Conference hydra::amiga_v1

    Well, the most important question is to ask, how much are you planning
    on spending.  You can get a very powerful Amiga 500 setup for probably
    under $3k.  Depending on what you want to spend and use it for,
    your "best" configuration will vary.
    
    					Rob

    re:.0
    
    A couple questions:
    1. What are your minimum requirements for a "home computer"?  
    2. And what is "enough cash flow"? 
    
    The pro/cons of Amiga vs. anything that computes have been discussed 
    many, many times.  With a little more info about what you feel is 
    important for a home computer to be able to do and what price range 
    you are looking in, we can discuss what an Amiga can do for you.  
    
    now for my bit of Mac bashing :-)
    The MacII is very nice, very expensive.  Any of the other Macs have
    no color, a very serious lack for a home computer.
    
    One other question: I assume you considered ibmpc clones, Atari
    ST, and Apple ][GS before reducing the choices down to Amiga vs
    Mac.  Out of curiousity, why were they not chosen?
    
    -Dave
    p.s. I tend to regard a "home computer" as a different category
    from a "business computer".  It has to be able to do all that
    the business computer can do, plus a lot more.  Particularly in
    the area of graphics and sound (i.e., great games in stereo)

          I agree entirely with Rob. The amount of add-ons you purchase
    will increase the amount of flexibility you have with your machine
    and the amount of 'things' you can do with it, regardless of the
    machine. I think its pretty true to say that people do buy on the
    potential capability of a consumer good often rather than what their
    bank balance is capable of handling. We've all done it with things
    like cameras, you know, "If I get this one then I have the choice
    of 50 different viewfinders, 20 lenses, motor-drive,........", so
    we buy it even though we probably only will ever have a couple of
    lenses ect. The same goes for Commodore type add-ons like Genlocks,
    Digitisers, Midi Interfaces,...........We all yell about what a
    great desktop video platform the machine is but how many of us really
    get into that stuff? Probably a few more than if the machine had
    been priced at the cost of a MAC II, I guess. 
    	With an Amiga you could probably get away with getting a lot of
    the extras PLUS SOME SOFTWARE for a lot less than the cost of a MAC II
    sans anything ( which has lot of grunt & a lot of potential and a lot
    of cost). It just all depends on what you really want to do and how
    well you want to do things. I dont think its really necessary to
    start Machine wars here for the umpteenth time, so I'll state why
    I bought my machine. At the time I didnt really think the Macintosh
    had as much too offer, that equation has altered considerably, but
    not in terms of the bottom-line, what I could afford.
    	I wanted a machine that was a/Multitasking b/Had a good design
    foundation behind it c/Had reasonable resolution graphics with multiple
    bitplanes d/Was reasonably fast e/Was a WIMP system AS WELL AS a
    CLI system f/Was NOT IBM-Compatible g/Had an open architecture
    h/Was within the price range of a home computer buyer. I got a machine
    I could learn more out of than most of the others combined. Maybe
    your requirements are different, someone here purchased his machine
    solely to play games on, others just want a word-processor.
       So it didnt do every thing great, it fitted the bill on all the
    above at a cost I could afford. Apple has since moved onto plug
    the areas in the above list but in a different Cost sphere altogether,
    one I CANT afford. The software that's been produced for both machines
    have been excellent but in different spheres until just recently.
    Apple have concentrated on great tools and consistent interfaces
    for business tools. The Amiga community have produced great video
    & graphics stuff and some good business stuff is there now. Can you
    afford the MAC S/W and future hardware wishes on the budget you have?
    Me, I'll get a small car as a peripheral to my Amiga.
    
    John	

    
    If you were going to do some comparison shopping, why not MAC II
    to an Amiga 2000 rather than a 500...Note that I am not trying to
    say one is better than the other, it just depends what you are going
    to do with the machine...That's all.
    
    regards,
    
    brad
    

    
    What do *you*, as a user, require in terms of capabilities?
    I also have a Rainbow and it met my needs for many years.
    It's not even fair to compare it to my Amiga but it's still a
    PC. It did provide (and still can) my *basic* PC requirements.
    Any PC clone could do just as well (well, except for expansion).
    
