ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) (02/20/91)
I already responded to the following two messages here on Free-Net from a ST user who, for one, believes that the MAC emulator for the Amiga doesn't run faster than a MAC. I'm posting this in the hopes that others with more experience with AMAX and such can respond to this message with futher information. I will gladly relay this to him as I'm sure he would like to be corrected of any errors in his logic. :) I know I already pointed out several. Article #109 (112 is last): Newsgroups: freenet.sci.comp.c64.forum From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) Subject: Re: English 101 revisited Date: Mon Feb 18 20:39:26 1991 Scotty Meredith writes: >Mr. Hill, > Again, you have this `faster` thing, I dont know if you >ran track in high school, have a fast car, or what the problem High School? I haven't been in high school in years. Your getting personal here. Please stick to the topic. >is here. For the last nine months or so, your signature file >said `why by a Mac when an Amiga can run it faster`, or something It hasn't been that long, I don't believe. Perhaps five or six months. >to that extenet. I have read it so many times, I can not >beleive I forgot it. Anyhow, you claim the Amiga can run it >faster. Even in a private message to me, that is still in my mail >box, you said that. The ad you retyped in message 104 said, >(quote) FULL MAC SPEED. It does not say Faster than a Mac. I The general word I've heard is that Amax runs MAC software anywhere from 10% to almost 50% faster than a MAC with the same CPU. I will go through my AMAX messages for more references to speed, but here are some examples: In that ad, it also reads "improved handling of Amiga accelerator boards, for maximum speed and compatibility- software runs up to five times faster". The October 89 issue of Amiga World, page 13 reads- "A-Max's performance in terms of disk access time and recalculation speed is comparable to a Macintosh Plus- screen refreshing is even faster." >know you would like to beleive they are, but faster does not mean >ALMOST ST SPEED or FULL MAC SPEED as you claimed both the >emulators to be. It does mean to accomplish before another. So I don't "like to believe anything". I take facts at face value, and that is one reason why I bought the Amiga over other machines. Once again you are walking the line of a personal attack. Sarcasm does nothing for me. Facts on the other hand... >you have to have an Amiga 2000 to do some of the things the ST >Macintosh emulator can do on ALL machines, like read Mac format Your clouding the issue. The 500 can read MAC disks, just needs the drive or for you to use the Amax format. >disks. Oh well, too bad. Every feature you mentioned on this >emulator holds true to the Specter GCR emulator (for the ST). It What is "too bad"? I see nothing to feel "bad" about. >will also work just fine and dandy on the STacy, the portable ST. >You can have a portable MAC that out-performs the real thing!! The same goes for the Amiga emulator. Tell me, can you buy an Atari with an '030 yet, or even with card slots? The TT is still in demo mode. The 3000 is here. Just wondering, as I'm sure this plays a part in a low end and high end MAC clone potential. >The Atari also has a laser printer that can be found for under >$1000, that with a PROGRAM can generate postscript. Also, >it uses the COMPUTERS memory, to get tasks done quicker than >a regular laser. What good is 2 megs of RAM just sitting >idle in a laser printer. The Laser uses the ST ram, so instead >of putting 2 megs of memory in your printer, and using it >every other week, put it in your computer, and use it all the >time!! :) Commodore also has just released a laser printer, but the Amiga is easy to use with several laser printers anyway. If that printer doesn't have Post- Script built in then it better sell for much less than $1000. But the same drivers exist for the Amiga anyway. Tom -- Why purchase a MAC when an Amiga with the same CPU will run 99% of all __ MAC software..and FASTER at that?! The same can be said of the IBM and __/// Atari computers, and I can run those in a window. IBM's greatest sales \XX/ tool is ignorance on the consumer's part. Only the Amiga! DEVO Anyone? Article #108 (112 is last): Newsgroups: freenet.sci.comp.c64.forum From: ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) Subject: Re: English 101 Date: Mon Feb 18 20:35:46 1991 Scotty Meredith writes: >Mr. Hill, > In Message 101 you said the ST emulator ran software quicker >than the ST. You also mentioned to see message 99 reguarding the >brainstorm emulator saying it said it was faster. Well, I looked >at the brainstorm ad, Nowhere did I see that it ran software >quicker than the ST. I saw where it said (quote) `Almost ST speed` I said "Please refer to the 'BrainSTorm' post for a small bit of info on how how much faster *ONE* ST emulator is" , not *the* ST emulator. But since you brought it up, it does run text 120% faster and disk speed is 108% faster. This is one respect of "how much faster" *one* ST emulator is. There are at least two others coming out that I've heard of. > A - L - M - O - S - T >I hate to bust your bubble, but the phrase ALMOST ST SPEED does >not mean `runs faster than an ST`. According to Webster: >al-most (awl` most) adv. very nearly; all but [O.E. eallmoest] >there * I S * a difference. Ok, there is a line that says >`Text-120% faster` perhaps that is what you are refering to. >The speed of text scrolling down the screen does not make a >program run faster. You bring your Amiga with this Brainstorm >emulator over here, or any public place, and set them side >by side with the ST. Games, Word Processing, Desktop