🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4h4qtn$96v@cloner3.netcom.com>, trreco@ix.netcom.com(Jonathan Pitt ) says:
>
>Hello Amigians,
>
>PC-weeNEE here....I have been a PC user for VERY long time. Since the
>Amiga came out I always interested. I got one now, an A500 1 meg chip,
>2megs Fast, WB 2.05, 250megHD . 
>
>OK I always heard that one of the Amiga strong point was it's TRUE
>multitasking. I heard wonderfull dream like stories of being able to
>copy a file, use a ansi editor, ect ALL AT THE SAME TIME. No waititing!
>OK.....Don't get me wrong, I was EXTREMELY impressed with the Amiga. It
>was fast, fast and even more fast (considering it's comparible to a 286
>with 3megs of ram). Not only was it fast...it ran Windows (WB)!
>Woooopeee wow you only need 512K to run a GUI OS! Honestly..I'm
>impressed! But this multitasking just isn't any better than Windows,
>System 7.5 or whatever.
>
>If I copy a file from disk to Hard drive (OS is on HD but not partition
>copying to)...I wait and boy do I have to WAIT! Now I thought I could
>copy a file and do whatever else. Why is this? could I copy a file from
>floppy to HD, if I had two HD's? One for the OS and One for the file
>being copied to.
>
>Soooo why is Amiga Multitaking better than Win 3.11 or any other OS.
>Amiga is fast and tasks full advantage of it's resources , but the
>multitasking is just not that great. Unless it could copy a file, print
>a page of text, and render an image. That would blow WinDOZE, System 7 
>away as far as multitasking. Thanks in advance for setting me straight!
>
Well I think the problem here is the speed of the machine.  Not the OS.  The
machine you're running that on is really no faster than an original Amiga 
1000 made back in 1985.  Sure, they improved the graphics by adding more chip
ram and an ECS graphics chipset.  But the speed of the computer is the same.
That's why I would recommend an accelerator.  The OS is not the problem here.

L8ter 8-]