English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Retrogaming General Discussion

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 09 November 2018, 20:19   #121
sneeker
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Manchester!
Posts: 189
It was 93 when I jumped ship, had a 500, 2fdd and 1mb ram and I was all set to buy an A1200 with a 120mb hdd, but jumped ship to a pc.
For an A1200 with the hdd it was a little over £500 from most places, then I started looking at pc's
I ended up with a 386/40, 2mb Ram, svga monitor and graphics card and an entire 42mb hdd for the same price. But the Advantage of the pc then was it was possible to upgrade, so in went a sound galaxy 16 that was £50, then a 210mb hdd when the 42mb died for another 120 or so, then another 2mb ram, then a year later I bought a dx2/66 motherboard and chip for £200 and had a very capable pc for the time.

Granted Dos and WFW3.11 wasnt as good as Workbench, but it ran all the latest titles and having seen what was coming out on the amiga, there wasnt much that made me miss it, all the best games in my eyes had already come out for the ecs machines.

Even now, with a fairly upgraded 1200, games I play are generally from the ecs era anyway.
sneeker is offline  
Old 09 November 2018, 21:08   #122
nexus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 727
thats the other thing when you bought AGA you could still do all the great stuff from prior years
which on a PC sucked even more
nexus is offline  
Old 10 November 2018, 07:20   #123
swinkamor12
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Vienna/Austria
Posts: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by nexus View Post
i see 386's with everything a shitty 256k card 14"640x480 VGA monitor 40mb hdd for $899
Yes, as You wrote 386 with everything for 900$, add 100$ for better graphics card.
And as I wrote for the price of amiga 1200 (with hdd and monitor) one can buy 386 sx (with hdd and monitor) with better and faster graphics than amiga 4000 (with hdd and monitor).
Of course in 1992 two os on pc (MSDOS and Win 3.x) was nightmare compared to Amiga Os.
swinkamor12 is offline  
Old 10 November 2018, 14:47   #124
PortuguesePilot
Global Moderator
PortuguesePilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Setúbal, Portugal
Posts: 444
Win 3.X was no OS at all. It was just a glorified shell. It provided some "extensions" to DOS but run natively over DOS. Its merits were grossly based on the fact that it provided the PCs with an intuitive GUI (something that other machines had had for almost a decade before, such as the Amiga, the Mac and even the ST).

Also: plain VGA was not better than AGA, IMO. SVGA was, but plain VGA wasn't. Given that in 1992 most home PCs came with an Oak Technology OTI037C 8-bit VGA (not SVGA nor VESA), the only thing it actually did better than AGA was chunky. Everything else was either on par or bellow AGA abilities. The VGA architecture was actually rather bad at the DRAM management and relied heavily on the CPU power to do part of the work. VGA bottlenecked the CPU, while on the Amiga, the CPU bottlenecked the OCS. The result was that the Amiga had faster graphics, with a blitter and seamless transitions with little to no need for the CPU, even in OCS. If you take AGA into the equation, it delivered the oh-so-important 256 simultaneous colours on screen and more aperture for extra graphics. The result of this? Contemporary (early 1990's) games, practically 99% of PC games were inferior to their Amiga counterparts, even in the graphic department. Hence why I said "Google 1992 DOS games" in my previous post.

Also, by 1992, the best sound card available for the PC (if we exclude the prohibitively expensive professional ones) was the Creative Labs Sound Blaster Pro that has a Yamaha YM3812 chip for sound, which is more akin to some 8bit machines (like the MSX, the SEGA Master System and the Commodore 64) than it is to the mighty Paula that even to this day is rightly regarded as revolutionary for its day.

All in all, at the time, if you wanted a PC to fully rival an Amiga 1200 you'd have to buy at the very least a 386DX/40 with an S3 924 VGA board and a Creative Labs Sound Blaster Pro (later that year, a Sound Blaster 16). Search for the value of those components in 1992 and do the math. Also: no PC would ever ship without an HDD and 40MB HDD was the norm in 1992. 2MB RAM was also norm (in fact, many lower-tier PCs shipped with 1MB RAM in 1992). RAM was expensive. More than 2MB and you have to give an arm and a leg. For a top-tier PC you paid not double but triple the price of an Amiga 1200. These are facts, not opinions.