Publishing >etc... How can they say 120% faster? Faster than what? I >would assume they mean faster than TOS 1.0 There is quite >a big speed diference between TOS 1.0/1.2/1.4/1.6 etc... Don't assume anything. The complete ad was posted. It never said that the OS was 1.0. >There is also 2 program available (I own both) that >speed up the operation of the ST. Quick ST and Turbo ST. >I dont have the bench mark figures here, but when you run >either of the two programs, you get a MAJOR increase in This means nothing, as such programs also exist for the Amiga. Besides, maybe Quick ST and Turbo ST will run on the emulator? :) >speed. And if your ST is equipped with a blitter, it >is even quicker than that. I seem to remember numbers >in speed increases OVER 1000% (One Thousand). If you do knot Your assuming that the emulator wasn't compared to an ST with a blitter. I would venture to bet they did, after all...all STs have blitters, dont they? Of course they don't. As a matter of fact, I remember being told that a good deal of ST software isn't written to support the blitter. Of course this isn't proof, but I believe I have that written down some where..let me check. >beleive me, I welcome you over next time you are over Kirk >Wolfe`s house. I live around the corner. You also left >a private message to me a while back saying that an Amiga >is quicker than an ST even re-fitted with a blitter chip. >Sorry to bust another bubble, but the -=ONLY=- machines >that did not leave the factory with the blitter, was the >early 520 and 1040 machines. ALL current machines leaving >the factory have blitter chips in them. The newer 1040`s >and 520`s (not the STe`s have a re-designed mother board >with a socket for a blitter. It is not some third-party Let's be specific here. I said the Amiga's graphics are faster than an ST's, even when it contained a blitter. I never said the new STs didn't have one. >add on. Is there a 68030 board for the Amiga that will >let it have 12 megs. I am talking about an add on board, >to go on a current Amiga. I know the 3000 has a 030, >but I am talking about stock, 68,000 machines. Do you >have to sell your 500 to get a 3000 just to have an 030? Good question, and the answer is- There are lots of them. The majority of these fit inside the 500's case (on the motherboard..and can be placed on a 2000's motherboard as well, though the CPU slot on a 2000 can easily handle one of the numerous that are out. Your question was really in two parts, so here is a list addressing both: A 25Mhz 68030 with co-processor socket to go up to 50Mhz. Sockets for SRAM and up to 8meg of 32bit RAM can be added. Board can also be purchased in a 33Mhz version. Made by Bytes&Pieces. Storm Bringer Accelerator Board- 16 to 50Mhz, Auto Configurable, 68030 with 68882. Call Memory World at 215-741-6225. [This board reportably gives you better than 3000 performance.] Mega-Migit Racer- 68030 Board for 500, 1000, 2000 from 20 to 33Mhz. Optional 68882. Two RAM options for 32bit memory. Allows possibility of 19MEG Amiga. That's all I have off hand, but there are many others. -- >Why bye an Amiga, with an Atari, IBM and Mac emulator, when >you can get a real ST that RUNS FASTER :) :) :) than the >Amiga emulating the ST, faster than a MAC, and can also run >MS-DOS. (big deal). Amiga pictures can be transferd and >viewed, best of all, NO FLICKER!! I can transfer and view many other machines, including the ST's pictures. No big deal there. Flicker (as also stated in your "The Truth" message) is not a drawback for the Amiga. You see, flicker is known to most people as what is called "interlaced". Interlacing is an industry standard when it comes to video interfacing (using all that expensive video equipment). If you have the proper monitor, or a de-interlacer, no "flicker" will take place. Also, not all Amiga modes flicker. There are several highres Amiga modes without any interlacing, some of which duplicate the exact same interlaced mode..but in non-interlaced. I use zero software in interlaced mode, since none of the work I do requires an interlaced screen. Non-interlaced computers on the other hand (ST, MAC, IBM) require expensive hardware that adds to the video hardware (genlocks, etc.) price, in order to produce the desired results. Tom -- Why purchase a MAC when an Amiga with the same CPU will run 99% of all __ MAC software..and FASTER at that?! The same can be said of the IBM and __/// Atari computers, and I can run those in a window. IBM's greatest sales \XX/ tool is ignorance on the consumer's part. Only the Amiga! DEVO Anyone?
ptoper@obelix (Andy Nagy) (02/23/91)
In article <21293@know.pws.bull.com>, ai065@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Thomas Hill) writes: [stuff deleted] > Commodore also has just released a laser printer, but the Amiga is easy to > use with several laser printers anyway. If that printer doesn't have Post- > Script built in then it better sell for much less than $1000. But the same > drivers exist for the Amiga anyway. Would you please give us more details? I've never heard nor seen any Commodore laser printer. Could you be refering to Commodore's ink jet printer? [more stuff deleted] > Tom > > -- > Why purchase a MAC when an Amiga with the same CPU will run 99% of all > __ MAC software..and FASTER at that?! The same can be said of the IBM and > __/// Atari computers, and I can run those in a window. IBM's greatest sales > \XX/ tool is ignorance on the consumer's part. Only the Amiga! DEVO Anyone? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Nagy (ptoper@asterix.gaul.csd.uwo.ca) The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada "Dee do do do, dee da da da, thats all I want to say to you" -- The Police