Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Mostly because even on a PC with hardware far 
> in advance of what the Amiga has, Windows was *vastly* slower.

  Far in advance? 12MHz CPU (if you were rich), no hardware graphics
acceleration of any kind, 16 colors (again, if you were rich)... How is
that "far in advance of what the Amiga has"?

  Even Windows can't do magic if it doesn't have the graphics hardware
acceleration support.

  Oh, you are not comparing PC's of the time, but more modern PC's? Well,
let's see your beloved amiga update its screen at 1600x1200 resolution with
16 million colors with a refresh rate of 80 Hz, playing a H.264 hi-def video
on the background while you write an email. Then we might perhaps start
talking about "vastly slower".

> (Today of 
> course, Windows is, as far as I can tell, the most useable OS available, 
> whether you like it or not. Linux is a nice idea, but sadly it's too 
> hard to use.)

  Yeah, that's probably why I use Linux 99% of the time, while I use Windows
only for playing PC games. I must be a masochist.

  Honestly, I just can't do *anything* in Windows, other than play games or
perhaps watch multimedia (if I don't happen to be in Linux just then).
Trying to eg. develop anything is just a pain. I'm always hindered by not
being able to do things I can easily do in Linux. Heck, even just finding
a file with a certain string is so damn hard in Windows, not to talk about
anything more advanced than that.

  (Yeah yeah, I know, you can do everything you can do in Linux and far more.
There are all these fancy scripting languages and whatnot, which you might be
able to use if you install something and something else. Nothing really
consistent, and always a pain.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message