home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
-
- On 2 Mar 1996, Paul Dossett wrote:
-
- > Let's be honest, *all* our Amigas are extremely slow, have incredibly outdated
- > graphics and sound capabilities and cost far too much to upgrade by modern
- > standards. Whinging at people who have recognised this won't change anything.
-
- That's funny, my Amiga 3000T that I spent $1200 for three years ago boots
- in, oh, 15 seconds, and the $3000 brand new PowerMac 7500s I have to use
- for school take over TWO MINUTES to do the same -- that is, if they can
- boot without crashing. Then let's compile some code for my C class. SAS
- C 6.3 -- under 1 second. CodeWarrior IDE -- oh, over a minute. Gee,
- guess that powerful macintosh taught my Amiga a lesson. Next time I want
- to copile some basic C code, I'll know which is the real master...
-
- As for video speeds, I don't know what sort of magical Macintosh model
- you've found, but the PowerMacs I've used have much slower graphics than
- on my Z3 Spectrum, which I run in 800X600 (which is more than adequate
- on a 15" monitor) and which will run in up to 1600X1200, a resolution not
- even supported by the Macs here. In fact, if I quit a program that, say,
- needs to write my file to disk, I'm stuck looking at a big white blank
- space where the window was until it's done writing the file out! Gee, I
- wish my Amiga's sorry video could be that slow..
-
- Have I mentioned screens? Wait, that must be just some incredible
- outdated feature of our chipsets -- the crowded screens on the Mac are
- much nicers..
-
- Let's be honest; you're an idiot if you're going to compare your
- 9-year-old Amiga 2000 to a PowerMac and then conclude that ALL Amigas are
- slow. There's a reason I use my 3KT instead of my 100MHz PC or the 7500s
- (w/ 32 and 64 Mo's of RAM, incidentally) -- and it's not because it's
- 'slower' or has crappy graphics, but just the opposite.
-