NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/comp/sys/ibm/pc/hardware/32987

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-13 | 7.1 KB

Xref: sparky comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:32987 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:15747 comp.sys.amiga.misc:18467 alt.activism.d:4327 sci.environment:13449
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!hacktic!utopia!global!peter
From: [e-mail] (Peter Busser)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,comp.sys.amiga.misc,alt.activism.d,sci.environment
Subject: Re: Beef Sandwich - Re: Amiga now kicks PC butt - no way.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:38:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Global Village 1
Lines: 164

[e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Busser) writes:
>> [e-mail] (Peter da Silva) picks nits:

>> Before I start to comment on your reply:
>> May I ask what kind of hardware you chose to run "Taronga Park BBS" on?

>UNIX. A 386/16 with 4M of RAM that I doubt I'll ever be able to run OS/2
>or NT on, but UNIX (the memory hog) runs just fine. Of course I'm also
>serving about 40 people in the local area with email service.

Aha, so you prefer to run UNIX on a PC while you could have used a "green"
Amiga for the same purpose? Well, so do I with the difference that I didn't
buy an Amiga which I don't need.

>> I *AM* aware of the resource limitations. That's why I don't have a driving
>> license. Do you have a car? Do you drive in it?
>Alas, yes. I lived in Houston for about 2 years relying on public transport,
>but eventually I had to give in.

Of course, that was to be expected as public transport is for losers anyway.

>> Me too. And that's why I still invest in PC hardware and software, whatever
>> the problem, it can be solved with a PC.
>If it's running UNIX, that it's a PC is irrelevant.

Apparently not, why would one want to buy both an Amiga and a PC where a PC
or Amiga alone would be sufficient?

>> You should even consider a notebook PC if you are really
>> concerned about energy usage.

>If I could get an operating system I could stand to use that would run on one,
>I would. Problem is, laptops are far enough behind the curve that by the
>time you can afford one to run the OS of today it's time to upgrade to the
>next version.

Well, your 386/16 obviously didn't need an upgrade, so what makes you think
that a 386/16 notebook with 4M RAM needs an upgrade?

>After all, you've been buying new machines and hardware to keep up with the
>software, right?

Nope. I just need two 386s.

>So all the resources you've spent on your older systems as
>they became has-beens has gone to waste:

Nope. I still have all the computers I bought and I still use them (granted,
not all regularly).

>and that blows the power cost out of
>the water.

The same for the Amiga. But the difference is that you can't plug your A500
peripherals in your A3000 and that you need to buy a completely new system.

>Yep, you can replace the 1M SIMMS with 4M simms, and then replace
>the motherboard when it's filled up, and replace the disks, and do it again
>in two or three years because NT++ needs it.

Nope. I do not run NT or NT++. The memory that is replaced in one computer
can be plugged into the second computer.

>That hardware wasn't free, and
>it's not going to go gently back into the biosphere.

I know. The same goes for your Amiga, your car, TV, radio, micro wave, sun
glasses, ...

>I didn't get an XT, or an AT, or any other computer that had a short lifetime.

That is easy talking for someone with a $$$$$ salary. However, if your budget
is small, then there isn't much choice. Anyway, there are still enough people
who would like to have a cheap XT or AT and who don't need a 386 to run UNIX.

>Everything I use has years of productive life ahead of it, because I looked at
>the resource requirements of the system when I got it, and what I'd expect them
>to grow to to keep up with the software I needed to run.

For me too, the XT I bought 6 years ago still has a productive life ahead as it
is still used regularly. But I wonder what that has to do with Amigas being
"green" (=sick) computers?

>Yep, gas is cheap...

You should know, you have a car.

>> Being just as productive?
>Sure. The machine waits on me... I don't have to wait on it, so my bandwidth
>isn't being wiped out by a lossy OS.

Which lossy OS do you mean? Linux?

>> With a headache from the flickering screen?
>What flickering screen? I don't use interlace... I don't need interlace.

50Hz display refresh rate is painful, and I didn't even mention interlace.
Go figure.

>> Frustration from a rotten keyboard?
>Gee, it's exactly the same as the keyboard on my 386.

Ah, another Commodore PC 60-40 owner. Well, I've seen A500 keyboards with
stickers on it.

>A used 386, by the way. No new resources went into it, and I'm keeping it
>out of the waste stream.

And your Amiga is also second hand I suppose?

>> Give me a break! The world went after
>> the day the Amiga was released. The days that a CGA quality display could
>> impress people are over.
>Gee, I thought the idea was to use the machine as a tool, not to impress folks
>with how much chrome you have.

Well, isn't exactly that what the pro Amiga whiners have done for years???
"Look! My computer can do ... better than your computer! Nyah nyah na nyah
nyah!".

>> Multitasking isn't only for Amigas any more (never
>> was, but Amigozers don't understand that).
>Yeh, OS/2 supports multitasking... at a cost of buying new computers every
>couple of years you can keep up.

Why do you have a multi-tasking 386 without having to buy a new computer? Or
are you just implying that OS/2 is the only OS capable of multi-tasking on a
PC?

>> >That's not to mention the sort of nasty toxics you generate from Fab lines.
>> Ah great so Amigas are made from cow dung so that you can use them as
>> fertilizer if you don't want them (who would anyway).
>No, but you don't have to buy so many of them to keep up. That's what clean
>and efficient design buys you.

Ah, not so many but you still bought several of them, didn't you?

>> The fact that you
>> need to buy a complete new computer as an upgrade path.
>You do? I'm not planning on doing any upgrading for another 6 years.

Sure. But not likely a new computer or new motherboard.

>> The last upgrade
>> I made only involved a change of the motherboard. I didn't have to throw away
>> the other parts.
>But how often do you have to do it?

Have to? Never! You can still run MS-DOS and many applications (even some of
the latest ones) on 4.77MHz XTs, no problem. I upgraded recently because I
need two 386 computers and I only had one. That was for me the time to replace
the 286@8MHz motherboard I once rescued from the waste with a 386 motherboard.
If it was a stone-age Amiga, I would have had to buy a complete new system thus
wasting 1 complete computersystem. Now it's only a motherboard.

>Or are you, horrors, falling behind the leading edge after all?

Hahaha! Peter, I am notorious behind the "leading edge". You can't buy
"leading edge" systems in a shop. Only some Amigozers don't seem to realize
that their dreams about the "leading edge" is just a figment of their
imagination.