🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <2hjs2e$l2v@agate.berkeley.edu>, by myrtle@uclink.berkeley.edu (Alexis David Dinno):
> I'm not talking flicker pal, I'm talking how long it takes non-Ami systems
> (which I HAVE used and PROGRAMMed on professionally) to redraw their fuc*ing
> screens after something as simple as opening a window, or selecting a menu
> item.
This obviously depends on your system.  I have an Orchid Farenheight 1280+
video card in my 486/50 equipped pc and it does screen operations
incredibly fast.  I would say much faster than my 3000.  Comparing
speeds of virtually any operation on a PC to an Amiga is going to be a
lose, given you are willing to spend the bucks, you can upgrade a PC to
be an awesomely blisteringly fast machine. The Amiga is, quite frankly,
less expandable and it is more expensive to do so.  A 1280+ is all of
$165, what can you get for the Amiga marketplace at that price? Nada.
I got an entire 486SLC66/2 (about 486DX40 speeds) motherboard with
128K of external cache for all of $300.  What accelerators could I get
for my 3000 at that price? For that matter what accelerators can I get
for my 3000 at any price? In my mind, it is a fact that Commodore has
done a poor job of reving the chipsets to keep up in the marketplace
and has a poor track record of producing high-end
machines at competitive prices.  Plus, every generation obseletes the
one before, there is no upgrade path, graphics and sound are built into
the motherboard, and no motherboard swaps just a
piddly discount on the new line of machines.

That is not to say that there are not attractions and advantages to
the Amiga line, I'm just saying that I don't think raw speed is one of them.

David Albrecht