Was anyone else disappointed with the A1200?

[gjb1985]

Originally Posted by mcgeezer

Was I disappointed in the A1200 back in the day.... remembering back yeah I think I was.

But today, the machine is a Power House (certainly compared to an OCS Amiga), the machine sits between a Megadrive and a SNES, but you have to take into account that AGA is backward compatible to ECS/OCS which was a double edged sword for Commodore.... it is paying dividends in 2019 for the community that wants to invest in the Amiga....basically buy an A1200.

But my main point is that the stock AGA has not nearly been tapped into yet as a gaming machine, it has huge potential and hopefully we're starting to see it with some of the productions coming through (Hypaborea/Reshoot-R series).

Good times are coming for Amiga fans, I feel it.

snes more powerful than the megadrive? Not in this universe.

[mcgeezer]

Originally Posted by gjb1985

snes more powerful than the megadrive? Not in this universe.

By a country mile!

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by gjb1985

snes more powerful than the megadrive? Not in this universe.

mcgeezer did not say so:
"the machine sits between a Megadrive and a SNES"

depends if you decode that little endian or big endian

[EmilAmiga90]

Commodore marketed it both as their intended successor to the Commodore 64 and as their competitor against the Apple Macintosh and the Atari ST. It was later renamed the Commodore Amiga 1000...

That was exactly my first impression when I first saw AMIGA 500 at my cousin's: an evolution of C64.
Good thing was the user manual took my hand and guided me step by step learning the Workbench and the Intuition interface, and then I realised that C64 and Amiga were totally different products.

Originally Posted by Avrovulcan

So in short, disappointed with the hardware?? Not really, more disappointed with the way Commodore handled things and the lack of software. Unfortunately these two things probably go hand in hand.

That's exactly my point.

Speaking of A1200 and A4000 I am not disappointed about the Amiga Platform, but the way it was managed caused it to become obsolete around the mid '90s. PC an MAC grow more and more advanced while Amiga grow very little in ten years.
Compare Apple policy to the Commodore policy. Apple is so proud of the platform that new products are "always" on the market, with lots of technology and functionality. They act as market leaders. (As an example, Intel do the same.)
In the Amiga scene, almost only the users really believe in the platform. Perhaps I am too focused on this point but I am convinced that part of the problem is that the original Amiga project was not from Commodore and what Commodore really wanted was just a successor of the C64.
Well, since C64 has VIC and SID custom chips, perhaps it could regarded sorta forerunner of the AMIGA

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by redblade

Was windows 3.0 useable in 256 colour?

Not really. I remember playing Solitaire and it was pathetically slow.

I don't think that the A1200 Workbench would be useable with 256 colours either.

Workbench is a bit sluggish in 256 colors on a stock A1200 for my tastes, though still better than a 16mHz 386SX with a typical SVGA card. But is it even a valid comparison?

With the PC you don't have much choice, it's either 16 or 256 colors and 640x480 or nothing. The A1200 can be tuned for the best combination of color, resolution and performance, and doesn't waste 16 colors on a standard CGA palette. It also has 24 bits per color rather than 18, so colors can be a bit more subtle and photos more accurate. And of course the A1200 has HAM8 which can display true 24 bit images without having to switch the desktop into that screen mode!

But was that 386SX easier to upgrade than the a1200?, replace SX chip with a DX chip instead of buying accelerator board, then having to buy RAM??

It came in a slimline case with a motherboard that was impossible to upgrade. IIRC the RAM slots were all used up, so to go higher you would have to pull out all the RAM and replace it with higher density SIMMs (assuming they would even work in the machine).

But those are 2 good machines to compare as they are both 32bit, similar mhz speeds. The 386 had the advantage of cheaper 3.5" IDE Hard drives and VGA had been out for a few years so the programmers had experience with the chipset.

Yes they are, and we did compare them side by side. Hard drive wasn't an issue because both came with one that was big enough, and the Amiga's chipset had been out for a few a years too. The A1200 blew the PC away for games and ease of use. But the PC had MSDOS and Windows so you could run business software on it, and that's why they sold.

I tried to promote the A1200 as more than a games machine, but nobody was interested because it wasn't IBM compatible. We even had one set up with Final Writer and GP fax, and used it ourselves for doing business stuff. And we played games on it too of course (for 'demonstration purposes only' ). But they still bought the crappy 386SX.

[rare_j]

Originally Posted by Solo Kazuki

All this discussion about "what if..." is omitting one thing: in mid 90s almost all computer platform dies in "vs PC" hardware war. Only Apple "survives", nowday it's PC clones, Macs and consoles, all other hardware platforms are just promiles of computer world.

