standard SCSI... well, show me SCSI HD that DOESN'T work on the Mac II. Macs got everybody else into it... that makes it pretty much their standard, STANDARD! XT/AT slots... well, I see ABSOLUTELY NO advantage in ISA 16-bit slots to NuBuses 32-bit slots. Do you? Didn't think so. So far, your comments seem less then well thought out. Don't bother trying to convince me, OK. I DON'T OWN A MAC II or an Amiga. Although I wish I did (both or either). Video Toaster shows some promise, but you'd better read an article in AmigaWorld. It's not fully fuctional until you buy a $1500 timer to turn it into a REAL gen-lock. I only skimed through it OK, so I guess you can more or less ignore that. What do you want me to say, that the Amiga is better than the Mac II. It's my opinion, but I don't think it is. Somethings off the top of my head that you can't do on an Amiga, but POSSIBLE on a Mac II. Multiple screens... you can have 1-6 screens and they can be different resolutions of the Desktop (WorkBench to you). Resolution of 640x480 to 1200x1024 in black and white to any for any pixel from 16.8 colors. You have multi-processors.. transputers, RISCs... DSPs... they work without having to bother with jumper and switches. Software have no problem in different resolutions, doesn't matter if there are multi-screens... graphics accelerators AMD29000, or MC96000, or TI32010 and TI32020 can easily out perform the 16-bit running at what 7Mhz co-processors. You think Amiga does a great job with 320x200 screen... you do that in a small window of that resolution on the Mac II with ease. Aw, heck with this!!!
don@brahms.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) (10/06/90)
In article <0093DC222B880640.00000110@dcs.simpact.com> whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) writes: > >Well, if, you insist. No, the A3000 DOESN'T have full 32-bit slots. Their >STILL 16-bits!!! They have to multiplex the 16-bit bus to get 32-bits. No, they are 32 bits. There is some type of multiplexing done if you've got a 16-bit ZorroII card plugged in to make it appear to the system to be a Zorro III (32-bit) card; cards for the ZorroIII bus, though, are a full 32 bits wide. ZorroIII, I'm told, can achieve speeds of ~20MHz thoughput. >Amiga >co-processors are jokes when compared to the 24-bit graphic boards with 32-bit >graphic co-processors. Which are available only for the higher-end Macs and which require expensive monitors (in addition to the cost of the boards themselves). QuickDraw is nice for compatibility, and the Amiga needs something like it now that similar boards are appearing for it; but QuickDraw also seem to slow things down tremendously. My limited experience with Mac graphics accelerator cards (saw 2 demoed by Apple people visiting work) left me unimpressed. Sure, they drew windows fast. But they didn't seem to be too suited to real animation. (Of course, I had been playing with a $100,000+ personal Iris just a few hours before, so I might have been expecting too much :-). > >The Amiga DMA... OOOOHHH... too BAD they interfere with >DMA cards, like DMA SCSI controller cards and the like. Say WHAT? DMA channels interfering with DMA hardware... I can't really comment on that one because I have yet to figure out the logic behind it. >No one even sells DMA >SCSI controllers for the Amiga. No one? GVP, Commodore, ICD, Xetec, MAST, and Microbotics are names I can think of right off the top of my head who produce DMA SCSI controllers for the Amiga. In fact, I can only think of two companies which produce non-DMA controllers. >HAM-E... haha, comparing 320x200 (can't do 400 >without flickering) with what 700,000 colors to a 1200x1024 any of the 16.8 >colors to each pixel... go shovel it someplace else. Transputers, oohh, you >can add various processor to the Mac IIs... and you can use many of them >transpartently thanks to NuBuses Multi-master capablity. I'm comparing a 320x200 or 320x400 NTSC signal for under $300 to a $3000+ card & monitor combination which still has to have hardware added to output and NTSC signal. Both have advantages and disadvantages. >1.7GigaBytes, isn't >that nice... 2Gs for the Mac II, bub and lots more through virtual memeory via >the 68030. The 3000 will AUTOCONFIGURE 1.7 gigabytes. You can easily add more, up to the 4 GB supported by the '030. Virtual memory is right now only available for the Mac via 3rd-party add-ons, and won't be 'officially' supported until 7.0 comes out. Yes, it's a nice thing to have, and to get it on an AMiga currently, you have to run Unix. >Surprise, what do you know the MAc II uses a 68030, too. Never said it didn't. (Errr, actually, the II doesn't.. but the II's been discontinued anyway in favor of the IIci and IIfx). >Non-standard SCSI... well, show me SCSI HD that DOESN'T work on the Mac II. >Macs got everybody else into it... that makes it pretty much their standard, >STANDARD! The connectors they use are non-standard. SCSI was around before the Mac, mostly on workstations, etc. >XT/AT slots... well, I see ABSOLUTELY NO advantage in ISA 16-bit >slots to NuBuses 32-bit slots. Do you? If you're trying to use PC hardware, yes, definitely. >Didn't think so. So far, your >comments seem less then well thought out. Don't bother trying to convince me, >OK. I DON'T OWN A MAC II or an Amiga. Although I wish I did (both or either). I own an Amiga 2000 (hopefully 3000 soon) and use a Mac IIci at work regularly. Both have their good and bad point, but overall, I'd keep my Amiga. > >Video Toaster shows some promise, but you'd better read an article in >AmigaWorld. It's not fully fuctional until you buy a $1500 timer to turn it >into a REAL gen-lock. I only skimed through it