1992 386DX Beating Amiga?

[Zak]

Originally Posted by Anubis

This is also false. Most of the games that offered HD install were originally made with 1MB in mind. Some, as I've already said, offered more with more memory.

It was worth getting one, if you could afford one at the time.

I remember some game, but can't remember what game it was, that strongly recommended HD install in manuals. Was it x-Com or Boddy Blows? IIRC it was because of frequent disk changes.

Listen. Those programs that come with HD installer would certainly run from HD, right? I am talking about ALL the disks I had at the time. I bought a harddisk for my A500 and tried them all.
It's not "false". Many DOS programs were not intended to be used from harddisk. You would often have problems with them. I could use like 10% of my disks and that's even an optimistic number.

[Anubis]

Originally Posted by Zak

Listen. Those programs that come with HD installer would certainly run from HD, right? I am talking about ALL the disks I had at the time. I bought a harddisk for my A500 and tried them all.
It's not "false". Many DOS programs were not intended to be used from harddisk. You would often have problems with them. I could use like 10% of my disks and that's even an optimistic number.

Were most of them cracked versions of the games / programs??

Sure, we could have different experience with the same thing.

In my case, having them all run from HD was great, then first JST games and later WHDLoad - that was Amiga how it was supposed to be from beginning. But nobody asked me.

[Zak]

Originally Posted by Anubis

Were most of them cracked versions of the games / programs??

Sure, we could have different experience with the same thing.

In my case, having them all run from HD was great, then first JST games and later WHDLoad - that was Amiga how it was supposed to be from beginning. But nobody asked me.

No not all cracked. I had 2 times more original than cracked disks. I just say it was a hassle. Often times you would have to work with a list of assigns to make programs run and more tricks like that. It just wasn't the same as using a HD on a 386.

[Anubis]

In my opinion (again, just my opinion), working with HD on Amiga had me learn how to use Workbench, and I really enjoyed that.

HD games made me rethink original astonishment of Amiga and later made it more easy to move to PC and DOS/Win.

But, to say that there are only 10 games that support HD was false information. Here is list from HOL with all games that had HD install. Nor all of them are AGA, so not all required A1200.

http://hol.abime.net/hol_search.php?N_hd=yes

[Zak]

Originally Posted by Anubis

But, to say that there are only 10 games that support HD was false information.

http://hol.abime.net/hol_search.php?N_hd=yes

The 10 games were just an exaggeration. I felt like it were only 10 from all my games, I don't know the exact number anymore.

[redblade]

Originally Posted by 005AGIMA

Original post seems to have caused confusion.

Simple version:

Using 1992/93 parts ONLY.....
Question 1:
What parts and what prices would be needed to create an A500 (not +) comparable to a 386DX 4MB 60MB HDD with SB16?

Question 2:
What A1200 package and upgrade, and at what prices, would be required to buy and build an A1200 comparable to a 386 DX 4MB 60MB HDD with SB16?

Here's an advert for Amiga Format 1992 December for the Commodore 386/SX @25 for 750GBP. The only price I have seen for the Amiga 1200 at 400GBP is the review about it, maybe it went to press before Silica or Dynamite had some in stock? I'll add the next ones after

Commodore 386SX@25mhz
Also Word Worth 2 is mentioned here for 120GBP
Atari Falcon 030@16mhz/1MB RAM/16Mhz Blitter/32mhz DSP @ 8channel with 16bit sounds for 480GBP Yeah It's not an amiga, but it's equivalent to the 386SX ?!!?
1993-January Amiga Format review of Amiga 1200
1993-January Amiga 1200 80MB HDD 680GBP
PCMCIA RAM expansions, yeah I know it's not FAST RAM 2MB@120GBP 4MB@180GBP
I remember seeing in issues a few months later in 93 that you can buy the HDD yourself and install it yourself and void the warranty.

Shout out to the scanners and uploaders of these zines

[Turrican_3]

Originally Posted by Anubis

This is also false. Most of the games that offered HD install were originally made with 1MB in mind.