    Now I have Color, Multi-tasking, Workstation characteristics. Plus
    *I* get to choose to use the CLI or the icon oriented Workbench.
    Not to mention stereo sound and GREAT games for my "personal enjoyment".
    Yea, everyone has seen "games" on computers. But do yourself a favor
    and look AND listen to what this machine can do.
    How important are the above to *you*. Can you associate a dollar
    amount with each of them?? I couldn't.

        
    I was in your exact situation just over a year ago. For me the choice
    was simple and I've never looked back and wondered if it was.
    
    Well, there's my ramblin' $00.02 worth.  Good luck in your quest.
    
    -bw
    

                                    
    I'll start by comparing an Amiga 2000 with a Mac SE, since the prices
    are in the same general ballpark.
    
    For under $3500, you can get an A2000 with 1 meg of RAM, a 40-65 meg
    hard drive, multisync monitor, and deinterlacing board (provides a Mac
    II quality color display).  With the Amiga, you'll get a machine that
    was designed with multitasking in mind.  This means that any package
    multitasks.  Easily and elegantly.  With windows AND virtual sliding
    screens.  No special support needed for Multi-Finder (Apple's first pass
    at multitasking) type bolt-ons. 
    
    Add in a handful of custom VLSI hardware that makes the Amiga an
    unparalled graphics engine (even by Mac II standards), stereo sound, a
    humongous power supply, a great keyboard (thrown in for free!), a bunch
    of slots, (both 8 & 16 bit IBM compatible and Amiga 16 bit), and you have
    a pretty good medium resolution workstation. 
    
    For that kind of money (actually, with DEC employee discounts, the
    SE is under $3000) you get a monochrome Mac with a 9" display
    (albeit of very high quality), 1 meg of ram, and a 20 meg hard drive.
    Also thrown in is the Mac's legendary user interface.
    
    Both machines can accept a 68020, 68030, and/or 68881 chipset,
    although the Amiga will always have fewer compatiblity problems
    due to it's exclusive use of 32 bit relative addressing.
                                                
    Both machines can easily accept memory expansion, the Amiga (all
    models) to 9.5 MBytes, and the SE to (at least 4, maybe 16; someone
    help me here) 
                                                       
    Now, for the big differences...
    
    The types of software available for the Mac and Amiga are radically
    different, once you get past standard word processor, spreadsheet
    and database type stuff.  The Amiga has always been, and will continue
    to be, video oriented.  This is reflected by the huge mass of titles
    dedicated to animation, ray-tracing, solid modeling, video generation,
    video titling, etc.  It is also due to the nature of the Amiga display
    hardware, which is totally NTSC (television) compatible, making
    genlocking and recording images a snap.  Many cable TV stations
    and video production houses, even the Big TV Networks use Amigas
    in their work.
    
    With the Mac, you'll get productivity software which may never see the
    light of day on the Amiga, such as MacProject, HyperCard, and thousands
    of other titles.  Most of these packages might not find much use in the
    home, (unless you need a PERT chart to plan your spring cleaning) but
    are invaluable to technical, managerial, and marketing professionals.
    The Mac is also making huge strides in networking and connectivity,
    areas that are barely being addressed on the Amiga.
    
    Note that there are around 3500+ titles for the Mac versus 1100+
    titles for the Amiga, and a lot of the Amiga type stuff IS available
    for the Mac, but it generally falls short of the mark on monochrome
    Macs.  Also note that a lot of Mac type packages are available for
    the Amiga, but they're probably easier to use and more elegant on
    the Mac due to it's more consistent user interface.
    
    Now for the real nitty gritty...
    
    When you buy a Mac, you're entitled to excellent dealer support,
    extensive handholding, and very expensive hardware and software. 
    Apple is making great strides (well deserved) in getting the Mac
    accepted as a top notch productivity machine.  Apple has paid dearly
    for this distinction, and so will you.
    
    Amiga owners are a bit tougher, since the dealer network is thinner and
    less supportative.  When you walk into an Amiga dealership, there are
    no carpets, wine and cheese trays, and smiling, condescending slicks
    to compliment you on your good taste as they relieve you of two
    months salary.  What you will find are great hardware and software
    at reasonable prices, and people dedicated to making the Amiga a
    great success.
    