OK, so I guess you can more or >less ignore that. > It needs a TBC (time base corrector). It also needs high-quality storage media if you want quality work. But that's no different than other systems, and even if it cost $10000 for the system, I'm told by a video guy I know that it'd still be well worth the cost. >What do you want me to say, that the Amiga is better than the Mac II. It's my >opinion, but I don't think it is. Somethings off the top of my head that you >can't do on an Amiga, but POSSIBLE on a Mac II. Multiple screens... you can >have 1-6 screens and they can be different resolutions of the Desktop >(WorkBench to you). Resolution of 640x480 to 1200x1024 in black and white to >any for any pixel from 16.8 colors. You have multi-processors.. transputers, >RISCs... DSPs... they work without having to bother with jumper and switches. >Software have no problem in different resolutions, doesn't matter if there are >multi-screens... graphics accelerators AMD29000, or MC96000, or TI32010 and >TI32020 can easily out perform the 16-bit running at what 7Mhz co-processors. >You think Amiga does a great job with 320x200 screen... you do that in a small >window of that resolution on the Mac II with ease. > Multiple screens of different resolutions and pallettes (on the same monitor) are something the Amiga's always done. Never heard of its existence in the Mac world, except with multiple monitors. 24-bit color (in high resolutions) is available, and graphics accelerators are coming. 1280x800 greyscale has been around on the Ami for years. As for the 'jumpers and switches', that's what the Amiga's autoconfig ability replaces; I've heard of DSP, i860, TMS34010, and T800/T900 systems for Ami.
jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) (10/07/90)
don@brahms.udel.edu (Donald R Lloyd) writes: > In article <0093DC222B880640.00000110@dcs.simpact.com> > whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) writes: > >>Amiga co-processors are jokes when compared to the 24-bit graphic >> boards with 32-bit graphic co-processors. > > Which are available only for the higher-end Macs and which > require expensive monitors (in addition to the cost of the boards > themselves). > QuickDraw is nice for compatibility 2 Months ago, before I came to school, we had a Raster-Ops 24-bit graphics/video frame capture card at the Apple dealer where I was working. So, I know from experience what is required. 24-bit video cards will plug directly into ANY Mac II series machine. Includeing the now old original Mac II. And they DO NOT require any different monitor. They generate a video signal that looks EXCELLENT on the standard Mac 13" color monitor; the same one that works with the 8-bit color built into the Mac IIci. > QuickDraw is nice for compatibility, [...] but QuickDraw also seem to > slow things down tremendously. YES, it sure is. Quickdraw is why I can run the same software on a HUGE 2-page monitor or a 13" Color monitor w/8-bit color card, or 24-bit color like the Raster-Ops or Apple's card, or any combination of these AT THE SAME TIME. QuickDraw is why I can have a Mac II with 6 totally different video boards and different monitors on them, and have a window positioned so that its 4 corners are on 4 different monitors, and move it around, and the whole thing works. EVERY TIME, ALL THE TIME. And the newer Macs can handle QuickDraw very nicely, and the older, slower ones don't need some of its advanced, slower capabilities, so they simply aren't ever used or executed. ----------------- Jeffrey Hutzelman America Online: JeffreyH11 Internet/BITNET:jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu, jhutz@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu >> Apple // Forever!!! <<
leecemb@EA.USL.EDU (10/11/90)
In article <0093D687C82BA920.00000725@dcs.simpact.com>, whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) writes: << stuff deleted >> > >Actually, the Mac IIfx can beat out 50Mhz acceleratros for the older Mac IIs. >Lot of the bottlenecks removed as well, and of course Amiga doesn't have full >32-bit slots or capable of displaying 24-bit graphics or it's expandiblity. > >I find it amusing how Amiga users always compare their machines against the Mac >IIs. Face it Amiga always comes in as runner up at best. > >Mac IIs maybe expensive, but at least you get what you pay for. I am the owner of an //e and a mac, hopefully I will own an Amiga soon!. - I beg to differ you on a few points. True when you compare a middle of the line Amiga with a top of the line Mac, the Mac wil outperform the Amiga. However the Amiga is not an Mac clone, although it can be, jsut as it can be PC compatable. The Amiga has it's own peice of the personal computer market. Just looking at the bottom of the line the Amiga 500. It has the same processor as the bottom of the barrel mac, with the color of the //GS, built in 4 voice sound(the GS has it beat there), built in speech synth., MULTITASKING built into the DOS which neither the Macs or // have! ^^^^^^^^^^^^ True the 500's memory is limited but they do make memory expansion boards for it memory expansion slot (like //GS), and it also has a advanced processor slot for the 68030, and math co-processor). And as you move up to 2000 and to 3000 (which do have true 32-bit expansion slots) the list of options just get better and better. Like not only do they have a slot for a card to make the Amiga PC compatable but it actually has PC slots for PC/AT expansion boards. And at a very reasonalbe price to! But rather than use more Bandwith, why don't you just go to a local Amiga store and take a look at one. That's what I did and I will probably never buy an Apple product Again!