Sure, PCs had their advantages (hence why they won the computer wars) but back in 1992 the Amiga was still the undisputed champion in what it came to home computing gaming. It was even acknowledge by the magazines of the time. The Amiga was the apparent perfect mix of the versatility and raw power of a computer with the dedicated and specific performance in graphics and sound of a console, i.e.: games. It gave a run to the MegaDrive (the most sold 16bit console in the Western World at the time) in gaming and it also competed very aptly with the PCs and Macs when it came to serious usage (word processing [WordsWorth, etc.], graphic work [Deluxe Paint, etc.] and sound editing [Soundtracker, Protracker, etc.]). And don't get me started on the MIDI expansions or Video Toasters, etc. All that which the Amiga provided from the box was already immense and all of it at a fraction of the price of a full-fledge PC and only a tad more expensive than the "good-for-games-only" MegaDrive. Form mid-1985 to around mid-1994, it was the logic choice.

Last edited by PortuguesePilot; 10 November 2018 at 17:01.
PortuguesePilot is offline  
Old 10 November 2018, 23:34   #125
d4rk3lf
Registered User

d4rk3lf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Novi Sad, Serbia
Posts: 381
First of all... I am drunk...
but I'l try to be constructive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PortuguesePilot View Post
plain VGA was not better than AGA,
For me, OCS was waaay better then VGA. I know it does not have technical predisposition for that. I know that VGA provides more color per "whatever"... I just remember how I looked it, as a kid.
From one side, I had a friend with (beast) 386 DX/40MHz, and on the other side you had my other friend with just A500 (1MB)
Let's start Mortal Kombat 2 on A500... wait.. wait.. there it goes... awesome.
It's pretty slow loading, but gameplay was awesome.
Let's start with 386-40MHZ, 2MB, VGA... no way to run it...

Later, my friend with 386 gets another 2MB RAM for his 386, so he can play MK2, and (haha) like, physically forced me to look at it.
I said: This is still crap.
And it was.
Choppy animation, VERY, VERY pixaleted graphics... it was just.. very bad...
Sega and SNintendo was also in pair with Amiga port.

At that time I had C64, so, I guess I was somewhat of objective?
d4rk3lf is offline  
Old 12 November 2018, 13:05   #126
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 3,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foebane View Post
I should point out that the PC had a major DISadvantage when it came to gaming in the early 1990s: it was called MS-DOS. Enough said.
MS-DOS may have sucked in almost every other department, but it was actually great for running games.

d4rk3lf: Not a chance. The PC conversion of MK2 was FAR better than the Amiga version (which if I recall correctly was not even HD installable!)
Hewitson is offline  
Old 12 November 2018, 13:15   #127
Amigajay
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: >
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
MS-DOS sucked in every department
Fixed that for ya
Amigajay is online now  
Old 12 November 2018, 13:18   #128
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 3,111
Amiga: Less than 1% of games hard drive installable.
MS-DOS: Almost 100% of games hard drive installable.

Let's face it. Before WHDLoad, playing games on the Amiga sucked.
Hewitson is offline  
Old 12 November 2018, 13:24   #129
Amigajay
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: >
Posts: 1,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
Amiga: Less than 1% of games hard drive installable.
MS-DOS: Almost 100% of games hard drive installable.

Let's face it. Before WHDLoad, playing games on the Amiga sucked.
Yeah, inserting a disk and having it automatically load on an Amiga, compared to having an ancient text based OS and having to install a game manually on a DOS PC, really made the Amiga suck!
Amigajay is online now  
Old 12 November 2018, 13:27   #130
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 3,111
No it didn't, but changing disks 500,000 times and having to wait an absolute eternity for it to load certainly did!

The ultimate example of copy protections crippling software. The Commodore Amiga.

Edit: How many multi-disk games did not even support more than 1 FDD? Simply ridiculous.

Last edited by Hewitson; 12 November 2018 at 13:33.
Hewitson is offline  
Old 12 November 2018, 13:38   #131
vulture
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Athens , Greece
Posts: 920
Well, regarding hd installations and loading times, Hewitson's right. But, there was real science involved into getting many games to run on MS-DOS with all those EMS, XMS, drivers in autoconfig etc which was a real pita.

Last edited by vulture; 16 November 2018 at 20:24.
vulture is online now  
Old 12 November 2018, 13:51   #132
toples50
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Greece
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinkamor12 View Post
Some "smart" people compare price of bare amiga 1200 without hdd and computer monitor with 386 SX with hdd and computer monitor.

Ok. For me it is no problem:

Commodore bankrupt because for the price of amiga 1200 (with hdd and monitor) one can buy 386 sx (with hdd and monitor) with better and faster graphics than amiga 4000 (with hdd and monitor).