I think he is actually right on this.
(i.e. not the 1MB thing, but WB eating some precious, required memory)

A couple of days ago I was just fiddling with my A1000 and I read an official installer README (Wings perhaps? can't remember right now) that warned users about the game fully exploiting available chip memory and that using Workbench in certain configurations might lead to issues.

To be completely fair though, it's not like 1992-3 era DOS games on PC were a pleasure to work with, "low" 640KB memory was often a huge problem, far worse than the Amiga IMHO due to the steps involved in trying to resolve them.

Originally Posted by redblade

Yeah It's not an amiga, but it's equivalent to the 386SX ?!!?

That '030 would make for a fully 32bit architecture computer so I think it's reasonable to say it was way better.

[Zak]

Originally Posted by Turrican_3

I think he is actually right on this.
(i.e. not the 1MB thing, but WB eating some preciuos, required memory)

Workbench takes memory and even operating the harddisk itself takes some kilobytes of chip memory. Just like your second disk drive takes some kilobytes of chip memory and some games only work, when you switch it off.
That's at least how I understood it.

[Daedalus]

In late 1992 I believe the A1200 was difficult to get hold of by suppliers, which might explain why there aren't many references to price. Page 60 of the Argos catalogue released in the summer of 1993 prices the A1200 stock at £379.

Yeah, there were plenty of hard drive installable games back in the day. I tended towards strategy-type games, and so my experience is the other way: almost all the original games I bought included hard drive installation options. Some were tight on RAM if you didn't have any additional RAM available, especially if you were using a 1MB machine as stock with a hard drive. 1MB is little enough that the developers had to pack everything in.

That Commodore PC listed sounds like a horrendous machine to use... I also remember the fun of disabling certain devices, drivers etc. to try and free up base memory just to get certain games to work. And then having to change everything back again to run some other software. It certainly wasn't any more convenient than booting an A1200 without the startup-sequence and running a game from the shell to save RAM.

Edit: Every mounted volume does indeed use some RAM for buffers, but it will normally use fast RAM (since it's faster) unless you only have chip RAM available.

[Anubis]

Originally Posted by Turrican_3

I think he is actually right on this.
(i.e. not the 1MB thing, but WB eating some preciuos, required memory)

A couple of days ago I was just fiddling with my A1000 and I read an official installer README (Wings perhaps? can't remember right now) that warned users about the game fully exploiting available chip memory and that using Workbench in certain configuration might lead to issues.

To be completely fair though, it's not like 1992-3 era DOS games on PC were a pleasure to work with, "low" 640KB memory was often a huge problem, far worse than the Amiga IMHO due to the steps involved in trying to resolve them.


That '030 would make for a fully 32bit architecture computer so I think it's reasonable to say it was way better.

Quite possible, since I had always 1.5MB minimum memory when I got HD.

Even on WinUAE for WB 1.3 emulation I always start with 1.5, as somehow felt right.

Games that I wished that were available on Amiga, and eventually made me move - Master of Magic / Master of Orion.

[swinkamor12]

Originally Posted by redblade

Here's an advert for Amiga Format 1992 December for the Commodore 386/SX @25 for 750GBP. The only price I have seen for the Amiga 1200 at 400GBP is the review about it, maybe it went to press before Silica or Dynamite had some in stock? I'll add the next ones after

Commodore 386SX@25mhz

Thank You very much for that link.
As I always wrote, about what many fanatics have a problem:
Commodore bankrupt because for the price of amiga 1200 one can buy 386 sx with better and faster graphics than amiga 4000.
Commodore advertises in Amiga Format in December 1992 a 386 SX for 750 GBP.
They sell this 386 SX with:
- 40 MB HDD
- color monitor
Take away hdd and monitor and this 386 SX will be around 400 GBP.
Commodore PC were expensive, no name PC by the end of 1992 where cheaper and with better graphics.

