#Amiga vs. IBM
5 messages in this thread
Thanks for all the help so far! Now, I have a few more questions. First,
I can get a 33mhz IBM compatible(386) with 4 megs memory, a 1.2 meg 5 1/4
in. drive, a 1.44 meg 3.5" drive, a 160 meg hard drive, a 64k RAM cache, a
16-bit VGA board with 512k(1024 X 768 resolution), a 14" 1024 X 768 res.
color monitor-for just over $4000. What would a comparibly equipped Amiga
cost? (Yes, with the 160 meg hard drive.) Are the Amiga's graphics better
than VGA? What's the resolution? Second, are graphics FASTER on the Amiga
than on a PC?
Thanks,
Darkin
Darkin,
I'd really suggest you go to an Amiga dealer's and look at an
Amiga, see the graphics, look at some of the demos and so forth. Then come
back here and ask questions based on what you saw.
Not on that…but a dealer can give you a price, while those of us
here can only speculate what any particular dealer will sell the machine
for.
Don
Darkin,
That's a pretty good price on that machine. A 28MHz 68030 system with
4 megs and two floppies, plus standard Amiga graphics capability on a
multisync monitor would run you around $4,000 without the hard drive. For
a hard disk of that size you'd have to go SCSI or IDE. (The GVP 28MHz board
comes with an IDE interface built in. Most all Amiga controllers are
SCSI.)
So for "comparable" hardware, the Amiga looks more expensive. On the other
hand, if you want multitasking on your PC, you gotta buy Windows 386 or
O/S2 as well as a mouse.
I haven't been following this thread, but I'm really surprised that you're
debating machines at this level. Usually people who are ready to spend
money for the kind of horsepower you're talking about know exactly what
they need. And it's then the software requirement that dictates the
hardware.
If you look at the software issues, it's really pretty clear in my mind.
For standard business applications, compatibility with work is pretty
important. Most people in this position need an IBM (or an Amiga with an
IBM BridgeBoard) to be able to run Quattro Pro, Lotus 123, dBase or
whatever. For creative applications, where IBM compatibility is not an
issue, the Amiga stands out. Here I include graphic arts, music, video,
animation, hypermedia…. If you're into any of these things, you're
probably much better off with an Amiga.
<continued>
<continuation>
And if you're just plain looking for a serious hobby computer–which is
what my A2000 is for me–the Amiga has so much more flexibility in both
hardware and software that it's not, IMHO, even worth thinking about an
IBM.
Anyway, bottom line is that price doesn't mean anything if the system can't
run the software you need or want it to.
On your question of which graphics are faster, most people would suggest
that the Amiga's dedicated coprocessors give it an advantage. The IBM world
is certainly moving toward the use of standards based on graphics
coprocessors, partly in recognition of VGAs slowness.
There are a lot of ways to test graphics speed. Direct writing to the
screen, scrolling the screen, moving graphics objects around on the screen
(animation). Different applications handle these in different ways, and
there are better and worse ways to do them on both machines. I'm sure
there are no meaningful benchmarks designed to compare graphics
capabilities. So Don's advice is all you got.
John
The one thing I can say for sure is that the Amiga graphics are
FASTER. As to the price, in general clones can be found cheaper than Amigas
(unless you're a student in college/university).
— Ethan