🚀 go-pugleaf

>
>>> For that matter, the Amiga is supposed to multitask (I'll see it when
>>> I believe it -- I still think that the amiga is a toy).
>>> -cory
>>
>> Could you elaborate on your opinion of the Amiga, based on what you know
>> of it.  I am assuming you have studied it enough to draw you opinions,
>> otherwise you're merely stating a prejudice here.
>
> I will grant that I am stating a personal prejudice.  However, for what
> it is worth, here are the reasons that I have for my oppinions:

I'll also admit I have prejudices, though my opinions are not totally
uninformed.

>         The Amiga is marketed by commodore.  The other commodore
> computers that I have seen (the 64, the 128, the plus 4) are jokes.
> (appologies to commodore users out there, but the 64 is a toy.  the 128,
> while it does have some application software, is a nightmare.)

I don't understand the "nightmare" part.  But for the rest, the C64 (still
the world's best selling computer) is in some respects a toy.  The C128
is quite a bit more powerful than an Apple IIe or IIc (it actually runs faster
memory cycles than the Atari ST or an 8 MHZ IBM AT, though admittidly it
only has 8 bit processors).  Neither of these computers are in the same
price range as MAC or Amiga, so they shouldn't be compared to these, but
to their competition in the Apple II or Atari XE(?) families.  The term
"toy" is certainly relative; the unexpanded Amiga and the MAC are both
toys compared to the VAX 11/785 I'm typing on now, or the Apollo workstation
I do circuit design on.  But I didn't pay $30,000 for my Amiga, either.

>         I sat down in front of the amiga a few weeks ago, and tried to
> use it.  the text quality is horrable! (and it was only in 60 column
> mode) It gave me a headache after about an hour.

The 1080 monitor isn't as sharp as a MAC screen, and its appearance further
lessened by the dots-per-inch differences merely based on the fact that
the MAC has a 9" screen versus the 12" 1080 monitor.  The Amiga's resolution
is 640 pixels across, ordinarily, as compared to 512(?) for the MAC.  You
can always display Amiga video on a 9" monochrome monitor if you're
interested in a direct comparison of video quality.
>
>         I believe, (I'm not sure on this one, as I don't have one in
> front of me (thank god!)) that the amiga has built in joy-stick ports.
> I have noticed that any computer that has built in game controler ports,
> good graphics, good sound, and bad text is a toy.  (cf atari 400/800,
> commodore 64, etc)

Just because the MAC folks scrimped and left out a bit of interface hardware
(joystick interfaces) is no reason to put down machines just because the
designers decided to give you more for your money by including them.  The
D9 connectors on the side of the Amiga can each support a quadature mouse
just like on the MAC, or instead trackballs, digital joysticks, bitpads, etc.
The from port can also support a light pen.

>         there is no software for the amiga (this may change, but...)

As compared to the MAC, no, there's not alot of software.  Though compare the
amount of commercial and public domain software and hardware available to
the Amiga today to the amount for the MAC less than a year after its
introduction.  Both the C64, the Apple II, and the IBM PC all have lots more
software than the MAC; doesn't make them better machines, it may make them
more useful, for the moment, than the MAC for particular applications.  It
can't do anything to make them as powerful as the MAC.

>
>         the amiga, (at least out here) was being sold for $995.00, and
> they were giving away a colour monitor with it (~ $350 value).  If the
> amiga is so great, why do they have to give away free monitors with
> them?

The reasons I can guess; (1) Booster sales in what's traditionally the
worst time of the year for all microcomputer manufacturers, (2) Boost the
installed base of Amiga computers quickly to promote software development
by 3rd parties (3) git rid of 1080 monitors that aren't as good as the
Sony monitors many folks were buying (of course, for more $$$).
>
>         The macintosh on the other hand, has excelent text quality.  It
> can support 132 column mode (I think, I have never actualy counted) with
> absolutely clear text.  In normal 80 column mode, there is no trouble
> with eyestrain.

I program without eyestrain on my Amiga all the time.  Some folks like the
sharper pixels of a B&W display for long use.  I can hook up a B&W display
to the Amiga (and get more characters across than on a MAC in any font
size you pick).  Can you hook up your MAC to a color monitor and get 4096
colors?

>         The mac has reasonable graphics and sound, but that is not their
> main area of concentration.  They meant to make a very easy to use
> personal/business computer.  They succeded.  the graphics and sound
> abilities are more of a by-product than any thing else.

The Amiga, too, is a very easy to use computer; some find the MAC easier,
some find the Amiga simpler.  But the Amiga doesn't stop there; it allows
an advanced user a true, traditional operating system.  The custom chips
can do disk I/O, produce 4 channels of sound, and manipulate the video
display faster and without the intervention of the 68000 chip, freeing
the 68000 for other tasks.  The blitter chip can move data around 30 times
or so faster than the 68000 can at its best.  Certainly this stuff is
useful for games.  But not just games.  Nearly every CAD workstation on the
market has these same features; lots of color and dedicated graphics
hardware.  The Amiga is also expandable, and easily.  You want to add on
extra memory, 1 to 8 megabytes; you buy an expansion board and connect
it.  The Amiga automatically decides where in memory it'll go.  There
are also many things to improve the Amiga's performance; since its software
was designed from the beginning to adjust for any processor in the 68000
family, it'll run with a 68020 and 68881 coprocessor, giving you a desk
top machine with more speed than a VAX 11/780.
>
>         There is a reasonable ammount of software available for the mac.

There's nothing wrong with a MAC, and it has excellent software available
for it.  My main objections to the MAC are that it isn't designed to be
expandable, and that the machine as-is is weak compared to the Amiga, and
likely to remain so.
>
>         I warned you that this was biased -- I work as a sales rep. for
> apple.  March Air Force Base Exchange* sells the amiga, the commodore,
> the apple, and the macintosh.  I work in the exchange as a vendor for
> apple computer products.  My duties also include ordering the software
> for all of the systems.
>
> I hope that answered any questions about my oppinions.
>
> -cory
> "Welcome my son, Welcome to the machine"

--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Dave Haynie    {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh

        "I gained nothing at all from Supreme Enlightenment, and
         for that very reason it is called Supreme Enlightenment."
                                                        -Gotama Buddha

        These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/