CompuServe Messages

SGI boxes also cost several times more than I can afford to pay for my computers. Custom chips cost big bucks both to design and to produce. Amigas also cost a lot more than they should for what they deliver — comparable PCs have been much cheaper throughout the 90's, and comparable Macs have been cheaper for a couple of years. What is the point of waiting 18 months for AAA to get improved resolution? It is available off-the-shelf today. If you really insist on the advanatages of the Amiga chipset (and there should be some machines which have it), why not have a hybrid machine? You could put AGA and a PC graphics chip (or the capability for each) on every machine. The additional cost should be under $150 user cost, maybe way under. Again, I think you are grossly underestimating the performance of the graphics chips available. They perform crappy on crappy PCs running crappy software. They are not inherently crappy. Could someone who owns an Amiga video board like the Picasso or Retina or whatever please speak up and tell us how you find the performance of PC graphics chips on an Amiga system running Amiga software? I was adamatly against PC video on the Amiga when Sydnes and Eggebrecht brought it up several years ago. It has gotten so cheap and somewhat better, and I've gotten so sick of waiting, that I can't think of any rational reason to oppose it at this point.