home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: hwollman.mitre.org!user
- From: hwollman@mitre.org (Herbert Wollman)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
- Subject: Re: Amiga vs. PC
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 11:55:36 -0300
- Organization: Mitre Corp.
- Message-ID: <hwollman-2602961155360001@hwollman.mitre.org>
- References: <4glavu$dlq@hasle.sn.no> <4glb5c$dlq@hasle.sn.no>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: hwollman.mitre.org
-
- In article <4glb5c$dlq@hasle.sn.no>, egilberg@oslonett.no wrote:
-
- > Why is the Amiga 500 better than the PC (for playing games)?
-
- The Amiga is better than the PC (for playing games) because IT WAS
- DESIGNED to be the "absolute Killer Game Machine", then converted into a
- computer when the game market dried up. Games are usually graphics
- intensive, real-time simulations, and everything about the Amiga was
- designed to work together as a system to do this very well. The operating
- system, memory management, custom hardware, etc. all work together
- smoothly and efficiently to provide 32 bit real-time multitasking and
- video.
-
- IBM originally expected to sell only about 30,000 PCs, to be used mainly
- as "Smart terminals" connected to mainframes. With such a limited market,
- it was designed "quick and dirty" based on an existing word processor,
- with purchased off the shelf hardware, and a operating system purchased
- from an outside vendor (I just can't force myself to mention its name)
- based on the old 8 bit standard CPM.
- The first IBM PCs were nearly useless for anything. But with Billions of
- dollars and thousands of companies working on them, they have evolved, to
- an amazing degree. PCs are still severely limited by backwards
- compatibility to their roots. The market has driven (and funded) the
- growth of the PC, because most users simply didn't realize that they had a
- choice. Don't knock the PC for being inefficient. Given its origin, it
- is a mirical that it works as well as it now does.
-