🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CJF97s.390@oasis.icl.co.uk>, ajb@oasis.icl.co.uk (Adam Buckley) writes:
|> Juergen Fischer (fischerj@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE) wrote:
|> <STUFF ABOUT AMIGA vs THE.WORLD>

Stuff including objective arguments.

|> : Juergen.
|> 
|> At the end of the day, who cares ? If you've got an Amiga and you like it, 
|> that's great. If you've got a PC and you like it, that's great. I thought
|> this 'my spectrum is better than your dragon/c64/bbc' stuff went out years
|> ago.....

Oh no, I'm not one of that guys that just say 'my compi is better'.
I just don't like if there is given wrong information.

On the one hand, people say the Amiga is only good for games. That's
not true as many Amiga guys use a real-multitasking window environment
(able to run on a 7Mhz Motorola) since 1985, a feature that came to PC's 
(33 Mhz 486 recomended) much later.
The only disadvantage is there is not enough business-soft for the Amiga.

On the other hand they say Amiga is to weak for 3d-graphics (comparing 
A500 to hi-speed PC's). That makes no sense. 
I admit an A4000 still has no chunky mode, but that can be compensated 
by blitter-chunky-to-planar routines working paralell to the CPU.
So if an A4000 animation is to slow, it's programmed wrong (I admit this
problem does not exist on PC, it's easier to program). I think if
programmed correctly, the A1200 texture-power is about that of an 386.
And it's even possible on A500 =) (have you seen the Sanity Intro ? Half 
the screen filled with textured objects, however no real texture-mapping)
 
|> 
|> Mac's are rubbish, though.
coz there are not enough games :-) But no trouble with INT7 collisions or
DMA installations or such sh|+

|> 
|> Adam
|> :)
Juergen