View Single Post
Old 07 April 2017, 02:18   #17
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,284
Originally Posted by Gilbert View Post
I know developers preferred programming on the consoles It was much easier for them. But yes obviously the Amiga had all the advantages of being a flexible computer and users could program it themselves. But how much better would it have been for users to be programming for a more successful/powerful machine with a larger installed base? Gaming was a huge reason people got into the original Amiga. Some of us later got into programming/graphics etc. But gaming and the amazing looking games were what tempted most of us into buying an Amiga in the first place.
A low cost modern 68k Amiga could be made even more friendly, dirt cheap, standard like a console with the performance benefits, tiny footprint, highly compatible with OCS-AGA, etc. It's not going to happen with a PPC Amiga.

Originally Posted by Gilbert View Post
I have to say I don't get the accelerator/gfx card thing? That seems to make it less like an Amiga to me and more like a PC. I'd rather have a powerful base Amiga (that everyone and my friends also own) with a standard shared-spec. Any machine can be made faster by adding extra chips (32X anyone? and at least that was an *attempt* at a massmarket solution)
I had bought a 3000 and looked at the 4000 when it came out but it was a downgrade with a 68ec030 (no MMU) with no FPU or slow and expensive a3640, no SCSI, ugly limited box, etc. The AGA was ok. It looked gorgeous and the possibility to play AGA games was nice but I didn't want to have to buy an accelerator and SCSI card to get back to the capabilities of my 3000. I ended up buying a CV64/3D for my 3000 instead. Although it is incompatible with most AGA games, it is many times faster and has chunky. It blew AGA away for productivity and the RTG is pretty seamless. The few RTG games were faster with the gfx card. Yea, it would have been better if C= had made a better, faster, chunky, upgradeable integrated gfx solution with RTG but they didn't. I wasn't disappointed with the 1200 at the low end of the market as AGA had appropriate capabilities there. It was also fairly expandable although I thought the base processor should have been a low clocked 68030 CPU with memory socket (the CD32 too). I thought the 3000 and 1200 were right from a marketing perspective and the 4000 and 600 all wrong. The 3000 could have had AGA and the 1200 should have been more mass produced to lower costs instead of sharing production with the 600 so C= management even messed them up. All the big box Amigas from the 4000 on should have used the same motherboard, standard tower cases and standard power supplies.
matthey is offline  
Page generated in 0.04017 seconds with 11 queries