home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.mountain.net!usenet
- From: gene_heskett@wvlink.mpl.com (Gene Heskett)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
- Subject: Re: Amiga vs. PC
- Date: 04 Mar 96 19:57:14 +0500
- Organization: MountainNet, Inc. Morgantown WV 800.444.1458
- Message-ID: <1293.6637T1197T733@wvlink.mpl.com>
- References: <4glavu$dlq@hasle.sn.no> <4glb5c$dlq@hasle.sn.no>
- <hwollman-2602961155360001@hwollman.mitre.org> <Joaquin_Menchaca-0103962126590001@17.127.19.156> <Pine.BSD/.3.91.960303134211.29565A-100000@ecf2.puc.edu>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: slip6.mpl.com
- X-Newsreader: THOR 2.22 (Amiga;TCP/IP)
-
-
- >> > > Why is the Amiga 500 better than the PC (for playing games)?
- [snip a lot of stuff]
-
- :> The point is that with an internal 32-bit architecture, we
- :> automatically get full 32-bit speed when we upgrade. As opposed
- :> to the PC where first it ws 8-bit, then everything had to be
- :> rewritten to take advantage of
- :> 16-bit, and then again for 32-bit.
-
- Which is *not* correct. The original "pc" had an 8088 cpu, which
- altho it had an 8 bit wide data bus, was fully 16 bit internally. The
- same can be said of the TRS-80 Color Computers, which could and did
- stomp all over the pc's of the day running similar functioning
- software. Hitachi picked up the ball and gave us the equ of the NEC
- V20-30-40 series of replacement cpu's for it, but contracts prevented
- them from admitting or advertizing that their chips were faster,
- better, and lower power by several orders than the Motorola version.
- I have one, runs maybe 3x faster than the one Tandy sold! Still in
- daily use, as are some of its little brothers around the tv station.
-
- Cheers
-
- /* Gene Heskett | These opinions are NOT to be */
- /* CE @ WDTV Weston/Clarksburg WV | confused with the official */
- /* <gene_heskett@wvlink.mpl.com> | WDTV managment views */
- #include <std.disclaimer>
-
-
-