Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!mp1u+ From: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Blitter vs. 80386 Message-ID:Date: 19 Aug 88 23:21:10 GMT Article-I.D.: andrew.sX3=Tay00Vsf8161Iw References: <1800@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU> Organization: Carnegie Mellon Lines: 28 In-Reply-To: <1800@vu-vlsi.Villanova.EDU> > *Excerpts from ext.nn.comp.sys.amiga: 10-Aug-88 Blitter vs. 80386 Wilson* > *Cheung@vu-vlsi.Vi (1682)* > Well, I'm getting a bit sidetracked. The question I'd like to > post for discussion is whether an Amiga could hold up to a 386 computer > with proper NTSC interfacing and similar animation software. This is exactly like the people who compare vanilla MacII and vanilla A2000's, while totally ignoring the fact the MacII configuration that's "so obviously superior" to the Amiga costs about four or five times as much money. For the money the 80386 system costs, you can outfit an A2000 with a FlickerFixer board, a multisync monitor, a DMA hard disk interface and a 68020/68881 board. In this instance I think the A2000 would offer comparable performance to a 386 box in terms of processing power, I/O speed, display clarity and text display. On top of that, you get the NTSC interfacing, windows and multitasking at no extra cost. The 386 box wins on the variety of software it can run under MS-DOS and the potential software that is expected for OS/2. --M Michael Portuesi / Information Technology Center / Carnegie Mellon University ARPA/UUCP: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu BITNET: rainwalker@drycas "if you ain't ill it'll fix your car"