home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sundog.tiac.net!not-for-mail
- From: dmeyer@tiac.net (David Meyer)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.introduction
- Subject: Re: Amiga questions
- Date: 7 Mar 1996 20:05:32 GMT
- Organization: The Internet Access Company
- Message-ID: <4hnfic$p16@sundog.tiac.net>
- References: <4hals6$3oa@aphex.direct.ca>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: sunspot.tiac.net
- X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950726BETA PL0]
-
- Dan Ritter (dritter@direct.ca) wrote:
- :
- : I was recently given an Amiga 2000 system. It has about 3.5 megs ram.
-
- : I can't stand looking at Workbench 640x200 in 4 colors. And I equally
-
- : I'm used to looking at Windows 95 running in 1024x768 256 color non interlac
-
- Like comparing a tart, old, apple to a well-mixed "screwdriver".
-
- The Amiga 2000 might compare well with a 386SX machine running Windows,
- but can only look old and slow when compared with a Pentium-based
- machine. Win'95 may lack some of the features of AmigaOS1.3, but it sure
- looks a lot better - ignoring the fact that it's like a hobble on a
- Thoroughbred.
-
- The A1200HD is both more powerful and more feature-rich than the A2000.
- OK, it is less convenient to expand, this can be gotten around. It is
- still not much of a match for your Pentium/Win'95 system, but the
- differences are much less obvious and the cost is less. The A4000T is
- more powerful (the processor is not as strong, but it has much less
- overhead to carry) than the Intel machine and the differences in the
- interface can be seen as matters of style rather than consequence. But
- the A4000T costs a bundle. Worth the money, _if_ you can afford it.
-