I didn't wrote "pc was better".
MS-DOS was terrible of course, hard to set up and use, but graphics was better on 386 SX.
386SX better than A1200/A4000.? No way my friend.VGA at the time was crap in animation.160x120 resolution with 256 colors.Amiga ncan animate in higher resolution with 262K colors no comparison!When launched the AGA line Amiga was far ahead than any out of the box PC.Its that simple.
toples50 is offline  
Old 12 November 2018, 13:52   #133
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 3,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by vulture
Well, regarding hd installations and loading times, Hewitson's right. But, there was real science involved into getting many games to run on MS-DOS with all thos EMS, XMS, drivers in autoconfig etc which was a real pita.
With all due respect, if you knew what you were doing it was quite easy to configure your config.sys/autoexec.bat for optimum available memory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toples50
386SX better than A1200/A4000.? No way my friend.VGA at the time was crap in animation.160x120 resolution with 256 colors.Amiga ncan animate in higher resolution with 262K colors no comparison!When launched the AGA line Amiga was far ahead than any out of the box PC.Its that simple.
I'm sorry but that's just incorrect. When launched, "out of the box" PC's were playing Doom. The Amiga is still struggling to do this at an acceptable framerate.

Last edited by Hewitson; 12 November 2018 at 13:57.
Hewitson is offline  
Old 12 November 2018, 13:52   #134
malko
Ex nihilo nihil

malko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: CH
Posts: 1,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
Amiga: Less than 1% of games hard drive installable.
MS-DOS: Almost 100% of games hard drive installable.

Let's face it. Before WHDLoad, playing games on the Amiga sucked.

So you didn't enjoy playing any games until the first release of WHDLoad on September 5, 1996 ?

On the PC side, optimizing "autoexec.bat" and "config.sys" for games was a "science" at that time and was definitively not making game easier to install on PC . A game, a config. Thanks that a possibility to add menu with those two files were added in MS-DOS 6 in August 1993...

Last edited by malko; 12 November 2018 at 14:14. Reason: added a link
malko is offline  
Old 12 November 2018, 14:02   #135
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 3,111
Of course I enjoyed playing games. Sadly I enjoyed many of them more on the PC due to the non-existent loading times.

I honestly don't know why people found it difficult to get a decent amount of RAM out of their MS-DOS system. I had no issues with demos or games, and I was loading drivers for both SB and GUS!
Hewitson is offline  
Old 12 November 2018, 14:03   #136
PortuguesePilot
Global Moderator
PortuguesePilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Setúbal, Portugal
Posts: 444
One thing we must concede: the HDD generalization on the PC market was one of the main reasons it won the computer wars... That part is true. The ideal A1200 should have come with AA or Ranger (instead of AGA), High Density floppy disk support (which meant an upgraded Paula. Not doing this was a huge mistake that we all saw even back then) and an internal Hard Disk Drive (they could have made several models, from 20MB HDD all the way to 120MB and charge accordingly, so as to have a choice, à la PS3 and similar).

If the A1200 (and the A4000, by extension) had brought all those features to the battlefield, the PC wouldn't have caught up with the Amiga with its 486 iteration and the computer wars could have dragged on for a few years more.

But these demerits on the Amiga part do NOT change the fact that, in 1992, the Amiga 1200 was the sensible choice for both computer aficionados and for gamers as well. It did offer the best of both worlds and basically combined a games console and a serious computer in the same box. There's a reason why we're all here and have a cult following for a computer that is 30 years old... It really was THAT good.
PortuguesePilot is offline  
Old 12 November 2018, 14:08   #137
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 3,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by PortuguesePilot View Post
But these demerits on the Amiga part do NOT change the fact that, in 1992, the Amiga 1200 was the sensible choice for both computer aficionados and for gamers as well.
Agree with all the points you've made but this one. The A1200 was not a sensible choice for gamers, as when they got their new Amiga home, they found that only a fraction of their games actually worked on it.

Who wants to upgrade when most of their software won't work? If you upgraded from a 386 to a 486 almost all games still worked.
Hewitson is offline  
Old 12 November 2018, 14:10   #138
meynaf
son of 68k
meynaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 46
Posts: 3,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
I'm sorry but that's just incorrect. When launched, "out of the box" PC's were playing Doom. The Amiga is still struggling to do this at an acceptable framerate.
As if Doom was the only acceptable graphical reference !
Many games on the Amiga simply can't work on a 386 PC. Try Banshee, for example.
meynaf is offline  
Old 12 November 2018, 14:38   #139
PortuguesePilot
Global Moderator
PortuguesePilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Setúbal, Portugal
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
Agree with all the points you've made but this one. The A1200 was not a sensible choice for gamers, as when they got their new Amiga home, they found that only a fraction of their games actually worked on it.

Who wants to upgrade when most of their software won't work? If you upgraded from a 386 to a 486 almost all games still worked.

