Machine Wars - Fight!

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by kovacm

You have 68060/100MHz SD-RAM accelerator called CT60/63 for Atari Falcon.

Best Amiga demos best performs on Atari Falcon

Silkcut on Atari Falcon: [ Show youtube player ]

The CT60 was released around the same time the AmigaOne was released.

So the Atari lacked a 68060 accelerator when it still had a chance of being relevant, while the Amiga got 68060 accelerators, PowerPC/68060 accelerators and finally migrated to a different platform.

The Atari lacked a 68060 accelerator while the "best Amiga demos" were made, hence it must make do with Amiga demos instead of demos of its owned.

[Amigajay]

Originally Posted by kovacm

my eyes was used to rock stable, 71Hz, crystal clear SM124 picture

used to? need flicker fixer now?

Originally Posted by kovacm

Even Amiga game coders prefer to use ST with SM124 than Amiga with Amiga monitors for coding

I don't deny some may have done, but to say the Amiga was basically unusable for any length of time is BS!

Originally Posted by kovacm

Falcon is amazing machine with DSP, 16bit audio, chunk graphics, VGA, audio in, SCSI, realtime audio effect, harddisc recording, synth... much more amazing than Amiga1200 which is essential Amiga1000 with 32bit bus and 14MHz CPU.

Falcon COULD have been an amazing machine, had Atari 1) got the hardware right and not fucked the bus and ram situations 2) got developers behind it, no software support and all you have is a worthless piece of hardware 3) the price was lower, it was too high for the budget computer market and not powerful enough for people buying a 386 PC to play Doom etc apart from that then yeah

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by Amigajay

Sorry this is BS, its like saying how anyone could use computers in the 80s or 90s full stop, people did it was fine, perhaps your eyesight was not so good? blatant shit stirring alert!

No it isn't. It made the Amiga downright illegal as a work computer in some places, and made it impossible to introduce in the workplace because the union would demand screens that were usable for word processing.

[drHirudo]

Originally Posted by kovacm

Falcon is amazing machine with DSP, 16bit audio, chunk graphics, VGA, audio in, SCSI, realtime audio effect, harddisc recording, synth... much more amazing than Amiga1200 which is essential Amiga1000 with 32bit bus and 14MHz CPU.

Amazing machine that sold <14000 specimens.
Around 400,000 Amiga 1200 were sold world wide. There are other AGA machines sold as well - Amiga CD32, Amiga 4000, Amiga 4000T.
But then the Atari ST got something that the Amiga never had - a laptop! Even if these laptops were utter monochrome crap and sold <40,000 machines.

[kovacm]

Originally Posted by Amigajay

used to? need flicker fixer now?

No since LCD monitors finally have same quality as old B/W SM124

Originally Posted by Amigajay

I don't deny some may have done, but to say the Amiga was basically unusable for any length of time is BS!

You can use even interlace mode if you like. Maybe it is usable and fine with you but I prefer crystal clear, 71Hz, picture of SM124

Originally Posted by Amigajay

Falcon COULD have been an amazing machine, had Atari 1) got the hardware right and not fucked the bus and ram situations

could be ONLY better

Originally Posted by Amigajay

2) got developers behind it, no software support and all you have is a worthless piece of hardware

from where did you get idea that there were no software for Falcon (you and other Amiga users...)? Yes, there was almost no games but there was lot of software that use Falcon hardware.

Originally Posted by Amigajay

3) the price was lower, it was too high for the budget computer market and not powerful enough for people buying a 386 PC to play Doom etc apart from that then yeah

Now we know that Falcon is better than Amiga 1200 since it can run full version of Doom - it could run in 1992. if Atari sold more Falcons and if developers would program for it.

Falcon was (and it is) hardware wise much better than Amiga 1200. Software support was certainly much much grater for Amiga since it was sold 30 times more. No dispute here.

[AnimaInCorpore]

Originally Posted by Amigajay

Falcon COULD have been an amazing machine, [...]

