Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!ccicpg!harald
From: harald@ccicpg.UUCP ( Harald Milne)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Looking into amiga
Message-ID: <6514@ccicpg.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Dec-87 06:26:19 EST
Article-I.D.: ccicpg.6514
Posted: Wed Dec  2 06:26:19 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Dec-87 14:15:10 EST
References: <3725@uwmcsd1.UUCP>
Organization: CCI CPD, Irvine CA
Lines: 71

In article <3725@uwmcsd1.UUCP>, john1233@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Thomas M Johnson) writes:
> Well, I am looking into an Amiga (I'm an old Atari 800 user)
> and I have several questions.
> First, about the Amiga 2000's IBM compatiblility. What expansion are cards
> are you able to use? Multifunction cards, modems, etc?

	How much do you want? XT/AT boards OK. I'm in the process of verifying
HOW much compared to various clones, looks like the bridgecard scores
VERY high here.

> How software compatible is the bridgeboard to IBM software and how
> fast does it emulate?
	
	All the standard tests of IBM clones (like Flight Simulator, etc)
pass with flying colors. Some clones don't even pass this acid test.

	ARGH! Why does CBM call the bridgecard a PC-emulator? Transformer was,
but the bridgecard isn't (except monochrome/CGA capability which takes yet
another card in an IBM!) The bridgecard runs at the same speed as an XT, the
difference is display update and keyboard response, which is dependant on how
busy the Amiga side is at the same time if you are into multitasking/multi
processing. Also depends on priorities of the PC display to the Amiga window.
Not to mention the fact you can't window on a PC like you can on the Amiga!

> Next, and I guess the most asked question, about the multitasking.
> How much does it slow the machine down? 

	That depends massively on what your doing. The Amiga has probably the
lowest multitasking overhead of ANY OS I know of. For CPU intensive tasks,
its near an even split. But when you talk about doing BLITS and other forms of
DMA, I don't think the Amiga has anything that can be compared to. Although
the Amiga's CPU clock may not be an impressive speed, you have to consider the
fact that the memory bandwith is double, and doesn't even interfere with the
CPU at all. Blits and DMA take almost NO toll on CPU performance, unless you
are really beating the display to death. And that really takes some doing.

> Is this possible....
>      Having a BBS program running while doing other things like writing
>      a C program?

	Piece of cake. The Amiga chews gum and walks all the time. Its
a given. What impresses me is, playing 4 channel stereo music in real time
while blasting windows about. Not a glitch!

	You should ask about running the IBM and Amiga tasks SIMULTANEOUSLY
(as opposed to CONCURRENTLY! Its really PARALLEL processing).

> Is the desktop is ROM or do you have to load it from disk (yech!)

	Desktop is Atari's equivalent to Workbench on the Amiga. I don't load
it unless I need it. It's a waste of ROM (and RAM) if you don't need it.

> Now onto the Amiga 500......
> I've heard it is software compatible but not hardware compatible.
> What can't you use with the A500? How well does the multitasking
> operate on the 500?

	Question: What is the difference between an Amiga?
	Answer:   One leg is the same as the other.

> 				    Thanks is advance for any replys,
> 					      Tom Johnson

	Its just an affirmation! I still have a hard time seeing all this!
And its called a PC? Isn't this a new class of personal computers?


-- 
Work: Computer Consoles Inc. (CCI), Advanced Development Group (ADG)
      Irvine, CA (RISCy business! Home of the CCI POWER 6/32)
UUCP: uunet!ccicpg!harald