NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/hardware-part1/8161

Text File | 1996-08-05 | 5.8 KB | 120 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.hardware,comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.games,comp.sys.amiga.graphics
Path: netcom.com!jsheehy
From: [e-mail] (John Sheehy)
Subject: Re: Why are europeans dumb enough to buy amigas?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <1996Mar11.221045@cantva> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:12:31 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>The Amiga requires just an Amiga, but the resolution starts at a
>>laughable 640x200x4 colors, and the maximum normal WB screen is
>
>Starts at?  What exactly do you mean by starts at?  640x200x4 colors nobody
>uses, why would they when they can use more?  Again you are either trying
>your best to be stupid or it comes natural for you.

Well, for one thing, on my A3000, I can't use the serial port at high
speed unless my workbench is only 4 colors, so that's all I use.

>>640x400x256 colors.  It's a joke.  No OLE, no Internet, no networking,
>
>Max?  Again you are the joke.  640x400? max? No you are clueless to Amiga
>standard resolutions (without gfx card).  800x600 / 724x566 , depending
>on the monitor driver you use, these are the max resoultions with no
>flicker.  Higher iwth flicker.  With a gfx card however they are the same or
>greater than whatever you use on an ibm (which is using a gfx card lamer)
>Don't show such ignorance.

No flicker at 800x600?  Compared to PAL interlaced maybe, but compared to
a true >60Hz NI 800x600, it's flicker city.

>My Amiga is doing 1280x1024x256 colors, or I can go to 800x600 in 16.7 milion
>colors.  These are non-interlace modes..   Take out your graphics card in
>your ibm and tell me how great your resoultion and color is. :)

I run my PC at 800x600x24 bit all the time.  The difference between that,
and running at that resolution and depth on my Amiga is that under
Windows, *every* gfx app can utilize the bandwidth.  One of the main
reasons I bought a PC is because of the very poor support for high-end
gfx on the Amiga.

>>Not really.  They've had autoconfig.  The user still has to mess with
>>setting up the software on the Amiga.
>>
>
>Yes Really!
>You plug hardware in on an AMiga, copy the device driver to the devs directory,
>and you are done.
>
>on ibm you must also copy software to the computer and then fuck with it for
>a week, even plug and pray shit.  After this week, if you are lucky, it will
>work.  I think Amiga's autoconfig is 100000000x nicer, easier, and hey it works!
>
>Amiga's 10 years ago had better auto config than ibm's have today still.  Don't
>even try to compare.  Most Plug/Play hardware dont autoconfig, it is a joke.
>
>>>Take the example:
>>>I put a second HD in my machine. Plug in, switch on. Machine sits there. For a whole 5
>>>seconds. Boots, and I go to partition the new drive, at which point it tells me 'drives
>>>have been added / removed from the system' etc. Ok, so it wasnt sure if something had
>>>been added or removed.
>>>Win 95's plug and play requires that you specifically specify the new device,  or let
>>>it spend 20 mins or so looking for it (which a m8 of mine did.... it couldnt find his
>>>new HD......)

>>Absolutely false.  I recently added a CDROM to my system.  I stuck it
>>in, connected it, and turned the machine on.  With no interaction on
>>my part, it found the CDROM, and I then saw it as another drive
>>letter.  Case closed.
>>
>
>It is not false acorn, half the time someone tries to add hardware that is
>suppose to be worry free plug and play, it takes just as long as it use to, or
>doesnt even work.  Adding hardware to ibm's is a joke, even with the failed
>plug and play crap.
>
>>The Amiga series of machines is so much more expensive than PCs that
>>it isn't even funny.
>>
>
>Lets see.. I can get an Amiga 3000 with 060 50mhz processor board for
>about $1600.  That is not bad in my book.  I consider that very cheap.
>Even if you can get ibm pentiums cheaper, who cares.. they suck.  I am
>willing to pay any price to have a quailty computer system without the
>crap you have to put up with on ibm's and mac's.  They just don't compare
>to an Amiga.

Of course people have problems with macs and clones (not "ibm's", as you
call them), but the amount of trouble is always exaggerated by people who
like other systems.  Personally, I have had all kinds of HW problems with
my Amiga, and none with my PC.  When I installed Win95, I
walked out of the room to make English muffin Pizzas, and when I came
back, it had recognized all my HW and installed all the proper drivers,
and I have had to modify NOTHING.

Amiga's autoconfig does not work as well in real life as it does in
theory.  I've been reading Amiga forums and newsgroups since I first got
my modem in '89, and I remember an awful lot of addressing conflicts
where adding a z2 card caused 2 megs of ram to get lost, cards that would
not co-exist with each other, or screwed up the bus timimg.  Toasted
-02 DMACs, Bad -04 DMACs from the factory that trashed the Hard Disks,
040 cards that made the system fragile.

>>offered in Win95 aren't understood by you?
>
>Windows 95 was a failure.  It didn't stand up to the claims of microsoft and
>has proven once again how poor their quality is.

I don't know what version of Win95 you're talking about, but the one on
my system is the most stable OS I've ever used.  I've had AmigaDOS,
Linux, and OS/2 Warp each go belly-up more times in one Day as Win95 has
since Aug 24th.  All my Win3.x apps run better now, and there has been no
problem with insufficient memory.  I think Win95 has been perhaps a poor
performer in the market, but as a product, it is a major step foward for MS.

John Sheehy <[e-mail]>