CBM Red Ink
Yes, but the solution is often CPU dependant regarding perceived speed. I
think no one here who has seen one in operation, can deny that the MAC IIx
operates faster than an Amiga 2000. Now, I have not seen the 2500 vs. the IIx,
and I am sure it is more than competitive, so perhaps, since we are avoiding
direct competitor bashing by the Company, the user community should be
educating the journalists, and the rest of the supposed opinion-makers to the
speed and capabilities per buck of the Amiga.
Even so, the public now responds very quickly to numbers and hype, much less to
facts. So, presenting an AMiga 3000 with 68030 to compete directly with the
MAC IIx, such that it is much faster than the MAC, would be a far more
representative, and effective IMHO, approach. Thus the 3000 is neccessary.
1.4? OK, I can hold on for that, and I agree that the potential user won't
care, so long as the OS is stable.
NuPrometheus? Heard of it, could care less. Though it IS a hoot!
–Gabe