Machine Wars - Fight!

[drHirudo]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

Blablablabla Atari ST blablablabla Falcon030 re-blablablabla

Yes, makes you wonder why the Atari fans bring the Falcon into the comparison, when the Falcon was accessible to less than 0.5% of all Atari ST users. 1 user of 200 STers had Falcon. So what? Even if it was more capable and was recording something to HD it was more rare than the Amiga 4000T/060 which beats the crap out of any Falcon.

[hansel75]

The C64 is better then the Amstrad CPC464!

Now awaiting dlfrsilver with his novel of clever comebacks, 5,4,3,2,1....

[saimon69]

[ Show youtube player ]

(darn, cannot post timed youtube references; go to 0:41)
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight! Happy Birthday...

:P

[kovacm]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

Blablablabla Atari ST blablablabla Falcon030 re-blablablabla

what da fuck phrase: "But all that is around, nope, the 1200 is more balanced" mean to you Amiga users? How Amiga is "better all around" computer?

- Atari Falcon had more quality displays (SM125 / VGA)
- HD floppy, SCSI
- Faster and more responsive OS with multitasking
- More flexible resolutions / display modes
- Audio input
- More versatile applications like realtime sound effects, hard disc recording software
- DSP decoding jpgs, mp3, movies
...
hardware wise Atari Falcon is certainty more versatile than Amiga 1200.

so how da fuck Amiga 1200 is more "balanced" or "better all around" computer? Only thing that is on Amiga 1200 side is price. For less money, you get less features

[lordofchaos]

Originally Posted by kovacm

so how da fuck Amiga 1200 is more "balanced" or "better all around" computer? Only thing that is on Amiga 1200 side is price. For less money, you get less features

Software and its popularity would seem to suggest otherwise. So in the end none of that stuff matters, what matters is it's legacy, and that legacy far exceeds the Falcon.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by kovacm

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

You do realise that the Amiga had a built-in 70Hz non-laced VGA-like mode ever since ECS (which the AGA chipset also supported), didn't you?

Or for that matter that AGA machines has pretty much fully programmable resolutions? For one example, there is an AGA driver for a 1280x720 non-laced display on Aminet.

I've attached a (literal) screenshot of my A1200 displaying the 70Hz display. Works just fine over VGA.

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by kovacm

- Faster and more responsive OS with multitasking

TOS is not multitasking and MultiTOS isn't fast – not to mention that it wasn't even finished when the Falcon was released.

[Estrayk]

Seriously, does anyone today doubt the substantial advantage technically speaking of a Falcon compared to that of an A1200?

We are not talking about the software that obviously the Amiga, both in operating system and in quantity of software destroys it, but technically? Really someone here thinks that an A1200 stock was better technically than a stock Falcon?
I thought the people of EAB had more knowledge about their machine.

An Acorn Archimedes 3010 is better technically than an Amiga too, but obviously, no one compares them because it has almost no software. The Falcon is the same, more powerful, but without software. End of discussion.

Someone let me know when a stock A1200 can do this as a stock Falcon.
[ Show youtube player ]

And Someone let me know when a stock A1200 can do this as a stock Arquimedes.
[ Show youtube player ]

Amiga rules! but inform you before you speak.

[Pyromania]

As an ancient machine war veteran of old I had to give it up and I use everything today. I go where the software and hardware take me. In the past I was an Atari ST & Windows basher many eons ago. Today everything has its strengths and weaknesses. On the Amiga front WinUAE is one of the best software achievements in the last 1000 years. On that note I have not found a reason to use an Atari ST yet.

[Amigajay]

Originally Posted by Estrayk

Seriously, does anyone today doubt the substantial advantage technically speaking of a Falcon compared to that of an A1200?

I don't think anybody did think a stock A1200 was more powerful than a stock Falcon or did i miss somebody that did?

Plus i didn't check what spec machine that demo was running on, i guess at least a 4mb model, that's £200 more than the A1200, for £200 could get you a nice 030 40mhz accelerator that would allow you to run 3D games faster, i guess that gap wouldn't have been as big had the price been on a level playing field.

That's something PC gamers always seem to neglect too funny that

[Pyromania]

I've never seen a Falcon in the flesh in the past or present. Atari didn't make the machine available in enough areas and seemed focused in the Jaguar console more in those yester years long past.