    However, you asked about a home computer.  Since that was the question,
    the answer is an unqualified 'get an Amiga 500'.  The value that the
    A500 represents is astonishing.   Consider that you will get a 1 MByte
    multitasking monster with 4096 colors, stereo sound, 4 voices (A/D &
    D/A hardware), bit blitter, graphics coprocessor, Motorola 68000 CPU,
    expansion buss, RGB and monochrome composite video, 880 KByte floppy,
    256 KBytes of ROM, keyboard, power supply, software and documentation
    for a little more than twice what Apple charges for a just a keyboard.
    And the A500 keyboard even feels better. 
    
    For the little ones (and we are ALL little ones at heart) the Amiga
    is absolutely, unequivocally unrivalled as a games machine.  The
    Amiga makes arcade machines look tame.  (In fact, the Amiga chipset
    is used in major arcade systems)
    
    Apple seems to have given up on the home market.  In fact, I think
    Sculley was once quoted as saying that there was no such thing as
    a home computer market.  The Apple II/IIGS has a large base in the
    educational market.  Commodore, on the other hand, seems to have
    found a previously hidden, fairly sophisticated home user.  These
    are the non-video types who are buying Amigas because of the machine's
    technical excellence.
    
    Both the Mac and the Amiga are considered objects of Extensive Religeous
    Zeal by there respective adherants.  I've used Macs quite a bit,
    including the Mac II.  I personally prefer the Amiga.  A lot.  In fact,
    when I recently upgraded from an A1000 to an A2000, I could have gotten
    a loaded Mac II for around $1500 more dollars through a special
    'brother-in-law-who-works-for-Apple' discount.  I passed, and not just
    because of the extra money.  The Amiga was just lots more fun and
    exciting for me. 
                                             
    Ed

    re: .6--I wasn't aware that A/D hardware was part of the base machine.
    If this wasn't a mistake, please give more details.
        John Sauter

    
    Right, no A/D built in... I got rolling there and just couldn't
    stop...  A/D will cost an extra $80 or so.
    
    Another feature that I forgot to add to the Mac was a built-in SCSI
    port, which is certainly not a trivial feature.
                                              
    Ed.

Re: -.1 -.2

Well, (heh) the mouse is a simple A/D converter... Your hand movements are
analog, and the mouse position is obviously digital.... And what about
those joysticks...?

:^) JO

	Wow, give it 14 hours and it goes nuts!  Thanks for the input.  To 
answer a couple of questions and digress slightly (hopefully keeping the 
original question still clear), I add:  
	My needs are still undefined as yet.  I will, repeat WILL, be using
advanced CAD systems in college (I'm still seventeen.  Bummer) as well as 
WP and any other utility to make my leap to independence the easier.  I am
very interested in graphics, sound, MIDI, and network connectivity.  As for
the PC clones and GS, they don't have the Workbench or Mac icon interface, 
at least standard.  (Correct me if I'm wrong.)  I would probably go for the
A2000 right now, its expandability appeals to me as it seems like it would 
provide a much better foundation for some higher end computing.
	Money:  I can come up with about $2k right now, and with the help of 
mom at graduation (:�D) maybe $3k.  That (as far as I've checked) will get
me a base A2000.  And I could go from there.  Where is a note that deals with
the pros and cons (a comparison) of the 2000 and 500?  And, my last for this
reply, how can the Amiga connect to the already existing DEC network?  Perhaps
a terminal emulator that accesses an already-existing account?  Or maybe a 
VAX emulator (God's sakes, I don't mean FULLY simulated!) to fool DECnet into
thinking the Amiga is a microVAX and accept MAIL, and other information?
	Just an idea.  Again, any input.

Mike Bell

    
    
    RE: .6
    
    I can get a Mac SE with hard drive at school for about $2100.  So
    you have to figure in a little price adjustment there.  Also remember
    that the color SE will be out soon.         
    
    So if your main concern is not having color, you may have to
    reconsider.
    
    RE: .10
    (about the GS not having a mac-like interface)
    
    The GS toolsets are now all ROMable which means that Apple should
    soon have them on the motherboard.  The Finder will soon be of standard
    usage on the GS also because of the GS/OS coming out in November.
    
