🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4027@ut-ngp.UUCP> Werner Uhrig writes:
> If a new machine isn't better, it is worse . . .

	Obviously you know very little about the Amiga.  The Amiga
IS better than the Mac, in many ways, and in ways which make it intrinsically
more adaptable to the future than the Mac design.  First of all, it has
a well-defined high-performance expansion architecture, otherwise known
as (the option to have) "slots".  With this you can easily add 68020's,
68881's, (running at 14Mhz!), 68030's possibly in the future, expansion
RAM, mutifunction cards, very-high-performance hard disk drives, and
a whole plethora of hardware yet to be manufactured.  This is backed up
by a well-thought out operating system support called the "autoconfiguration
standard" which allows the system to automatically configure itself to
the presence of almost any kind of expansion hardware you can imagine.
Secondly, the Amiga has a very efficient (fast) multitasking multiwindow
multiscreen operating system including message passing and generalized
event processing which is far more sophisticated than the Mac operating
system.  This means that programs written NOW will run perfectly well
on future systems with much more power, UNIX compatibility, etc.  The
Mac software architecture, although revolutionary in its time, makes
it MUCH more difficult for old applications to run comfortably in a
multitasking environment (and much less efficient, since an event loop
is inherently less efficient than a event-driven task (that uses
task Wait()ing.))  The Amiga also, out of the box, will be able to
upgrade to full 640x400 color screen with NO FLICKER once the price
of high-persistence RGB monitors falls within reach.  This resolution
is much higher than the Mac and allows very detailed, colorful screens.
(High-persistence RGB monitors are the same as low-persistence with the
exception of about a $3 difference in phosphor cost.  The only reason
for high price was low demand.  With the Amiga, there is VERY high demans
for these kinds of monitors.)  In is perfectly reasonable to expect
a machine to go slow in the first couple years; after all, EVERY machine
EVER introduced pretty much had no software to speak of for at LEAST
one to two years after its introduction.  (Here I am speaking of
the Apple II, the IBM PC, the Macintosh, especially.)  The point is that
the Amiga, AT THE OUTSET, is a better machine to develop for, and
is easier to program.  The existence of MacApp changes this somewhat,
but future tools for the Amiga should promise to take things way beyond
what Mac developers call sophisticated tools.  (Metascope and the
new Aztec multitasking debuggers already put Macsbug to shame.)  This
is not to say the Mac doesn't have good tools, but that the operating
system is outmoded and needs revamping (read: the Mac needs Servant.)
Sales for the Amiga have been quite high, and have passed the
100,000 mark by now (the actual number seems to be shrouded in
secrecy, but I think this number is a pretty accurate figure, plus or
minus 20,000, based on data from Dataquest, Commodore, and
Future Computing.)  It takes a while, folks, to develop really hot
applications for a new machine, but believe me, really hot applications
are being developed for this machine.  At first PC owners had to
put up with Wordstar (UGH), Mac owners had to deal with an excruciatingly
slow MacWrite that could only handle (max) 10 pages of text, Apple II
owners could play Breakout with their machines, etc.  On the Amiga?
Well, why don't you Mac owners visit your friend's Amiga and give it a spin?
Then compare it with the Mac after a year.  The Amiga clearly IS
better.

			-Mitsu