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. *)