Received: from relay7.UU.NET (relay7.UU.NET [192.48.96.17]) by keeper.albany.net (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id CAA24875 for <dwarner@albany.net>; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 02:28:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from garcia.com by relay7.UU.NET with SMTP
id QQzzov16046; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 02:25:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost) by garcia.com (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AA05072; Mon, 22 Jan 1996 02:25:57 -0500
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 02:25:57 -0500
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Message-Id: <809.6595T157T609@monmouth.com>
Errors-To: dwarner@albany.net
Reply-To: lightwave@garcia.com
Originator: lightwave@garcia.com
Sender: lightwave@garcia.com
Precedence: bulk
From: rcohen@monmouth.com (Robert Cohen)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lightwave@garcia.com>
Subject: Re: Slow LW 4.0/4.1 for Amiga
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Status: RO
X-Status:
>NewTek needs to address this speed problem. I may just use the cash
>put aside for the Flyer to switch to a Pentium. This would cost NewTek
>a Flyer sale, as I would get a PVR instead. Can NewTek afford the loss
>if all the Amiga owners felt the same way?
I think that most pro LW users WILL feel the same way... I myself am steering
clear of 4.0 for those very reasons.. I think that NewTek must already
realize this, which would explain thier lack of enthusiasm for the Amiga
platform... Besides, for every Amgia user that goes Pentium, there is an