And this comment is about as reliable as his one stating a 5bit 15khz sample chip produces better quality than an 8bit 48khz sample chip...........and then argue it on the basis of a CD-ROM mastered soundtrack using studio hardware not the actual soundchip lol classic comments from little arkhan.
Wow, you're still gripping onto that whole argument that you barely understood at the time?
I argued the PCE soundchip and the PCE CD audio as two separate points. It's not a sampling chip. It's a WSG. It just happens to be able to sample on each channel also (6 channels!). The CD audio argument is that it surpasses everything since it can have music made up of sound from whatever in the piss you want. Studio mastered audio on a CD based game is going to beat the piss out of
any sound chip. Mix Amiga, Atari, a kazoo, and a friggin roland from 2010. Who cares. It can do it all. You do know what a CD is right? It's those shiny discs you stare at and drool as the light reflects off the bottoms?
I also never said it's (the WSG) is better quality. I said it sounds better and works better for games. There is a reason why arcade machines used FM/PSG/WSG instead of sampling a majority of the time. It fits and is much smoother for the type of game in question. Kind of like how if you were to have a live band for the soundtrack of a NES game.... it wouldn't fit at all. Having the music and sfx blend properly is very important in games.
I know you're sort of dopey and don't really get it so I will just leave it at that.
1 IE was always iffy as hell compared to the likes of Netscape at the time, which is what most people used simply because IE was really that slow and buggy and rendered pages incorrectly at that time. As any web designer knows, you finish your site, then modify it so IE can render it in an identical fashion to how it already renders 
Thats nice. Doesn't change the fact that iBrowse loads pages up kind of slow and jerky, and a comparable win95 machine doesn't have the same dilemma.
Also, now that you mention it, Netscape works better too. Thats two browsers.
2 Win95 had a notoriously famous world wide bug of a memory map as solid as a leaky old bucket when it comes to web browsing/emailing activities lol.
man, nothing gets past the AMIGA_NUT.
3 There's the Win95 GDI resource issue to compound that socket related leakage into oblivion problem with the effects of gradually losing GDI memory resource due to using graphically intense programs (for 1995 that is) like web browsers all day long. Result = crash city/loss of OS functionality = frequent reboots.
Hmm. Don't recall that problem. then again I was like 9 at the time. My computer didn't crash alot back then, and doesn't now.
It only crashed when we got AOL.
So it turns out you have no experience of how 'good' IE was originally in that time frame, and no awareness of two of the biggest reasons corporations found Win95 nothing but a toy OS for business applications lol surprise NOT.
Yet Win95 and then 98, and beyond, are what most corporations used and still use. Maybe you have no experience with what the real world is doing past 1993.
Maybe it's time we ALL had a poll vote to decide if Arkhan should be banned, clearly the moderators here are going for quantity rather than quality as far as member numbers go on Amiga.org haha
Big words from the flid whose opening argument here was a direct attack, and who bounces from computer scene to computer scene being fanboy of said computer until he's gone so r-tard that he has to leave. Your problem is you have tunnel vision love for the computer the forum you are currently hamfisting on is about. You can't see past it being the best thing since sliced bread because you just want approval.
As usual bullshit off-topic trolling has actually derailed an interesting thread, the simple facts are....
Dumbass, go read the title of the thread. In fact, here let me help you since you will probably go ADD on the way to reading it and start spewing more idiocy:
AMIGA vs
PC.
I don't see how discussing the pros/cons of a PC is off topic in a thread where PC IS IN THE FRIGGING TITLE. As usual, hamfisted fliddery has made you look like the forum tard. You know, sort of like your opening comment in this post. What is on topic about insulting me and bringing up a thread thats been done for awhile now? Good job. Loosen the chin strap on your helmet. It's cutting off the circulation to what little brain you have left.
A1000 vs 8086/80186 PC XT etc = slamdunk to A1000 on every possible aspect.
I should hope so considering an A1000 is newer by some years.
A1200/4000 vs 386SX/486DX ISA PC = grey area of swings and roundabouts.
Oh, but I thought it was clear that the Amiga was superior no matter what. Now you change your stance to a "maybe", depending on how you have everything configured? Simpleton.
Comparing today's PCs with souped up A1200/A4000s is about as useful as comparing an IBM XT with 128k ram and Hercules graphics card and PC speaker audio to a 512k A1000.
So you're saying this whole thread is useless? Try leaving then. You've contributed nothing but nonsense, as per the AMIGA_NUT standard.
LITTLE ARKHAN, OVER AND OUT.
