Amiga scene desperately needs two things.

[Foebane]

Amiga and C64 on the Demoscene (figures from Pouet.net):

https://www.pouet.net/prodlist.php?p...dore+64&page=1 770 pages

https://www.pouet.net/prodlist.php?p...S%2FECS&page=1 557 pages

https://www.pouet.net/prodlist.php?p...iga+AGA&page=1 152 pages

https://www.pouet.net/prodlist.php?p...C%2FRTG&page=1 6 pages

As far as I can tell, the Commodore 64 is the biggest Demoscene platform around (by number of productions) but the Amiga, in all its forms combined, is a close second. Not bad, considering how much longer it takes to make productions for the Amiga.

I'd say the Amiga platform is healthy in that regard, although most are interested in games, too. It's high-quality games that, I suppose, are lacking.

[britelite]

Originally Posted by Foebane

As far as I can tell, the Commodore 64 is the biggest Demoscene platform around (by number of productions) but the Amiga, in all its forms combined, is a close second.

Pouet isn't the best way to measure the amount of productions, as there's quite a lot of pre-2000's stuff missing. But if only looking at Pouet, then the PC in it's most popular forms (DOS+Windows) is by far the biggest platform.

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by Foebane

As far as I can tell, the Commodore 64 is the biggest Demoscene platform around (by number of productions) but the Amiga, in all its forms combined, is a close second. Not bad, considering how much longer it takes to make productions for the Amiga.

Comparing the two is silly. But it's even more problematic to lump all those Amiga platforms together.

I said it before and was welcomed with boos and hisses from the zealots: people need to stop lumping Amiga together like if it meant only one thing. There's at least 3 or 4 different things, actual PLATFORMS, that are called "Amiga", and they are not (totally or fully) compatible with each other. Development on one rarely benefits the other. Development in one usually means development taken from the other.

And also there's this:

Originally Posted by britelite

Pouet isn't the best way to measure the amount of productions

My point regarding the demoscene is that there aren't as many people in it making stuff as in other platforms.
The C64 also had a HUGE bump by way of many of the old farts coming back to it in recent years, something we don't rally see here much.

[britelite]

Originally Posted by Akira

My point regarding the demoscene is that there aren't as many people in it making stuff as in other platforms.
The C64 also had a HUGE bump by way of many of the old farts coming back to it in recent years, something we don't rally see here much.

Indeed, the C-64 also benefits from not having multiple different configurations, which makes it a lot easier to return to the platform even after a longer break. It's pretty much a given that the demos (and games) have to work on a standard C-64 + 1541-compatible diskdrive.

I also have my own theory on why the C-64 has stuck around better than most other 80's platforms, but that might be a topic for another thread

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by britelite

Pouet isn't the best way to measure the amount of productions, as there's quite a lot of pre-2000's stuff missing. But if only looking at Pouet, then the PC in it's most popular forms (DOS+Windows) is by far the biggest platform.

I wasn't actually comparing PC, but C64 and Amiga. Sorry if I didn't make that clearer.

And PC is a lot more than DOS and Windows. You have to include the Gravis Ultrasound with DOS, for example. Unless that's what you meant?

[britelite]

Originally Posted by Foebane

I wasn't actually comparing PC, but C64 and Amiga. Sorry if I didn't make that clearer.

Ok, fair enough, my mistake.

And PC is a lot more than DOS and Windows.

Which is why I said "most popular forms". But I did leave out Linux/OSX and other smaller (in a demoscene context) categories.

You have to include the Gravis Ultrasound with DOS, for example. Unless that's what you meant?

Yes, DOS-demos using Gravis Ultrasound are still DOS-demos, so of course I included them.

[donnie]

I think the difference is in the way amigans look at amiga vs c64 fans look at c64.

c64 fans know c64 is completely obsolete where as amiga fans still want amiga to be an alternative to pc. Thus c64 fans cherish the original hardware for what it is. Where as amigans just want to tinker and better it to get away from it shortcomings.

[Amiga1992]

Originally Posted by donnie

c64 fans know c64 is completely obsolete where as amiga fans still want amiga to be an alternative to pc.

Not true of everyone.
Again, read what everyone said about platform fragmentation.