So Amiga dies maybe few years too early, but sooner or later Amiga will share it with many other platforms.

This is it, Amiga is squeezed by the PC for productivity and smashed by Playstation for games. Amiga was totally impractical by 1998, possibly sooner.

[lesta_smsc]

Amiga was good for the time it released. It just didn't keep up the pace.

With respect to gaming, consoles always had the lead because they did not require any additional hardware other than what was already available. For those just interested in gaming, this was a big drive to move to consoles... it's why I stopped playing catch up upgrading my PC long ago! I'm more interested in gameplay than achieving the best graphics but gameplay needs to be smooth.

My 1st impression of Curse of Monkey Island when I went from DOS to this was WOW. Who needs 3D!?

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by EmilAmiga90

PC an MAC grow more and more advanced while Amiga grow very little in ten years.
Compare Apple policy to the Commodore policy. Apple is so proud of the platform that new products are "always" on the market, with lots of technology and functionality. They act as market leaders. (As an example, Intel do the same.)

Apple nearly went down the tubes despite continually releasing new models and being 'proud of the platform', and Intel doesn't even make computers.

Before Intel got lucky with the 8088 they were losing ground to other CPU manufacturers, and they had their share of duds afterwards too. But with the 486 and then the Pentium they faced stiff competition from other CPU manufacturers, which is largely what has driven development since then. Competition between clone manufacturers has always driven the PC market as a whole. This was painfully obvious in the '90s, when anyone could buy the parts and become a 'computer manufacturer' overnight.

How could the Amiga survive in that market? It wouldn't have mattered what amazing new chipset Commodore produced, next week PCs would have had something 'better' - and IBM compatible to boot!

In some ways though that was a good thing, for it means the Amiga is still as relevant today as it was then. And now we have the means to make it reach its full potential. PCs are now so far ahead that there's no point trying to catch up with them, so we don't have to try. We can just sit back and enjoy seeing what we can get out of our Amigas without fear of being 'disappointed' due to PC envy.

[Avrovulcan]

From some of the history I've read and seen on the Amiga as a whole and what's come to light since Commodore's eventual demise, I get the impression that Commodore did a hatchet job on the Amiga R&D sometime between the A500+ and AGA chips machines. I think that the lack of people dedicated to constantly improve the product range didn't help matters.
I would have loved an A3000 or 4000. Even being single and on a reasonable wage at the time these machines were still out of my reach.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

How could the Amiga survive in that market? It wouldn't have mattered what amazing new chipset Commodore produced, next week PCs would have had something 'better' - and IBM compatible to boot!

true

Apple did one thing right in this time period - even if it was a dangerous move and brought them near bankruptcy:
They allowed clones.
Legal Apple clones were more affordable and often faster than the original and of course they harmed Apples margin ...

But if you look at the overall marketshare at this time, you will see that Apple compatible computers actually gained some points!

That was crucial back than, because without market share you loose developers and software ...

After his returns to Apple Steve Jobs endet the cloning as fast as he could ... right move?
Steve was a marketing force on his own, but without the help of Microsoft (not only by money but by the more important promise to keep delivering MS Office for Mac) Apple would have been doomed.

Same goes for the famous workstation manufacturers like SUN, SGI and DEC...
They earned tons of money in the early 90s but went obsolete by the end of the decade.

Of all these companies (Commodore, Apple, Atari, SUN, SGI ...) only one or two had the chance to survive the 90s and is was not C=.

In some ways though that was a good thing, for it means the Amiga is still as relevant today as it was then. And now we have the means to make it reach its full potential. PCs are now so far ahead that there's no point trying to catch up with them, so we don't have to try. We can just sit back and enjoy seeing what we can get out of our Amigas without fear of being 'disappointed' due to PC envy.

with "Hombre" Commodore might have survived as a game console manufacturer but Hombre would not have been an Amiga...

After all I think Jack Tramiel is to blame ... kind of.
If someone else would have bought the Amiga startup together with Atari in 1984 followed by Commodore in 85 (almost bankrupt) as well as Acorn (also quite bankrupt in 85 and bought by Olivetti) and Sinclair in 86 (sold for just 10 Million to Amstrad) you would have constructed a giant that may have survived the 90s with the right management ... and there would be no Apple today.

The price war Atari vs. Amiga harmed both companies as neither would earn enough money to invest enough in development to compete with PCs.

That both companies invested the little money they got in PC development or in a retailer (Atari) did not help the cause either of course...