The real problem was that the era of heavy specialised computer systems was over and that time marked the death of the Amiga and Atari. Except for heavy subsidised consoles there was no one able to compete with the cheap MS-DOS PC hardware "race" where many companies like Tseng came and went but that doesn't mean that the Falcon isn't an amazing machine. The opposite is true.

[Amigajay]

Originally Posted by kovacm

from where did you get idea that there were no software for Falcon (you and other Amiga users...)? Yes, there was almost no games but there was lot of software that use Falcon hardware.

I know it has other software, yes that remark was regarding games as that's what most comparisons are based on.

Originally Posted by kovacm

Now we know that Falcon is better than Amiga 1200 since it can run full version of Doom - it could run in 1992. if Atari sold more Falcons and if developers would program for it.

Not on the £600 1mb model you wouldn't be able too, plus its always if's and but's with Atari fans, it never happened, is there any decent Doom clones around the 92-96 era for the Falcon?

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by kovacm

No since LCD monitors finally have same quality as old B/W SM124


You can use even interlace mode if you like. Maybe it is usable and fine with you but I prefer crystal clear, 71Hz, picture of SM124



could be ONLY better


from where did you get idea that there were no software for Falcon (you and other Amiga users...)? Yes, there was almost no games but there was lot of software that use Falcon hardware.


Now we know that Falcon is better than Amiga 1200 since it can run full version of Doom - it could run in 1992. if Atari sold more Falcons and if developers would program for it.

Falcon was (and it is) hardware wise much better than Amiga 1200. Software support was certainly much much grater for Amiga since it was sold 30 times more. No dispute here.

Coders never invested themselves on the Falcon030 because it was a dead machine at birth.

Atari just picked a 1040 STE motherboard, and just add components here and there.

The PC was already too strong, and the Falcon 030 too much borked and complicated hardware to interest the public.

People were either going for the PC or the A1200.

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

Atari just picked a 1040 STE motherboard, and just add components here and there.

You're confusing the case with the motherboard.

[dlfrsilver]

What I find a little dubious is the claim it's only using a fraction of it's power, 40% I think, but if that's the case shouldn't we be seeing a perfect port of Shadow Of The Beast or something, how is that number quantified?

Basically, as i've explain earlier on another topic, the CPC has been completely underused by the game companies back in the day, which were spending most of the time on the C64 and the spectrum, and just 3 weeks on the CPC version.

3 weeks, 3 months, 6 months is just ridiculous. Even the best coder could not do a good job in such a reduced time.

Most games are buggy, with unoptimized code, and absolutely shit ported graphics from the C64 or the Speccy.

So in the end what do you want ? It smells like shit, and it taste like shit, because there was no effort put in the games.

With a normal developement time, a CPC is able to fork out softwares that are almost like the ones you can find on either the Atari ST or the Amiga (all proportions kept).

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by idrougge

You're confusing the case with the motherboard.

Nope, the 16 bits bus limit came from this starting point.

they should have designed a true 32 bits motherboard, and not using the ordinary 1040 STE motherboard PCB and then make a frankenstein monster out of it to make the Falcon030.

[idrougge]

I'm more prone to believe that the use of a 16-bit bus was due to plain incompetence. It's not as though you can place so much technology on an existing motherboard and call it the same.

[Amigajay]

Lets turn to consoles maybe?

Atari Lynx V Nintendo Gameboy V Sega Gamegear

I've owned them all and whilst the Lynx and Gamegear and technically better the Gameboy wins for me, the sheer amount of software, the much better battery life won it for me.

SNES V Megadrive

Megadrive for me, like the Playstation era after it, it was the 'cooler' machine to own, along with the arcade games i grew up with, sure SF2 was better on the SNES but in general there were better games i enjoyed more on the Megadrive, and the games were £10-£20 cheaper.

[kovacm]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

Coders never invested themselves on the Falcon030 because it was a dead machine at birth.

