View Single Post
Old 24 June 2003, 14:01   #22
Music lord
FromWithin's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 595
Send a message via ICQ to FromWithin Send a message via AIM to FromWithin Send a message via MSN to FromWithin Send a message via Yahoo to FromWithin
Heh. This is cool. It's like being 15 again!

Originally posted by manicx
Assumptions make me laugh. If this and if that. In case of a broken Amiga drive what do you do these days and how much do you pay? What about Kylwada and Catweasel. You should also contact Eyetech and ask them to make some 1.76 drives for you. They may even be able to find 4-5 in eBay. Things is that PCs rule the world...
Yes, PCs rule the world these days, but the Amiga had a better floppy drive. The fact that the ST used a FAT file system variant is irrelevant. It's not a valid argument to claim that the ST was better because 15 years later, PCs can read its disks.

Seems you are a fast reader and you miss important parts in posts. I said that the whole Atari architecture was lacking not just the soundchip. It seems that some people want to argue all time.
In fact, you said "YM2149 delivered its job really well." It's job was to provide audio for a home computer, a job which it did not exactly impress with.

Have you wondered why they were Atari ports? Now here's a question for you. I personally know Steve Camber of the Infogrames glory and Yak, and they both answered this in the past, but I leave this to you to speculate....
I don't know their personal reasons, but the main reason across the industry is that the ST was cheaper and had a bigger market share and there was no financial incentive for companies to re-write a game for the Amiga when the development time would not be covered by the loss of revenue from making a straight ST port. Or, if the game was made by a third-party, no financial incentive at all from the Publisher.

WB was simply unusable from floppies. You wanted to format a floppy disk and you had to boot from floppy and wait 1 minute to boot up. You wanted basic file operations and it was the same. That's why people developed tools that were booting faster and were doing this things better. I remember, most of my friends back then, never bothered booting WB from floppy to do anything at all. They all had a floppy disk called EGA Team with tools and utilities.
Immediacy of the GEM screen appearing was a good thing, but it sacrificed a huge amount of flexibility. WB was not at all unusable from floppies. Just because you didn't like waiting or couldn't use the CLI does not make the Workbench inferior to GEM. It was better in every other way.

To be honest, WB1.3 was much better than TOS,
It seems that some people want to argue all time.


C'mon, R&D sucked. You speak about R&D in the 80's but where the hell was R&D when they released A500+, A600, and CD32? They even released A1200 in 92 whereas this machine should have been developed and released at least 3 years earlier... They totally lost the plot in exactly the same way Atari did. that's why they lost the game. They never saw the rise of 3D graphics...
You misunderstood my point there. I agree that Commodore's R&D should/could have been much better, but you suggested that in the industry in general, technology and R&D were moving forward at a fast pace, which is untrue. It took more than 10 years for the industry to catch up to the Amiga, and the reason it did (games-wise) was because a 33MHz 486 with a chunky display was much faster than a base Amiga with bitplanes, giving rise to, as you say, much better 3D.


My main point, and excuse me if I am bit rough, is that some people lost the meaning of home computing. The meaning of home computing is to have a computer that is fun, brings creativity and helps you in office works at home.
You're right. Computers are just tools, and if they do the job for you, then fine. But you can't come in here and say the ST is better than the Amiga and not expect a come-back from it.

So who cares if YM2149 was infrerior to Paula? ... Who cares if the graphics were better in Amiga games?
You do, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

The ST had the highres monitor that helped him fight against the PCs and Macs and Amiga only did this with AGA Amigas
It didn't help the fight against PCs or Macs at all, but those musicians certainly liked to pay through the nose for them (even though by using the mono out on the Amiga and turning the contrast down on your TV, you could get almost the same display ) And the A3000 (best Amiga they ever built) had a built-in filcker-fixer so you could use any PC monitor - a long time before AGA.


To sum up, I laugh when people show up to say Amiga was better because.... or ST was better because...
But you are the one who showed up to say that the ST was better! Eh?

This'll probably go on forever. I chose the Amiga route and was very happy with it. If you chose the ST route and you were happy with it too, then fine.
FromWithin is offline  
Page generated in 0.04025 seconds with 10 queries