The concept of an Amiga is still commonly used. More expensive Network cards have their own microprocessors (mini-CPU for non-teachies). Video Cards PCI/AGP/PCI Express have a GPU (Graphical CPU) of their own to crank out better graphics. Expensive SoundBlaster cards have their own microprocessors too to crank out stuff that owns. It's only the 'cheap shit' like onboard hardware that 'taps off the main CPU'. The days of Amiga's superiority are long gone baby!

I must admit on the side of things though, PCs still rely on the main CPU/RAM too much, especially in Windows. Linux with all the best hardware and drivers support could make a pretty good Amiga rival :P.

Hah I guess you never knew the concept of the Amiga:

Unix kernel with a super effecient graphical interface on top.

Multitasking like mad on 512K of memory, I got a Amiga 4000 here and it is still very fast and does things in real time a dual 2GHZ G5 can just about manage. All on a 25mhz 68040, just shows you how they can make real software if needed. Apple's OSX is a slow ripoff. Amiga used 5 times less resources then any other OS, the dedicated hardware was fun but not what made the Amiga so cool.

And on another note: Computers just KNOW your talking about heat problems, just after the Palace client test my PC died and would not restart the CPU almost friend at 90C. The thermal pasta had dried up, all is well again.

Yeah, its easy to get OT and forget the original purpose of the thread!

I'm aware Amiga had true-multi-tasking. The point was it just uses more microprocessors, and PC hardware has that too. On top of that PC hardware isn't nearly as expensive as either a Mac or Amiga. A Unix Kernel isn't something to be proud of - try reading the Unix haters handbook sometime.

**** lot of attention seeking BS removed*******

If i tell you a 25mhz Amiga can do stuff a Dual G5 can just about pull of wtf does this have to do with liking or hating Unix?

Eh dude? You are not going to melt or die horribly if your not right about something. Trust me in life you don't have to be right about everything all the time. 8)

Amigas are 5 times more efficient with resources and this has nothing to do with liking Unix or having a zillion processors. I like my Amiga, it rules with its silly 25mhz processor it does things I could not even do with my 1300mhz PC.

They still use Amigas to run the information system here in the burger kings. Now show me any other home computer that lasted 15 years.

Multitasking is still 5x faster on a Amiga then on any other computer. Ok so the software if outdated but whatever runs on it runs very fast..

Forum rule 1: No Amiga dissing allowed lol

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

If you read the Unix haters handbook you would know what it was about. I didn't diss your Amiga, I dissed Unix! Plus I'm sort of pissed off at the SCO (Unix owners) for attacking Linux and IBM for using Linux the way they have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM

Not to mention what you can and cannot do software wise solely depends upon the programmers that develop the software that you're using. Software features matter not on the hardware alone.

SCO? hah they suck, another microsoft pawn trying to fight the evil open source army with all it ideals. How can you make money from ideals? hehe SCO is pathetic, the always have been, its a shame IBM never bought them just for fun.

I remember reading their strategy about 5 years ago, to be honest back then i figured IBM would just splatter them allover the place. I guess some microsoft money found its way into their pockets.

If it'll help Microsoft battle Linux, sure, whynot?

It's mostly cause amiga had a processor for each system.

Video had it's own processor
Sound has it's own processor
Keyboard Controller had its own processor
The central processor didn't have any petty HW I/O tasks to worry about -- it just worked with software.

You can imagine how this sped things up quite a bit. It costed more however, thats why everyones intigrating the shit. NIC's use to have a processor of their own to handle the TCP/IP stack, but like winmodems -- they're making it run by the central CPU. Cost is the reason.