[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference hydra::amiga_v1

Title:AMIGA NOTES
Notice:Join us in the *NEW* conference - HYDRA::AMIGA_V2
Moderator:HYDRA::MOORE
Created:Sat Apr 26 1986
Last Modified:Wed Feb 05 1992
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:5378
Total number of notes:38326

123.0. "EE Times Letter" by AUTHOR::MACDONALD (CUP/ML) Tue Sep 30 1986 17:46

    Ed Acciardi has a nice letter-to-the-editor in the Sept. 8
    EE Times on page 24. Its entitled, "Raps Atari ST."
    Nice letter Ed.
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
123.1Aw, shucks...JAKE::ACCIARDITue Sep 30 1986 23:426
    Aw, shucks...I started out by just replying to the mis-statement
    that the "ST has higher resolution graphics than the Amiga", and
    I guess I just couldn't get off my pulpit.  Actually, I didn't really
    mean to 'Rap' the ST, 'cause I think it's a great computer, but
    I just couldn't bear to see the Amiga, once again, being compared
    totally in the wrong context.
123.2show us too?DSSDEV::SAUTERJohn SauterThu Oct 02 1986 10:382
    How about re-publishing the letter here?  I don't get EE Times.
        John Sauter
123.3JOKE::ACCIARDIThu Oct 02 1986 11:1143
    It's kinda long to type in...Basically, I read a blurb in EE Times
    that, to summarize, said that the Amiga was making inroads into
    the Video production market.  The article was in general flattering,
    but then came the shocker...they claimed (not exact quote) that
    the Amiga was suffering in sales due to the "lean and powerful Atari
    ST, with it's higher resolution graphics and faster speed".  Boom.
    Blood pressure went up 10 points.  
    
    Look, I think the ST is a swell gadget, but I CAN'T STAND IT when
    people repeat Atari's totally deceitful claims for the ST.  So,
    Amiga in hand, I fired off a rebuttal that just pointed out that
    the Amiga has graphic modes that the ST only dreams of.  I also
    pointed out that the Amiga had consistantly greater speed (at least
    in all the comparisons that I have read) than the ST, in spite of
    the ST's 11% faster clock speed.  This is because the ST, like the
    MAC, requires the full attention of the 68000 to bit-map text, which,
    on all three machines, are treated just like graphics.  So, while
    the ST could theoretically calculate 2+2 11% faster than an Amiga,
    given the same coding of the problem, the Amiga could blit the answer
    to the screen in about a quarter of the time.  To a user, this spells
    SPEED.
    
    I hate arguing whose computer is better, but I notice a disturbing
    propogation of mis-truths about the Amiga that, no doubt, have hurt
    sales.  Having invested a good deal of money in my Amiga, I wish
    to see the computer succeed in the marketplace.
    
    Footnote:  Everyone who has gotten a demo of the Amiga from me has
    either bought one, or is saving up for one.  
    
    Footnote 2: In my letter to EE Times, I drew heavily on the comments
    of others.  I am not a hardware engineer, nor a programmer.  My
    opinions are formed from hands-on experience with both computers,
    and from a great deal of reading of both Amiga and non-Amiga articles
    and technical journals.
    
    Footnote 3:  I hope this does not set off another round of complaints
    from ST users.  EE Times article was simply inconsistent with the
    facts.
    
    Footnote 4:  I really do love the ST.  But I love the Amiga twice
    as much.
    
123.4ThanksDSSDEV::SAUTERJohn SauterFri Oct 03 1986 18:453
    Thank you for the summary.  I didn't mean to ask you to re-keyboard
    the letter; I assumed you had it in machine-readable form.
        John Sauter