Originally posted by StarEye
[B]Probably not very relevant, but the PS2 doesn't emulate PS1. It has a PS1 inside, as well as the PS2. Like a PS1-on-a-chip. That's why it works so well.
The emulator is stored on a ROM and is called when the PS2 sees a PS1 disc has been inserted.
When talking in september of last year about the backwards compatability of the Playstation 3, Sony Computer Entertainment boss Ken Kutaragi said...
This trend [for backwards compatibility] started by Sony with the PS2, as backwards compatibility in home consoles was certainly not the norm before then - is set to continue with the PS3, which will offer emulation for the PS2 and hence for the PSone.
"PSone runs on the PlayStation 2 through emulation rather than actual hardware. PlayStation 3 will offer the same compatibility for PS2 software and the format will continue forever," he explained.
Link for quote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/32615.html
Getting back to point in hand, Elitist wasn't perhaps the correct phrase to use - I think purist would have been better.
Your view, Akira, appears to be an example that is one extreme side of the argument. My view is perhaps at the centre point - I'm happy using both emulation and real Amiga (perhaps the more popular standpoint)? The extreme other side of the argument is that emulation surpasses the original hardware making Amiga hardware redundant.
I don't see why it has to be argument though. If a person dislikes emulation but likes hardware then why should that bother a person who dislikes the hardware and would rather use emulation, and vice versus? Both are still doing tasks that are Amiga related and in the sprit of Amiga.
Within the spectrum of choice that the argument suggests, it seems to me that all viewpoints are perfectly valid.
Regarding nostalgia - it is a real 'trip' to use some of the older software but the Amiga is still a machine that is a perectly capable computer and is still used in various ways by some people. I mentioned before that I've got Wordworth 7 and I just love it and still use it to write documents - nothing IMO beats it on looks or feel and it's a pleasure to use.
Conversely, Microsoft Word is a pain to use, looks ugly but on my system it's extremely responsive (especially considering my awful spelling!!!**). Again, an example of two ways of acheiving a same end and it comes down to personal preference as to which is used.
** My spelling isn't all that bad!!!