[swinkamor12]

Main problem of amiga 1200 was graphics. It has many times slower graphics than it should. Famous lack of chunky pixels.
Amiga 500 to then end of production in october 1992 was better computer than pc, has faster and better graphics and sound than pc, has better games than pc.
I was very disappointed with the A1200. Soon after I buy it was outdated.
Productivity software and games soon were better on pc than on amiga 1200.

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by swinkamor12

Main problem of amiga 1200 was graphics. It has many times slower graphics than it should. Famous lack of chunky pixels.
Amiga 500 to then end of production in october 1992 was better computer than pc, has faster and better graphics and sound than pc, has better games than pc.
I was very disappointed with the A1200. Soon after I buy it was outdated.
Productivity software and games soon were better on pc than on amiga 1200.

Its one of those moments in history where a lot of stuff was happening fast for PC compatibles in terms of graphics / multimedia.. (late 92 ish)
Commodore would have needed to get their shit together but the failure to release AAA on time was the start of the decline in graphic dominance. After a few years at the top it became clear they would be up against a crapload of companies starting to create video cards for PC compatibles..
Check computer Chronicle reports from comdex in say 1992 and its obvious tre Amiga was already in a tough spot .
[ Show youtube player ]
Amiga get a couple of seconds around 09.00 mins

It should however be noted that you couldn't buy a PC with decent graphics for the same price as an A1200 so what exactly are we comparing? We are comparing two different markets basically..
but anyway, once Wolfenstein, Doom etc were out on PC ppl suddenly started to look at the PC as the main gaming platform due to its capabilities not the price (a bit like now when ppl compare a €1300 iPhone to a €300 Huawei or something. Price gets filtered out of the discussion).
Pricewise, from a gaming market perspective the A1200 got murdered by the Playstation eventually.
I wonder how much more the the A1200 would cost if it was released with a 35 MHz 020 + 2MB FastRAM on board (theres room on the PCB) and how would it have sold with that adjusted price.
(The point here being that it would have not fallen out favour so fast among users and devs if ppl got Wolf ports right away on their stock machine.)

[mcgeezer]

Originally Posted by swinkamor12

M
I was very disappointed with the A1200. Soon after I buy it was outdated.

No fucking shit Sherlock!

[malko]

Originally Posted by swinkamor12

[...] I was very disappointed with the A1200. Soon after I buy it was outdated.
Productivity software and games soon were better on pc than on amiga 1200.

Funny how you compare the A1200 with PC. Funny because you always forget to mention that, at that time, PC components were outdated even before buying them...

And for the productivity PC software & games, most of the time you had to "upgrade" your PC to use them, not to mention the games that were working only with one specific gfx or sound card but not with another, etc., etc., etc.

So this "so wonderful" PC was already not the one you were talking about (except maybe the case that you kept after changing the motherboard, cpu, ram, gfx, snd, ...)

[mcgeezer]

Originally Posted by malko

And for the productivity PC software & games, most of the time you had to "upgrade" your PC to use them, not to mention the games that were working only with one specific gfx or sound card but not with another, etc., etc., etc.

Please don't forget the eye watering price for a PC too at the time...

[Oscar Castillo]

While the A1200 launched here in the US slightly cheaper than the A500, my only issue with it was cost of expansion. Impressive options, but too pricey.

[Amigajay]

Originally Posted by mcgeezer

Please don't forget the eye watering price for a PC too at the time...

PC gaming is still a rip off, the bare bone parts may have come down in price, but the prices of top end memory, ssd drives and gpu’s are laughable, you can buy a top end nvidia card for only £2475 on Scan and those are the idiots that buy this latest shit and compare their uploaded same day videos to a £299 PS4

[mcgeezer]

Originally Posted by Amigajay

PC gaming is still a rip off, the bare bone parts may have come down in price, but the prices of top end memory, ssd drives and gpu’s are laughable, you can buy a top end nvidia card for only £2475 on Scan and those are the idiots that buy this latest shit and compare their uploaded same day videos to a £299 PS4

I've never been in to PC gaming since I left Half Life 2.

I 'm with you... I can't understand why people would spunk that much money on a gaming machine - their logic hurts my head.

[lesta_smsc]

The same logic why people would pimp their cars and want 800BHP when they can only drive it at 70MPH (in the UK) legally lol.

[swinkamor12]

In november 1992 for price of Amiga 1200 you can buy 386 SX with graphics faster than Amiga 4000.
Some here compare 386SX with HD and monitor to bare a1200 and get 386SX was expensive, it is stupid.
Amiga 500 was hardware usable for years, when someone buy it in 1987, five years later it was still better than pc.
a1200 was expensive and soon after release it was outdated.
december 1993 and a1200 was done. It was too slow for money C= ask for it.