    
    Good Luck

    Re: Apple II GS.
    
    Rathole alert!  The September _Amazing Computing_ has, in its "Roomers"
    column, speculation that an upgraded II GS will be positioned as
    an "Amiga killer."  The Bandito also claims that Apple has sold
    400K of these machines, not bad for something which has yet to receive
    a better than lukewarm review.
    

Re .10
>  reply, how can the Amiga connect to the already existing DEC network?  Perhaps

The following is quoted without permission from an article in Computer&Software
News, April 11 1988:

"Commodore will be making another foray into the high-end of the micro market
when it begins offering Unix on the Amiga later this year.

..."The company also will display [at Comdex/Spring in Atlanta] a network
linking Amigas and Sun workstations..."

..."AmigaTOPS, still in its development stages, will not onlu be able to
comminucate within the TOPS network with Macintoshes, personal computers and
compatibles, it will also be able to be linked to DEC minicomputers as a
network node, company sources added."


You can't always believe what you read in the trade journals...so take the 
above at just what it is, an article...unless other Amiga folks have heard
any more on the topic (please update us!).

Keith Y.

Re: .11

>Also remember that the color SE will be out soon.

Geez.  One can always come out ahead of the game by putting off a decision
to by microcomputer equipment since next years model will always be better,
cheaper, faster.  However, if you feel a need to buy something today, its
best to go into a computer store and look what is available on the shelves
for purchase today.

Apple is very tight with information on new machines.  It doesn't demo
prototypes at trade shows.  It keeps products secrete until finished,
and then holds a big press conference to announce them about 30 days
before first ship to dealers.

So, Apple might announce a color SE tomorrow.  It might not even have
one under development (it might not announce one never).

I knew a ton of people that thought that last years announcement was
going to be the color 68000 Mac.

Even more people thought there would be a 68030 Mac announced at the
Mac Expo a couple of weeks ago.

    for networking from home to a central site, all you really need
    is a good terminal emulator with builtin file transfer capability.
    A full network connection would be nice, but it is a lot more hassle.
    
    I haven't seen anything recently on the status of a DECnet-Amiga
    implementation.  I saw something on usenet a while back that some
    company was porting their Macintosh version to the Amiga.
    
    I believe a pd TCP/IP is available, and .13 says TOPS will be soon.
    X11 Windowing is coming from Boing, Inc.  In the networking area,
    the Amiga does have an advantage of alreading having a multitasking
    operating system.  It just takes time, and a large enough business
    user base to justify implementing network software for it.  CBM
    is trying to push for that since good networking capabilities are
    now required if you want to seriously compete in the business market.
                                                                         
    re: Bandito & the ][GS
    he must have been having a bad day.  First he dumped on the Atari
    ST and then he spends a lot of space discussing the wonders of a future
    Apple ][GS.  Strange.  He seems to assume that Atari isn't doing
    anything to improve and Apple is doing lots.  Nice rumors, but I'd
    rather read about Amiga improvements.  Apple is just fixing the
    shortcomings of the GS, not introducing something new and wonderous.
    CBM isn't going to enhance the Amiga just because they are nice
    folks, they have to do it to stay competitive.  Apple and Atari
    are doing the same thing.
    
    -Dave

Re: Bandito

I find it hard to take this mythical upgrade as seriously as the Bandito
does.  I once used an Apple II/GS.  It supposedly is as fast as an
Amiga now.  However, it is the ONLY machine I ever seen where you could
see the menus being rendered into the bitmap when you pulled them
down.  I think that when Apple doubles the speed of the machine (so
that the clock matches the Amiga's by the way), they will get a machine
that can compete on merit with a Amiga, ST, or Mac, not blow them
out of the water.

Until then, the Bandito should avoid the free drugs at the parties
held by Apple salesmen.

    Gee,I think I might get the new GS (I hear it even has 640X400
    resolution,but can it put them all on the screen at the same time).
    
    
    
                                                  M.A.H         

RE:.16

>   Until  then,  the  Bandito  should  avoid  the  free drugs at the
>   parties held by Apple salesmen.