Hey, "50 FPS AmberMoon 3D" dlfrsilver please stop SPREADING LIES!!! ignorant fool.

Just to know, your laughable claims will remain on internet for quite some time: http://milan.kovac.cc/atari/dlfrsilver/

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

Atari just picked a 1040 STE motherboard, and just add components here and there.

yes, JUST added here and there SOME "off the shelf" () chip and made BETTER machine than Amiga 1200 which is Amiga 1000 on 32bit bus and 14MHz (go now and droll over Dave Hayne stories about what Amiga 3000+ should be)

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

The PC was already too strong, and the Falcon 030 too much borked and complicated hardware to interest the public.

Atari Falcon enable harddisc recording YEARS before it was usable on PC for fraction of a price!

[drHirudo]

Originally Posted by Amigajay

Megadrive for me, like the Playstation era after it, it was the 'cooler' machine to own, along with the arcade games i grew up with, sure SF2 was better on the SNES but in general there were better games i enjoyed more on the Megadrive, and the games were £10-£20 cheaper.

I have a friend who had Mega Drive back in 1990ies. He exchanged it for SNES then he came back to the Mega Drive - his reasons - it was much easier to obtain and swap games for the Mega Drive than for the SNES. The SNES was damn too expensive even if it had the better games. He used some converter cartridge to play NTSC games on the SNES and shit like this. Then it was much cheaper to get joypads for SMD than for SNES. Hell even I used Sega controllers on the Amiga, because they were reliable and nice to play on (including second Joy button for Turrican), while you can't use the SNES controllers on Amiga directly.
The consoles were good for games and they were good only for this.That was main reason for me to prefer the Amiga over any console. When he was showing me Mega Drive gems like Street Fighter (compared to the crappy Amiga port) and Thunder Force IV, I was showing him Point and Click advetures that were lacking on the consoles. And the biggest winning arguments was that you can't do programming/Protracker/DPainting/Demo scening etc on the crap consoles. And the Mega Drive sound was bad. While not as utter crap as on the Atari ST and the NES, it was not comparable to the Amiga 4-channels stereo digital music.

[trixster]

In my school the snes was considered much much cooler than the md, largely down to the release of sf2 in June 92. My mate had the jap import that summer and was largely considered the coolest kid in school.

[kovacm]

oh, crap...

Stick to the topic: Atari vs Amiga! :P

I used MD, SNES for playing games, Atari for work and later bought Amiga 500 for SkidMarks and HiredGuns

[drHirudo]

Originally Posted by kovacm

oh, crap...

Stick to the topic: Atari vs Amiga! :P

I used MD, SNES for playing games, Atari for work and later bought Amiga 500 for SkidMarks and HiredGuns

Not it's Amiga vs Atari vs Sega vs Apple vs Acorn vs Nintendo vs IBM vs Sony vs Sharp vs Sinclair.
Everybody knows that Sharp released the most powerful 680x0 based machines, and Sinclair QL was the first to use 68000-series CPU with multitasking OS, but Amgia is the best.

[frank_b]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

Well more or less. IF you talk about the true color mode, yes. The DSP, yes.

But all that is around, nope, the 1200 is more balanced.

The LAN port, the built in SCSI 2, 6 digital joystick ports (2 analogue) and the 50 khz 16 bit sound

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by kovacm

Hey, "50 FPS AmberMoon 3D" dlfrsilver please stop SPREADING LIES!!! ignorant fool.

Just to know, your laughable claims will remain on internet for quite some time: http://milan.kovac.cc/atari/dlfrsilver/

yes, JUST added here and there SOME "off the shelf" () chip and made BETTER machine than Amiga 1200 which is Amiga 1000 on 32bit bus and 14MHz (go now and droll over Dave Hayne stories about what Amiga 3000+ should be)


Atari Falcon enable harddisc recording YEARS before it was usable on PC for fraction of a price!

Blablablabla Atari ST blablablabla Falcon030 re-blablablabla