[nogginthenog]

Originally Posted by Zak

I stand my ground. Why would I get a harddisk for my A500 because I can run 10 programs on it. And the rest not. And in fact many times you would need an A500+ because you need more chip memory when you start programs from harddisk.
I did try all this. Like I said 10%. Too little and hence USELESS.

Because you can run 1000s of applications. Aminet has 82,868 packages.
Amiga is more than just a games machine.

[Zak]

Originally Posted by nogginthenog

Because you can run 1000s of applications. Aminet has 82,868 packages.
Amiga is more than just a games machine.

O.K. I told my experience from 1992, sure that Aminet is a thing today, but I didn't have Internet then. And I would also use HOL today as suggested by Anubis.

Edit: I later in 90's had an Amiga 1200 and an A4000 with using Aminet and Internet on it and my A500 harddisk was sold long before that.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by swinkamor12

Commodore advertises in Amiga Format in December 1992 a 386 SX for 750 GBP.
They sell this 386 SX with:
- 40 MB HDD
- color monitor
Take away hdd and monitor and this 386 SX will be around 400 GBP.

Only 1MB of main RAM and 256k video RAM (not enough for 640x480 in 256 colors). Standard VGA monitor (not super VGA) with a poor resolution CRT. Adlib sound card with basic synth music only - no digital sound channels! And that sound card was added by the vendor (not factory standard). 749 GBP excluding VAT (add 17.5% to get the real price?).

But one huge advantage over the Amiga - IBM compatibility.

Commodore PC were expensive, no name PC by the end of 1992 where cheaper and with better graphics.

The majority of 'no name' 386SXs had crappy low performance graphics cards such as the Trident TVGA9000 (8 bit performance in a 16 bit slot!) and most only had 256kB Video RAM (not enough for SuperVGA). The only thing those cards had over an AGA Amiga was 'chunky' (literally) 320x200 in 256 colors. But no sprites, so your single color mouse pointer flickered horribly, no hardware scrolling, no overscan etc. And you needed that VGA monitor because it wouldn't work on your TV.

A scant few years later all those 386SXs quietly disappeared. Limited to 16MB RAM or less, ISA bus too slow, CPU not upgradeable. The only part worth keeping was the case (unless you had a slimline, and then the best thing to do was throw it away and buy a whole new PC). I had a 386DX-40 which ran Windows 95 slowly. On a 386SX it would have been a joke.

The Amiga already had a proper OS in 1992, 3 years before Microsoft. By 1994 you could pop an accelerator in your A1200 with a 50MHz 32 bit CPU and up to 128MB RAM. Shortly afterwards the 040 appeared, then the 060 and PowerPC. And now, nearly 30 years later, we will be able to upgrade our 1200's even more, with an FGA based accelerator more powerful than we ever dreamed of! One computer model stood the test of time - and it wasn't the 386SX.

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

This just isn't true. I ran A1200's side by side with 386SX's in my shop. The A1200 was faster running productivity software on a VGA monitor, and games designed for the Amiga were much better than similar games on the PC. The A4000 had a 68040 CPU that was much faster than any 386, and 32 bit Zorro III slots that were much faster than 16 bit ISA. Certainly it was more expensive, but so were name brand PCs.

Commodore didn't go bankrupt because no name 386SX's were cheaper than the A4000, they went bankrupt because the Amiga didn't run Microsoft software. And they weren't the only ones. Apart from Apple, none of their contemporaries survived either. Hell, even most PC manufacturers didn't survive.

But just imagine if it had been the other way around. If IBM had chosen 68000 instead of 8088, if they had hired the Amiga team to make their OS, where would under-powered non-IBM compatible Intel machines have gone in the marketplace? Nowhere.

[swinkamor12]

You mistake 1992 with earlier years.
In 1992 even chapest VGA cards has 0.5 MB RAM.
Yes I compare bare a1200 with PC with 1 MB RAM and 1 MB RAM vga card.
Even Trident TVGA9000 has 640x480 256 colors mode.
And it is faster in this mode than AGA. hint: chunky pixels.
Commodore bankrupt because AGA has not chunky pixels.
A4000 with 32 bit Zorro III graphics card was wonderfull hardware but cost at least as four 386 DX at that time.