    As  a  Apple  employee told me (as I was amazed that he came to a
mid-afternoon meeting with a beer): "As long as we  don't  use  razor
blades on the desk tops..."

	-SES

    Excuse my ignorance but wouldnt a colour MAC SE be a little on the
    slow side? I'm not much of a wiz on the MAC but everyone I've seen
    in operation moved like a turtle tied to a fence-post.
    Wouldnt adding a few bit-planes to the thing make it even slower,
    or are they rumoring blitter/bimmer/bummer, and some sort of afterburner?
	If I'm way off the mark, let me know.
    
    John

    re: .19
    interesting point, the MAC II gets around that with a video board
    and a 68020.  I assume if a MAC SE gets color it will be some form
    of a video board, hopefully with some hardware support for blitting.
    
    re: 256 colors
    I just reread the Bandito article, that 256 color mode isn't new.
    The GS has that now, it just OS support for palette flipping on
    a per scan line basis.  Similar to ST Spectrum 512 which displays
    512 colors on the ST.  Not rocket science.  The interlace 400 line
    mode is new, I wonder how they will explain why the flicker.
    
    -dave

     RE: .0
     
     The sept/oct issue (#22) of INFO magazine gives a "fair" review of the
     Amiga 2000 and Mac Plus. The author, Bob Linstrom, is not on the staff
     of the magazine. He is a "multi-machine software reviewer" who
     doesn't name his computers. (like J Pournelle?? :-) ) He says he has
     seven computers in his office, including Atari ST, Apple IIGS,
     Commodore 128, Compaq, and an Atari 8-bit. The only two he fires
     up every day are the Mac and the Amiga.                
     
     A synopsis, as I read it:
     
     Business users should get the Mac because of the top quality business
     software available and the solid financial base of Apple. Although he
     says Commodore is much better now than six months ago. 
     
     Desktop publishing, home office, database management go to the Mac.
     Graphics go to the Amiga. Music (midi) goes to Mac but the future is
     very promising for the Amiga (because of multitasking). 
     
     PD software is a tie. Mac has volume; Amiga has quality.
     
     He makes the graphics comparisons with the MAC II saying Amiga is
     way out in front on price-performance.
      
     In essence, he said consevative users should buy Mac, pioneering
     types should buy the Amiga.   Quotes on the Amiga:
     "..without question, the Amiga is the most capable  home/consumer
      computer available as well as the price-performance leader in
     the sound and graphics vertical markets...no peer in the desktop
     video market..."
     
     "The ride so far has been invigorating. The road ahead looks
     positively dizzying"

     Dave
                                           

     RE: .2 and .14

>    The MacII is very nice, very expensive.  Any of the other Macs have
>    no color, a very serious lack for a home computer.
 
AND

>Geez.  One can always come out ahead of the game by putting off a decision
>to by microcomputer equipment since next years model will always be better,
>cheaper, faster.  However, if you feel a need to buy something today, its
>best to go into a computer store and look what is available on the shelves
>for purchase today.


     If color is so very important for a home computer, you can get color
     for the Mac SE.  RIGHT NOW, even!!  The ad for the card can be 
     found in this month's "MacUser".

    
    Just out of curiosity, (and since I don't have any Mac journals
    around) what are the specs for such a card?  Price, number of
    bitplanes, pallette size, extra hardware so that the CPU doesn't
    have a coronary...
    
    Ed.

    RE:.17
    
    GS has only 4 (ick) real colors per line in its highest resolution
    mode (I call this super-duper-res), and 16 per line (over 19000
    with dithering on the next level (super hi-res).  But it is true that
    there are 256 colors available to the entire screen at once.  Actually,
    with some very clever programming there are 3200 of the 4096 colors
    available on the screen at once (!).  Unfortunately, most programs on
    the GS do not use more than 16 real colors.  
    
    On the other hand, Amiga can only have 32 colors on the entire screen
    at once, but there is a strong advantage with Amiga graphics in
    that 32 colors are available per line.  Because of this, most Amiga
    programs have graphics superior to the GS.  
    
