Amiga not a workstation?
4 messages in this thread
In the Nov. issue, Byte reviewed workstations ("Stalking the ultimate
workstation"). Amigas weren't reviewed, but not for Byte bias.
According to Byte "Two notable platforms are not represented: Amigas and
OS/2 systems. Commodore declined to participate in these applications,
citing the Amiga's multimedia orientation"
Byte reviewed the following machines:
Apple's Mac Quadra 950, Compaq Deskpro 50M, DECStation 5000/120, HP/Apollo
710, IBM RS6000 350, Next's Nextstation, Silicon Graph. Iris Indigo, and
Sun's Spacstation2 GX.
My questions:
– Is the Amiga being positioned to compete with workstations, or not??
– Do you know why CBM declined to participate ??
– Are the A4000 performance worse when compared with a NextStep or Mac
Quadra ??
I like to know your oppinions,
Regards,
🙂
Fernando.
B.A. Argentina 😀
But what exactly defines a workstation? Some biased magazine editor's idea
of what a workstation should be? My 3000 with 32-bit processor, 14megs of
RAM, and 105MB Hard drive would have certainly been considered a very
powerfull "Workstation" in the mid 1980's. And I would certainly consider
the 4000 to fall in the todays "Workstation" category. As for CBM not
participating in the review, I don't blame them. They are out to try and
get a good foothold in the Multimedia and video markets with a lot more
potential profits than the so called workstation market.
John,
Yes, I think exactly like you. I don't blame Commodore, too.
But wouldn't it be nice to see the A4000 head-to-head with the other
machines in the test?.
Fernando.
🙂
from B.A. – Argentina.
Oh, it would be nice to see the 4000 do well against other workstations,
but I'm not too worried about it. If I wanted to I could beat the pants
off of SGI's Iris by buying DMI's super graphics board, but I really don't
need that kind of graphics power right now. For now, I'm just trying to
get the money together to purchase a 4000. With that, I think it will keep
me in graphics heaven for awhile <grin>.