English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Amiga scene

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 09 October 2006, 20:42   #21
Flashlab
Registered User
Flashlab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 158
I must really rectify some stuff that's being said here:

Dark Forces does run! And it runs fine too. My setup is A4000/060 and a PicassoIV. Also you don't need MacOS 8.x. I use System 7.5.5. Fat binaries do work in ShapeShifter. That's the whole idea of a fat binary; combining 68k code and PPC code in one file. So there's no reason for it not to work as Amiga is 68k.

Warcraft 2 works fine too. So do other games. Also here on System 7.5.5. You do need at least an 040! You need to match the Mac specs. Warcraft I needs 030 minimum.

The speed of the emulation is about the same speed as a Mac with the same 68k CPU. With 060 you've got a really fast 68k Mac as there never was a 060 Mac.

Only bottleneck is Amiga graphics. With a GFX board like mine it's no problem but AGA or even worse ECS will be slow... There are drivers (TurboEVD and Savage) though to speed things up considerably.

Last edited by Flashlab; 09 October 2006 at 21:22.
Flashlab is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 10 October 2006, 12:00   #22
blade002
Zone Friend
blade002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Age: 44
Posts: 2,447
Well more orginal question was less to do with gaming and more to do with serious graphics use from back then, and generally the power and definition from the graphics chips in static artwork in comparison ?. But its doesnt matter. lol.
blade002 is offline  
Old 10 October 2006, 17:46   #23
Flashlab
Registered User
Flashlab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 158
yeah I know but there were claims here that are simply untrue.

Couldn't resist bugging in .

I don't know enough about Mac graphics to make a correct comparision between them and the Amiga's. My guess is that Amiga graphics were better in the beginning and got taken over by Mac graphics like with PC graphics during the nineties. Mac didn't have custom graphics like Amiga as far as I know; guess they used the same chips as PC's.
Flashlab is offline  
Old 10 October 2006, 21:21   #24
Whitesnake
Martin Shaw

Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flashlab
yeah I know but there were claims here that are simply untrue.

Couldn't resist bugging in .

I don't know enough about Mac graphics to make a correct comparision between them and the Amiga's. My guess is that Amiga graphics were better in the beginning and got taken over by Mac graphics like with PC graphics during the nineties. Mac didn't have custom graphics like Amiga as far as I know; guess they used the same chips as PC's.
Actually the Macintosh II released in 1987 is graphic card capable of 16.7million colours.
So in that respect AGA was 5 years behind and still not anything near capable of 16.7million colours at once in a usable enviroment.
By this time custom chips yeilded no real advantage as there was plenty of CPU time in such machines.
So in retrospec the Mac had taken over the Amiga in two years in the graphics department.

Also Settlers II/Duke Nukem 3D doesn't work in Shapeshifter either and quite a lot of paint/office programs i've tried.

Last edited by Whitesnake; 10 October 2006 at 21:37.
Whitesnake is offline  
Old 10 October 2006, 21:54   #25
Flashlab
Registered User
Flashlab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 158
Like I said I'm not into Mac graphics...

But I do have Settlers 2 and Duke Nukem running here on ShapeShifter. Duke's a bit slow though. So they do work.

Haven't tried a lot of apps yet but Photoshop 1.0 works.

Seems you have a lot of trouble getting things to run in ShapeShifter. What setup and settings are you using?

I ran a benchmark tool called Speedometer 4.02 which informs me that my ShapeShifter Mac runs about 3 times the speed of a Quadra 605 CPU wise and 2 times graphics speed. Pretty good I guess.

Last edited by Flashlab; 10 October 2006 at 22:03.
Flashlab is offline  
Old 10 October 2006, 22:44   #26
Legerdemain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Umeå / Sweden
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake
Also Settlers II/Duke Nukem 3D doesn't work in Shapeshifter either and quite a lot of paint/office programs i've tried.
Duke I haven't tried... but Settlers II runs just fine.
Legerdemain is offline  
Old 11 October 2006, 00:16   #27
guru64
Oldskool God
guru64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: europe
Posts: 28
My Mum used Macs for Repro and Warehous-Catalogue designing. She did the dessous pages ) So I got to know them a bit.
Macs were great for Photomanipulation, designing Newspapers and such stuff. But that's about all they were good at. Besides they were totally expensive!!! (and today still are overpriced crap). One of their Macs cost like 8000.- € she told me back then.

Commodore could have annihilated Apple if only they had provided a good flicker-free resulution and machines with harddisk and archiving tools. I mean out of the box. And proper programs for that tasks.

unfortunately Commodore failed to develop a good Office and a good Print-design software (like Quark Xpress, Pagemaker,...). They instead put all the massive money they initially made with Amiga into the lame PC Market which alway was a loss! C= used the cash they earned with Amiga to push their lame PC section!

