Ok, I'll take some flak for this - I chose the wrong title for the thread, but Birdy should never have bothered posting if he found all this "boring" as that's what pushed everything off-track.
So like Rck said let's get back on-track.
My initial post was never meant to be a modern PC vs Amiga war as shadowfire implies, this is a totally unfair comparison.
It is fair to compare both machines of the same era (up to 1992), after which (and even before) the PC enjoyed a much higher rate of development/marketing due to greater financial sources.
The fact, however, that people can defend a machine with advanced (for the time) 80's and early 90's architecture against a modern PC beast does emphasise my true issues very well:
It's more to do with pointing out how well a decade old machine has aged with very little opportunity for development. It was about standing tall and holding our heads high that this dead machine (a dinosaur in computing terms) is still usable today.
This is all due to the Amiga being ahead of its time and having an excellent design and OS ethic that requires very little hardware resources to accomplish powerful up-to-date tasks.
Finally, I was trying to envisage what an Amiga would have been like to this day if it had enjoyed an ongoing well financed development/marketing path such as the PC.
I believe it would have turned out to be a much more productive and efficient platform than a PC. Just looking at the history and abilities of the machines/OS up until 1992 gave the Amiga a clear advantage in terms of potential. It could simply do a lot more with less. It was a better fundamental design.
These were the key issues I made in my initial post, but obviously in more detail.
Thanks to those who have posted in this thread, itís certainly allowed me to view the Amiga from another angle.