From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 95 14:45:35 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: BlackNet in "Hardware" (fwd)
Message-ID: <199510222149.QAA02021@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



> >No book report here, but it was as gripping as the rest of her efforts.
> >It's "about" people rather than computer hackery, but the computery bits
> >were done quite well.  Does an Amiga 2000 <really> have PC and Mac
> >compatibility options?  I don't know, and it doesn't matter anyway.
> 
> I recollect that the Amiga had some gizmo--I think it was called
> "MagicSack" or something like that--that let it run Macintosh programs,
> sort of. It never really caught on, at least as an alternative to real
> Macs. And I think something similar was available for DOS. This was all
> several years back, before the Amiga faded out.
> 
> Amiga users and former Amiga users can probably tell us more.
> 

The Amiga has both hardware and software emulation of both Dos and Mac. The
hardware Mac emulator runs faster than an actual Mac. The software emulator
runs ok, but is about 2-3 times slower than an equivalent Mac.

The Amiga 2000, 3000, and 4000 have PC compliant slots that harbor a
co-computer in the guise of a bridgeboard. The software emulators pretty
much suck because they are slow.

There are currently 6 Million Amiga users, hardly 'faded out.

The Amiga did not fail because it lacked in either hardware or software. It
failed because of market momentum and a lack of marketing savy at Commodore.
Only somebody who has never used an Amiga for an extended time would ever
make a comment implying they were inferior in any technical way. Their
hardware architecture in still way ahead of both Windows and Mac as is their
operating system.

Just remember, nobody ever lost their job by buying IBM.

                                                   Jim Choate
                                                   CyberTects
                                                   ravage@einstein.ssz.com