    (There's also that weird professional mode, but I really don't know
    much about it.)  

    re: 24
    
    Don't forget that Extra Halfbright will give you 64 colors at one
    time on the Amiga (albeit 32 darker colors of the other 32 colors.)
    
    Randy
    

    re: .24:
    
    You can also get more than 32/64 colors on the screen at once on
    the Amiga without resorting to HAM, just by using techniques very
    much like scan line interrupts (which is what I presume they use
    on the GS and ST).  Only difference is that with the Amiga, it doesn't
    interrupt the processor.
    
    Then again, this has already been discussed elsewhere.

    
    
    RE: .23
    
    The product is ColorVue SE by Orchid Technology (800/638-3322).
    The card retails for $695 (wow, but it's new).  The pallette size
    is 4096 colors, but only 16 on the screen at once.  The resolution
    is 640 X 480 which seems pretty impressive to me.  The sales person
    says there is a noticeable decline in speed, but they haven't done
    any benchmarks yet.  He says it is not bad at all (what else would
    he say, but I don't think he would flat out lie either since I
    confronted him with the question).  Hope the info is helpful.
    
    RE: .6
    This is just for information.  You can get an NTSC Converter for
    the Mac II.  It also can do genlocking.
    
    
    Trevor

    RE:.16
    
    The GS is slower than one should have to put up with, I have to admit
    On the other hand, you must remember that the system software
    you used was incomplete.  The slowness is primarily due to (other
    than the only nearly 3MHz CPU) the development in progress on
    the tool set.  The new system disk loads the finder three (3!) times
    faster than version 3.1, uses window caching finally, and the completed
    toolset.  Everything is much faster now on 3.2, and, here's the
    big news, ... version 3.2 is STILL ONLY A SHELL for the GS operating
    system.  The software you see now is a lousy 8 bit shell for what
    the GS can really do.  Apple has had a one year delay on the GS/OS
    (due in November) which will replace the shell.  This means that
    speed increases will be even more noticable.  I know, "why buy a
    computer that's not done yet?"  I have the same feelings about this
    and have been quite upset that GS/OS has been so delayed.  But then
    again, in comparison to other development times, Apple has really
    got development going well.  Programs that took advantage of the new
    features on the GS were available before the computer (unlike some
    other machines, i.e. IBM PS-2).
    
    Nevertheless, although a new machine's operating system cannot compete
    right away with one that has been around for some time, remember
    that Apple makes the GS and Apple makes Macintosh.  The GS tools
    are actually all Macintosh tools, (as are the fonts) which means
    that development should move swiftly for the GS.
    
    About the GS "upgrade"--  I have heard the rumours also but do not
    predict a new GS until late 1989+ for several reasons.  The tools
    have only just been made ROMable-- this means Apple will want them
    tested for a while before actually adding all of them to the motherboard
    (another reason the GS is so slow).  Also, applied engineering has
    only just announced their faster CPU board (I think about 6MHz and
    a more expensive one for 12MHz) so Apple probably feels that this
    will satisfy, for a while, those users who REALLY COMPLAIN about
    the speed (maybe they want to see how well it sells too).  Third,
    the new operating system is just coming out-- Apple probably wants
    to observe this as well (why make a new changes when the old ones
    haven't been fully tested).
    
    

Re: .27

>    This is just for information.  You can get an NTSC Converter for
>    the Mac II.  It also can do genlocking.

I've heard that a NTSC converter and genlock for the Mac II costs as
much as buying an Amiga and a genlock!

    How many different types of macint?How good is the sound chip p
    p in the macintosh 2????
    
    
                                                          M.A.H
    

    
    Re:  Color card for the SE...
    
    A nice option, but as I suspected, it costs quite a bit, and there's
    probably a noticable performance hit.  Does the card include a color
    monitor?  Add in another $500 or more for a multisync and your color
    SE now costs around $4000.  Still less than a Mac II...
    