The person that wants to use an Amiga as "alternate hardware to PC" are far, FAR different from those who cherish the old hardware. And there's a lot of us who wouldn't give a shit about connecting an Amiga to the Internet or other things like that.

We all exist, we are all very different, yet that stupid name, "Amiga", is over all of us, like an umbrella, covering us all the same. Hence why I disagree with all platforms being called the same.

(Likewise, there are people who do enjoy pushing C64 hardware to new heights, case you didn't read, you can do Internet things with one and other crazy stuff, for those who actually care)

[donnie]

I am generalising obviously. So i am not targeting anyone specific. It is just a general aura or feeling of the whole amiga scene.

If you look at the amiga scene from outer space, which is what i am doing. My impression would is that it is geared torwards tinkering and upgrading hardware.

where as c64 is about developing software for stock c64.

There are expansions for the c64, there are different models, and different software delivery formats. Its just that nobody cares. Where as on amiga it is everything.

[Daedalus]

Indeed, the C64 was a standard platform from a time when nobody bothered much with backwards compatibility. The Amiga changed that because it came about in an era where people did actually want some compatibility, and also when machines were significantly more complicated so incremental upgrades were the way to go, rather than designing entirely new machines and operating systems almost from scratch each generation. So while the C64 at the time could be expanded with some peripherals, the Amiga got faster CPUs, more RAM, better graphics, graphics and sound cards, networking, all within its lifetime. The Amiga was designed to be expanded and used in this way, the C64 was not.

[malko]

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

[...] You can't compare the c64 and Amiga, the latter gets compared to better machines, the c64 gets compared with the c64.

Agree .

Originally Posted by Daedalus

[...] The Amiga was designed to be expanded and used in this way, the C64 was not.

Yep .
Not to mention the fact that both C64 & Amiga were released by C=.
At that time, Amiga was just seen as the natural successor of the C64 and there was no pros/cons argumentation. There was simply no question about it and about the technology step. People were changing their computer for something visibly better.

Also, at that time, nobody wanted backward compatibility. For sure the fact that those two computers have different names helped a lot. There was the small 8bit brother (C64) and the big 16/32bit brother (Amiga) both from the C= family.

Problems and useless "blah blah" came after... when C= played with a base prefix (Amiga) and various suffixes (500, 600, 1200, CDTV, CD32). There were not new big brother and people were little inclined to change as the differences were not fantastic.

[donnie]

I just dont think that is true.

In its prime. 87-93. The golden era. 90% or so of all amigas sold where basically an amiga 500. Amiga 500 is as upgradable as c64, or atleast was in practice, until the last year. Overwhelmingly majority of those a500 where used as stock machnies playing games, demos on a floppy.

This is state of the art, shadow of the beast, turrican 2. The amiga that was fucking awesome.

[nobody]

I just had a look in Facebook and all I see is naked PCBs and opened cases.

About 90% of the posts. Every now and then someone posts a screenshot of an old game to break the tech frenzy.

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by donnie

Amiga 500 is as upgradable as c64, or atleast was in practice, until the last year.

The A500 was designed to be much more expandable than the C64 - it had a very well designed auto-configuring expansion bus, and a port for adding extra RAM and a real-time clock, both fully supported by the OS and documented by Commodore to allow such expansions to be used. Within the years mentioned, this meant that the A500 could be upgraded to a 1MB chip (or 512+512 depending on revision) + 8MB fast, 68030 and hard drive-equipped machine, certainly a massive boost to the standard specification, all with consumer-fitted expansions and without opening the case.

The fact that people didn't tend to upgrade their Amigas and only played (pirated) games from floppy disk, shows the same mindset that applied to the C64 - it's a games machine at a standard spec. This is also the mindset that meant people *wouldn't* upgrade to play better games, unlike in the PC world where that started to happen, essentially dooming the Amiga to be stuck at 68000 + floppy levels.

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by Daedalus

The fact that people didn't tend to upgrade their Amigas and only played (pirated) games from floppy disk, shows the same mindset that applied to the C64 - it's a games machine at a standard spec. This is also the mindset that meant people *wouldn't* upgrade to play better games, unlike in the PC world where that started to happen, essentially dooming the Amiga to be stuck at 68000 + floppy levels.

Was that pun intended?