[idrougge]

Originally Posted by Amigajay

Plus i didn't check what spec machine that demo was running on, i guess at least a 4mb model, that's £200 more than the A1200, for £200 could get you a nice 030 40mhz accelerator that would allow you to run 3D games faster, i guess that gap wouldn't have been as big had the price been on a level playing field.

No you couldn't. A 40 MHz accelerator costed more like £400.

[Amigajay]

Originally Posted by idrougge

No you couldn't. A 40 MHz accelerator costed more like £400.

True i was looking at the fpu by mistake, but either way that would have brought it into line with the 4mb Falcon at £800.

[trixster]

I had a blizzard 1220 28mhz 020 (which is broadly 25mhz 030 performance) and there's no way that machine could match either Dml's quake 2 demos or badmood (doom) on the falcon.

One thing to mention about these two is that they're not on 'stock' Falcons, they need 14mb!

[trixster]

Does anyone know what the uk retail price of the falcon was? And what variations were available in terms of ram and hd?

[Amigajay]

Originally Posted by trixster

Does anyone know what the uk retail price of the falcon was? And what variations were available in terms of ram and hd?

base models were;
£599 1mb
£799 4mb
£999 4mb with 65mb hdd

not base but i saw the earliest one with 14mb ram for £1299 no hdd

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by kovacm

what da fuck phrase: "But all that is around, nope, the 1200 is more balanced" mean to you Amiga users? How Amiga is "better all around" computer?

Of course better all round computer, why do you think people bought the 1200 and not the Falcon030 ?

- Atari Falcon had more quality displays (SM125 / VGA)

the amiga 1200 has as said before many programmable video modes.....

- HD floppy, SCSI

Every A4000 was sold with HD floppy.

the SCSI is the de-facto hard drive system on the Amiga.

- Faster and more responsive OS with multitasking

Perfectly wrong, the Workbench 3.1 and even the 3.5 are very fast.

the TOS and Multitos are not the hellfest you're trying to sell us !

- More flexible resolutions / display modes

the truecolor mode is the only mode that really makes a difference on the Falcon.

Resolutions wise, the Amiga (1200) has a ton of programmable video modes, so no cigar !

- Audio input

You can add anything on that matter on the Amiga 1200, it will still be a better priced product than the Falcon.

- More versatile applications like realtime sound effects, hard disc recording software

We had this already even before the release of the A1200.....

- DSP decoding jpgs, mp3, movies

I can watch cartoons and movies on my A1200 with audio and mp3 @28khz mono, IFF and so on

hardware wise Atari Falcon is certainty more versatile than Amiga 1200.

This is so true the 1200 sold many thousands figures when the Falcon sold only 14.000 something......

so how da fuck Amiga 1200 is more "balanced" or "better all around" computer? Only thing that is on Amiga 1200 side is price. For less money, you get less features

Sorry, the truecolor mode and the DSP are not worth the price Atari Wanted for the Falcon.

Overpriced borked piece of hardware ! The public said NO !

[dlfrsilver]

Originally Posted by hansel75

The C64 is better then the Amstrad CPC464!

Now awaiting dlfrsilver with his novel of clever comebacks, 5,4,3,2,1....

Ah yes you're right in fact, it's better at being slow to load the games, better to show poor graphics with terrible palettes, better as an older computer

Now awaiting Hansel75 after baiting the mythologic writing, 5,4,3,2,1.....

[kovacm]

Originally Posted by idrougge

TOS is not multitasking and MultiTOS isn't fast – not to mention that it wasn't even finished when the Falcon was released.

There was MagiC that is preemptive multitasking and far faster than single TOS.
There is also Geneve OS for Atari...

[kovacm]

Originally Posted by roondar

You do realise that the Amiga had a built-in 70Hz non-laced VGA-like mode ever since ECS (which the AGA chipset also supported), didn't you?

Or for that matter that AGA machines has pretty much fully programmable resolutions? For one example, there is an AGA driver for a 1280x720 non-laced display on Aminet.

I've attached a (literal) screenshot of my A1200 displaying the 70Hz display. Works just fine over VGA.

No, I was not aware of this. So Euro is VGA compatible mode. Very nice.