Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!keith
From: keith@ssc-vax.UUCP (Keith Nemitz)
Newsgroups: net.micro.cbm
Subject: Re: Amiga -- is the screen readable?
Message-ID: <128@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 14:11:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.128
Posted: Fri Aug 16 14:11:19 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Aug-85 05:08:40 EDT
References: <206@cernvax.UUCP> <228@uwai.UUCP>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 22

> Question for anyone who has seen a live Amiga.  Is the character display
> really that bad?  Or was the picture on page 90 just a bad photograph?-- 
> 
  I've seen it, and it is a standard IBM-PC resolution display, with the option
of about a billion colors for things to be.  Mac's screen is much finer and
clearer to read in my opinion.  Face it, very, very few applications really
NEED color.  Games, some drafting maybe.  Still if you want color, amiga is
the best PC for the money.  It's multitasking is the other main point that
makes it desirable, but it's memory manager does NO HEAP COMPACTION.  That
means that if you quit one application it does not mean another will fit
in the space released.  Once last point, due to the offloading of graphics
work from the processor, I figure that you'll see things run faster than
a PC-AT, mac comes close right now.

                                                   keith




(* This is to notify you that your left hemisphere is at war with your right
hemisphere.  Please do not be unduly alarmed.  You were not using either of
them anyway. *)