    A better peripheral might be to purchase the Amiga chipset and stuff
    them onto an SE card. :^)  

    Also,
    	Couldnt I purchase an A500 for the cost of this colour card?
    Colour (please dont yell at me for spelling it correctly) for MAC
    users is sort of like multitasking was for IBM users. Everyone put
    brown stuff on it while they did nay have it, "Humans can only do
    one thing at a time anyway" etc. ect.....now watch them gush over
    PS/2, usually sight unseen.
    Now someone gave them a colour MAC & reasonable res you'd think they'd 
    invented it. 
        It always seemed like the GREAT MAC interface, & it is GREAT,
    would be even better if it was capable of communicating in shades
    and colour. MAC people have thought that the only output medium
    that was remotely useful to them was paper output, therefore black
    und blanc. 
     Yes, but who the hell would I ever want a colour laser printer? 8^)

	.32

>    	Couldnt I purchase an A500 for the cost of this colour card?

	I don't know (it's possible), but the note below doesn't reflect 
        that.

    .1

>    on spending.  You can get a very powerful Amiga 500 setup for probably
>    under $3k.  Depending on what you want to spend and use it for,
>    your "best" configuration will vary.


     .31
    
>    Re:  Color card for the SE...
>    
>    A nice option, but as I suspected, it costs quite a bit, and there's
>    probably a noticable performance hit.  Does the card include a color
>    monitor?  Add in another $500 or more for a multisync and your color
>    SE now costs around $4000.  Still less than a Mac II...
  

	I agree that it would be expensive, but I am just trying to help
	Mike decide which computer he wants.  If he really wants to get
	a Macintosh, but he cannot live without having color, he could
	still get a Mac SE.

	I've calculated that he could (being a student) get this system
	only 2 800K floppies (not a hard drive), the two monitors (one
	color the other in the Mac), and the color card for about $2600.
	If he wanted to gain back the performance, he could shell out 
	another couple of hundred (no more than $300) for an accelerator,
	which still keeps the system under $3000.  I know that he 
	probably won't do this, but it is still another option for him
	to consider.


	Trevor
        

    
    I hadn't looked to closely at the 'under $3000 for an A500' figure,
    but I think the author may have meant an A2000.
    
    A 1 meg A500 with single drive can be had for around $600.  Add
    in another $300 for a monitor, and $650 for a SCSI drive and you
    have a very powerful A500 setup for under $1600.
                              
    Ed.
    

    one old topic that hasn't been hit on so far..... :-)
    
    is what system configuration software publishers are writing for.
    For the Amiga, it is two floppy drives, 512K, multitasking, and
    a RGB monitor.  That is changing to take advantage of more
    memory, large ramdisks, and harddisks.
    
    The issue isn't if color or multitasking, or genlock or midi or
    anything else is available as an add-on.  Software publishers try
    to maximize the size of their potential market by coding to take
    advantage of the average system configuration.
    
    The advantage/disadvantage of the Amiga is that there currently
    is only one graphics board for it - the Amiga chipset.  The default
    is color graphics.  On the Mac, it's monochrome.  I assume that
    will be changing as more software takes advantage of the MacII.
    If color is important to you...
    
    -dave
    

    
    I finally found it!  the ultimate reason why .0 should buy an Amiga
    instead of a Mac.
    
    .0 said he is hunting for a HOME COMPUTER.  So I searched the easynotes
    conference list for the string "home computer", it found Amiga and 
    Commodore.  Guess that really kills those pro-Mac arguments... :-)
    
    
    Mr. Moderator, I'd like to assume the Amiga can be used for something
    other than a home computer.  Could that entry be changed drop the
    word "home"?  Anybody else like to see that changed?
    
     -Dave
    

    I've been watching this topic for some time now, and I find .35
    quite interesting.  America and Oz seem to have this fixation about
    personal or home computers versus business computers.  Frankly I
    don't believe the difference is real, and prefer the European approach
    of treating computers as 'general purpose computing machines'. 
    For that reason, I think, Europe treats Amigas/Ataris/CPM much better
    than we do.  I think their approach is more rational, why buy a
    386 box to run Wordstar when a 2m CPM machine will do that job just
    as well?
    
    So I agree that the Amiga conference should not be saddled with
    the home computer tag.  The Amiga is as capable as any PC, and more
    capable than most, of running 'serious' software, and running 'games'
    software.  How the hell can you saddle the Amiga as a home computer
    and yet think of an IBM PC or AT as a business computer?  They're
    both general purpose machines, except that one is more advanced
    than the other.