True. We debated that elsewhere as well, can't remember if it was in this thread or not. But the fact that the A1200 had (more than) a slight incompatibility with the A500 (heck, even the A500+ and A600 had incompatibilities) did hurt its reputation and may have hindered sales a bit. DOS games were more compatible (8088 CGA games would run on a 486 SVGA machine) but they were hampered by other problems that we didn't have in the Amiga at the time: for instance, a 1992 DOS game was made for the hardware that was being sold AT THE TIME. It means that most people would have dated machines and the game would drag or be too slow to play. Mortal Kombat is a good example. On a 486DX2-66 with a competent VGA board and a Sound Blaster 16 sound card, it's almost as good as the arcade, being only inferior to the Amiga version in the sound department and shaming the Amiga version in everything else. But it was sluggish on anything other than a high-bus 486. It dragged on a 486SX-40 and was unplayable on a 386, even if you used no sound and used the low settings for the graphics. And, as is known, most people didn't had 486DX computers in 1992. They costed more than a Yugo. All these issues made the (obviously limited) Amiga version a better game, because it was VERY playable, in spite of its graphic limitations (and lack of music variation, in part blamed by the lack of space [i.e.: floppy disks]).


This example can be applied to many more games from the times. We must take into account that, in those days, the average life-time of a top-tier PC as a top-tier PC was 3 months. The Amiga 1200 was released in 1992 and was criticized for some of its hardware choices but still managed to be competitive up until Commmodore's demise in 1994. That's a full two year time, which was a lot if we consider the home computing market of that time.


Many games were better on the PC, yes, namely the Ultima VIII and the Wing Commanders, Wolfenstein 3D, etc. They took advanatage of two things that the Amiga lacked: widespread Hard Disk Drive use and chunky graphics (plus, the 386/486 architectures, being full-32bit and with larger frequencies, were much better suited for 3D processing than the Motorolla 680x0 processors). Still, I believe that if HDDs were also prevalent on Amiga 1200 machines, games like Ultima VIII and even Wing Commander could have been much better on the Amiga than they were (Ultima VIII was never released on the Amiga, but it probably would have been IF the Amiga market had a wide-spread HDD user-base, which it didn't).
PortuguesePilot is offline  
Old 13 November 2018, 04:13   #140
d4rk3lf
Registered User

d4rk3lf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Novi Sad, Serbia
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
d4rk3lf: Not a chance. The PC conversion of MK2 was FAR better than the Amiga version (which if I recall correctly was not even HD installable!)
I was talking about my feeling as a kid, when I tried it out on 386 (after A500).
The framerate was not consistent, it goes slow, then faster, then slow, and it completely ruined the gameplay. Pixels were huge and ugly.
I do agreed it's overall nice conversion, though.
As for the HD conversion, I think even before Whdload, A1200 could play it from HD. Maybe with some hacks, but I think they could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
Amiga: Less than 1% of games hard drive installable.
MS-DOS: Almost 100% of games hard drive installable.
I'd put it like this:
Amiga - can be played from floppy and from HD
PC - can be played only from HD.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
No it didn't, but changing disks 500,000 times and having to wait an absolute eternity for it to load certainly did!
You are much exaggerating things.
I think average Amiga games floppies per games were 2, or max 3 disks.
Take, for example 2 great games: Ruff'n'Tumble, and Shadow of the Beast. Neither takes long loading times, and there are many many games that loads pretty fast also. 30-35 seconds max. So, even with Sega, you had to wait like 15 seconds for the game to load's up.
Larger games (like Simon the sorcerer, Monkey Island, Dune 2...) had Hd install anyway.

So again, I am glad that Amiga provided both options: playing from HD, and also poor folks, that couldn't afford HD, could play it from the disks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
The A1200 was not a sensible choice for gamers, as when they got their new Amiga home, they found that only a fraction of their games actually worked on it.
Who wants to upgrade when most of their software won't work?
Most software don't work?
I had A1200 (later, at 1996), and maybe only 5% of the games didn't worked. Some games I even manage to make work with boot options.
Actually the only game I remember that I couldn't make to work is Moonstone.
Apps worked perfectly also: Deluxe Paint, Real 3D, Octamed... etc
d4rk3lf is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best Capture Device for recording Amiga Djay support.Hardware 22 21 December 2011 00:47
Fightin' Spirit AGA Anakirob project.WHDLoad 14 03 December 2011 19:07
Fighting Spirit AGA - Full working config? gogoac support.Games 7 13 January 2008 11:46
Best settings for Amiga music 'capture' ? wanderer support.WinUAE 10 19 September 2005 07:46
Where is the Amiga spirit of the 90's? Tolismlf Nostalgia & memories 12 13 July 2004 20:09

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:26.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.09917 seconds with 15 queries