Next-Generation lies about Amiga

Next-Generation lies about Amiga

Post by Nick Curci » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



Here is something from Next-Generation Online's (www.next-generation.com) Q&A
section from sometime in mid-August:

Q:  Is Gateway still going to sell Amigas?

A:  Gateway has never had plans to sell Amigas in the US despite its purchase of the
former computer superpower some months ago.  Instead Gateway was interested in
securing the rights to much of the technology behind the Amiga as well as continuing
to service the sizable European userbase with new software.  Announcements regard
ing new hardware even in Europe have never been made by  Gateway.

Could everyone please help set them straight?  I'm refering to the document on
www.zdnet.com.  I know it didn't exist when NG wrote the above answer, but how could
they print something like that without getting the facts from Gateway first?

later,

nik

 
 
 

Next-Generation lies about Amiga

Post by Rais » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




Quote:> Here is something from Next-Generation Online's (www.next-generation.com)
Q&A
> section from sometime in mid-August:

> Q:  Is Gateway still going to sell Amigas?

> A:  Gateway has never had plans to sell Amigas in the US despite its
purchase of the
> former computer superpower some months ago.  Instead Gateway was
interested in
> securing the rights to much of the technology behind the Amiga as well as
continuing
> to service the sizable European userbase with new software.

Announcements regard

Quote:> ing new hardware even in Europe have never been made by  Gateway.

> Could everyone please help set them straight?  I'm refering to the
document on
> www.zdnet.com.  I know it didn't exist when NG wrote the above answer,
but how could
> they print something like that without getting the facts from Gateway
first?

> later,

> nik

I will do it.  I know the guy who makes their web pages. Keep in midn that
possibly
att he point in time when that Q arose, there wasn't any particular strong
Gateway
direction on what they were really going to do. Gateway just saying "we are
gonna
sell more Amiga's" doesn't exactly make it totally factual, unless you do
see some
movement.

- Raist
Old Amiga Owner (still owner of A1200)

 
 
 

1. Next-Generation's lame lexicon

For those of you that haven't seen it yet:
http://www.next-generation.com/lexicon/lexicon.html

It's fairly well-done, but I was curious as to how they arrived at the
following definition for the Commodore 64::

"Commodore C64 Classic 64 K computer introduced by Commodore in 1982.
It had a cartridge slot and was originally intended to be used with a
cassette tape as the storage mechanism. It was very inexpensive, but
displayed only 40 characters across the screen at a time and was
functionally unexpandable. It had better graphic abilities than a stock
Apple II, but not than an Apple IIe."

First, while it is true that the C64 was "originally intended to be used
with a cassette tape", why is this important?  ALL personal computers of that
era were intended to use cassette tapes (the Apple][, TI99/4a, and IBM
PC..) and all of them eventaully upgraded to disk drives.

Second, what does "functually unexpandable" mean and why is it chosen as
one of the four sentences that are to define the Commodore64?  How about,
"Because of its superior SID and VIC2 chips it was the most advanced
computer of its time in terms of graphics and sound".  How many "expansion"
cards were out for other computers at the time (that the Commodore64 was
missing out on);  the 80-column card for the Apple2?  The Hercules 8-
color card for the PC?  C'mon, the C64 didn't NEED "functional expansion"
like the other monstors of its time.  Of course the author of this
definition failed to mention FastLoad cards, printer cards, modem expansion
boxes, hard-drive cards and other (apparantly "unfunctional") expansions
the the C=64 DID have.

Third, it ONLY displayed 40 characters across the screen at a time:  I
guess they never used GEOS or PocketWriterIII.  This statement is utterly
false.  (it USED to say that the C=64 could only display uppercase
characters)

And last, the best sentence of them all:  "It had better graphic abilities
than a stock Apple II, but not than an Apple IIe".  Utterly laughable.  
There were no sprites and the mainstream games all used the 64k model for
using graphics (which limited the machine to 8 colors)-- it's true that
they later added 16 colors, but you had to have 128k to use it.  The
graphics system also was extremely difficult to program because it was
not cartesian-based (as I recall, sequential graphics lines appreard at
intervals on the screen).  The Apple ][ was a happy medium between the
C=64 and the IBMPC, but did not outdo the PC at business applications and
CERTAINLY didn't overpower the C64 at graphics (and ESPECIALLY sound).

This, of course, isn't a critial life-thratening issue; but if a publisher
(especially a GAME publisher!) is going to propose to define the '64 in
four sentences, they should at least be semi-accurate.

By the way, did I mention that you could write them at:

http://www.next-generation.com/lexicon/submit.html
--

2. D-Link DI-704 Cable/DSL Gateway and NetMeeting

3. Lies, Lies, Lies.

4. Network for trailer park

5. Amiga Next Generation Database

6. Q: Put Plot in Winword from MATLAB4

7. next generation parallel processing system for the Amiga...

8. 1004 to MAX 4000

9. Next generation Amiga (Post 4000)

10. Phase 5 Next Generation Amiga Project Homepage

11. Amiga complimented in March Issue Of "Next Generation"

12. Next Generation Amiga: Will it Sell?

13. NeXT GeneratioN AMiGA?!?!