View Single Post
Old 05 May 2017, 15:23   #121
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by edd_jedi View Post
It is funny how long people tried to convince themselves the Amiga was a viable machine. I was reading a 1998 issue of Amiga Format last week and the writers were still using phrases like "multitasking" as if Mac and PCs couldn't do that by then. One of them was even trying to convince himself the Amiga was better than the 'new' iMac. We all know how that worked out.
The Amiga was and still is much more efficient at multitasking though. My Pentium M laptop fan broke a few years ago making it run at 800MHz. It was unusable with Windows XP. The latency was much worse than my 68060. The iMac in those years was probably low end PPC. The 68060 (and even fast 68040 is debatable) was better than those low end PPCs, especially with limited memory. This did start to change when the G3 was launched in August of 1998 (still slow to clock up) and as memory prices came down.

Originally Posted by edd_jedi View Post
I guess it was their job to try and stay positive, but let's be honest the Amiga was dead the minute CBM went bust. I got my A1200 in early 94 so really only caught the last year or so if it being a serious computer.
The Amiga was practically dead a couple of years before C= went bankrupt. The Amiga had already fallen behind competitive in the mainstream computer market. They started with the Amiga 1000 which was several years ahead of the competition and did only minor upgrades to it. The competition had several times faster processors by the time they went bankrupt while most of the computers C= sold didn't even have fast ram which would have doubled performance. The custom chip upgrades were so poor that they became a bottleneck. They were still trying to make the Amiga a C64 in the '90s .
matthey is offline  
Page generated in 0.06453 seconds with 10 queries