On 04-sep-99 02:23:48 (GMT+2) , MkII wrote ;
>>> Anyway, it's not fair to compare a 1990 TR with a 1982 C64. You should
>>> compare a 1982 C64 against a 1983 MSX1 instead.
>>
>> Add a MSX2 to that...
>
> Why? MSX1 has already a year advantage over a C64. If you add a 1985 MSX2
> the Commodore user would add the 1985 Amiga.
A C64 gives a better overall impression when comparing it with MSX1/MSX2.
I'm talking about a standard C64/MSX1/MSX2, excluding hardware upgrades.
But ofcourse you're entitled of your own opinion :-)
>>> Bear in mind that a Commodore freak could very well start speaking of
>>> the 1985 Amiga. Or, provided you've spoken of the 1990 TR, even the 1990
>>> AGA Amiga!
>>
>> Sorry to burst your bubble, but a TR is no match what so ever for a up-
>> to-date A1200/A4000 equiped with a M68060/R604 and a graphics card.
>> Those are more than capable of latest Mac/Unix/PC/etc system emulation.
>
> ?
>
> Your reply does not match my assertion. Please re-read.
Hmm.. I got the idea that you were refering to compare a TR with
a AGA Amiga (A1200/A4000). I guess I misunderstood you, sorry.
Kind regards
Leon Lander (A1200/C128D/MSX2+)
--
The Earth is flat - pi equals three - the Bible says it - so it must be.
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the
quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
****
