graham@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael Graham) (01/21/91)
Thanks to everyone who responded. I know that there was a debate about "Surely the IIfx is better than an Amiga 3000", but I didn't get much out of it. I was showing a Mac IIfx to an Amiga friend of mine - after awhile I loaded up PageMaker 4.0 - takes about 10 seconds. As it was loading he asked me why I couldn't keep working in the other programs I had running under Multifinder I had no answer. There were numerous other things that he brought up - but I can't remember... I should probably just USE an Amiga - DO or try to do the things I do on my Mac and see what happens. Considering the IIfx is (not sure about this) 2-3 times more expensive than an Amiga 3000, Apple should have made it more than just a faster Mac IIx. I saw it ray tracing a simple cone (StrataVision) and couldn't believe how INCREDIBLY slow it is. Hopefully Apple has bought the top of the line NeXT and learned something. (Have you all seen the comparisons in MacWorld/User?) The IIfx is a fairly fast general usage machine. So why is it SO EXPENSIVE! And why doesn't it have more advanced features. Apple spends enough on R&D! No wonder my friends think so little of Macs. Someone please tell me that I am all wrong - and why... mike
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (01/21/91)
In article <1991Jan20.191640.28143@cs.dal.ca> graham@ug.cs.dal.ca (Michael Graham) writes:
Considering the IIfx is (not sure about this) 2-3 times more expensive than
an Amiga 3000, Apple should have made it more than just a faster Mac IIx.
I saw it ray tracing a simple cone (StrataVision) and couldn't believe how
INCREDIBLY slow it is. Hopefully Apple has bought the top of the line NeXT
and learned something. (Have you all seen the comparisons in MacWorld/User?)
The IIfx is a fairly fast general usage machine. So why is it SO EXPENSIVE!
And why doesn't it have more advanced features. Apple spends enough on R&D!
No wonder my friends think so little of Macs.
Someone please tell me that I am all wrong - and why...
mike
Why did you buy a Mac IIfx? To run Mac software fast? If another
machine would have done the same job for you, then you probably got
gouged, screwed, taken, etc. Mac's have always carried a premium
price because they were the only game in town. Apple's GUI is good,
and third-part applications are consistent, for the most part. This
is no longer true. Windows 3.0 is providing a formidable threat, even
though it isn't nearly as good(IMHO) as the Mac interface. And of
course, the Amiga 3000 and the NeXT are also formidable cometitors. I
think that the shit will really hit the fan after Apple does release
their 040 machine. People are going to say "040 Mac + Ethernet for
how much!?!"
I hope that you didn't buy the IIfx for Unix. Someone told me that
AU/X is System VR2. Is this true, or are NeXT and Amiga users
spreading more nasty rumors?
Oh yeah, if you find that an Amiga or NeXT will do the job that you
want, you should probably unload you IIfx while you can still get some
money for it. Within a year, it's going to lose a lot of its value.
-Mikevd09+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent M. Del Vecchio) (01/21/91)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.mac.misc: 20-Jan-91 Re: Macs are > great...more Michael D Mellinger@cs.p (1845) > I hope that you didn't buy the IIfx for Unix. Someone told me that > AU/X is System VR2. Is this true, or are NeXT and Amiga users > spreading more nasty rumors? Sadly, it's basically true... -Vincent Del Vecchio vd09@andrew.cmu.edu #include "stdsig.h"