[AmigaHope]

Originally Posted by swinkamor12

You mistake 1992 with earlier years.
In 1992 even chapest VGA cards has 0.5 MB RAM.
Yes I compare bare a1200 with PC with 1 MB RAM and 1 MB RAM vga card.
Even Trident TVGA9000 has 640x480 256 colors mode.
And it is faster in this mode than AGA. hint: chunky pixels.
Commodore bankrupt because AGA has not chunky pixels.
A4000 with 32 bit Zorro III graphics card was wonderfull hardware but cost at least as four 386 DX at that time.

I'll say it again, chunky pixels were only truly relevant for a relatively short period of time when there were very simple fake-3D texture mapped engines. The more complex the engine, the less relevant the end pixel format is. By the time Quake rolled around, c2p added only a tiny fraction of CPU time to the overall rendering of the image -- the biggest strike against Amiga native graphics by then was simply the slow speed of AGA's chip ram bus -- i.e. an 060 playing quake spent very little time doing the c2p conversion vs. rendering the frame, with far more cycles being wasted just waiting for the output to be written to chip ram.

If you want to see what AGA would have been like if it had included chunky modes, hook up a Graffiti and see that it doesn't help that much as stuff becomes more complex. Doom is basically the last game where it would have helped at all.

[swinkamor12]

In 1998 I think about buying 68060 but finally I don't buy it, because cheapest ppc with bvision cost only litte more.
So even if on 68060 c2p takes only tiny fraction of time, 68060 cost too much and come too late.
On slower cpu than 68060 c2p takes significant amount of time.
Famous lack of chunky pixels in AGA was main reason why Commodore bankrupt.

[trixster]

I think the testing done with tf330 for cd32 showed that akiko c2p stopped helping when anything faster than a 50mhz 030 was used.

[AmigaHope]

Originally Posted by swinkamor12

In 1998 I think about buying 68060 but finally I don't buy it, because cheapest ppc with bvision cost only litte more.
So even if on 68060 c2p takes only tiny fraction of time, 68060 cost too much and come too late.
On slower cpu than 68060 c2p takes significant amount of time.
Famous lack of chunky pixels in AGA was main reason why Commodore bankrupt.

That's the thing, on a slower CPU you can't even run Quake even if you have chunky pixels. C2P is only an issue on an engine where the amount of cycles needed to run an engine to render a frame is comparable to the number of cycles needed to run C2P.

Wolf3D is a very simple engine, so C2P is a huge issue if you have to process the frames from it. Doom is more complex, but C2P is still a significant fraction of the processing per frame. By the time you get to Quake, so much time is spent rendering the frame that C2P is a relative non-issue.

If you look at the Akiko chip on the CD32, it handled chunky pixels in hardware, reducing the C2P process to a single write and copy, but it only helps much on games where the 68020 is fast enough to even run the game.

On modern games the graphics engine NEVER renders to the target framebuffer, and instead there's a copy process to what the buffer is. It's even more complex on modern consoles where they render at completely different resolutions depending on field of view and then scale them to the target framebuffer, performing a hundred computations per pixel just to get the scaled output to fit right to the fixed-aspect display device.

Chunky pixels were only relevant for a couple of years for a very specific limited period of time where game engines did CPU rendering of a fake-3D engine to a framebuffer. Nowadays your smartphone does a number of transformations getting from game output to your framebuffer that make C2P look like childs play.

[swinkamor12]

Bitplanes was great in the eighties when RAM was very expensive.
Bitplanes gives OCS/ECS advantage over graphics of IBM/Apple/Atari, by using non standard bpp like 6 bpp.
Bitplanes gives nothing when 256 or more colors are used, and only slow down graphics.
There is no reason to use ancient technology like bitplanes after 1992.