Amiga was of course superior to Mac in video editing, multimedia, games. But you can't win the industry with that stuff unfortunately...

Last edited by guru64; 11 October 2006 at 03:13.
guru64 is offline  
Old 11 October 2006, 06:25   #28
Unknown_K
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ohio/USA
Age: 50
Posts: 1,379
Send a message via ICQ to Unknown_K
The Mac graphics cards were used for things other then gaming. I have a couple nice Supermac Nubus cards (one of which is in my IIfx) that can do 1024x768@24bit and are speedy with redraws all at a 80Hz refresh and it also has a DSP daughtercard for photoshop filters and other functions. It also has 4 slots for GWORLD ram with is basicaly extra ram used to buffer the screen not shown so that you don't have to go fetch it again over the bus when panning around.

Apple sold its systems to printing houses, graphics shops, photoshop, and video capture companies. Gaming was never big with Apple macs. So its hard to compare an Amiga to a Mac since they were built for different things. I do think the Mac aged much better then the Amiga did with respect to resolution and color depth which we take for granted today (plus using common VGA monitors instead of cranky old TV resolution monitors).
Unknown_K is offline  
Old 11 October 2006, 13:51   #29
Whitesnake
Martin Shaw

Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by guru64
Amiga was of course superior to Mac in video editing, multimedia, games. But you can't win the industry with that stuff unfortunately...
Games Yes just because there simply was more, but Multimedia and Video Editing no. Unless you have a good example of such packages. Deluxe Paint is a toy in comparison to what Corel produced on the Mac.
Whitesnake is offline  
Old 11 October 2006, 17:59   #30
Flashlab
Registered User
Flashlab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 158
Depends on which year you're looking at. DPaint was a very powerful package in the 80's. Video editing was also very good on Amiga especially for broadcasting TV signals. The Amiga custum chipset was very suitable for that.
Flashlab is offline  
Old 11 October 2006, 18:22   #31
Legerdemain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Umeå / Sweden
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake
Games Yes just because there simply was more, but Multimedia and Video Editing no. Unless you have a good example of such packages. Deluxe Paint is a toy in comparison to what Corel produced on the Mac.
However, one should not consider pixel based paint packages toys (I have no clue if you do that, but, anyways)... I would like to see one paint package in the veins of Brilliance v2 for any other platform that delivers such ease of use when doing pixel graphics. I do not know how the large game developers handle their 2D graphics (if not pre-rendered), but I can imagine a package such as Brilliance v2, released for the PC platform, aimed at those dealing with pixel based graphics, developing art for the web, doing isometric graphics or simply making 2D games, could do wonders... litteraly...

Oh, and concerning video editing packages... the Video Toaster was anything but a toy... but then came the digial video revolution and rendered the Video Toaster obsolote (in most cases).
Legerdemain is offline  
Old 12 October 2006, 04:59   #32
Unknown_K
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ohio/USA
Age: 50
Posts: 1,379
Send a message via ICQ to Unknown_K
Was brilliance that good? I have the manual for it but never tried it yet, one of the few AGA paint apps isn't it?
Unknown_K is offline  
Old 12 October 2006, 12:11   #33
Legerdemain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Umeå / Sweden
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown_K
Was brilliance that good? I have the manual for it but never tried it yet, one of the few AGA paint apps isn't it?
Brilliance seems to offer everything DeluxePaint had to offer... and more... and also in a much more convinient way for the end-user. For example, you do have the menu located on it's own screen, meaning you do have access to ALL the colours without having to worry about making the menu unsuable due to bad choices of colours in your palette... you have the tile-cut function absolutely lovely for dealing with making graphics for games since you can turn on the grid and cut out any tile on the screen without having to bother about aligning it, unlike in Deluxe Paint, which makes dealing with grid based graphics for games so ridicilously much easier... the way of dealing with the palette makes it ideal for doing graphics for the NES or the SMS... the palette is quite enhanced, so to speak, and... well, there is just THAT much that feels better than in DeluxePaint... that I can hardly imagine anyone ever going back to DeluxePaint after having played around with Brilliance for a while... since Brilliance seems to do all that DeluxePaint does, though way much better.
Legerdemain is offline  
Old 12 October 2006, 20:13   #34
mr_a500
Amiga-based Cyborg
mr_a500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 786
I was a bit disappointed with Brilliance. Of course it's way better than DPaint, but I never found it that useful. For pixel art, I found PPaint easier to use.

DCTV Paint - by same company as Brilliance, but 3 years earlier - was unbelievable for the time. I think when DCTV Paint came out (1990/91), it would have blown away Photoshop on the Mac (which was primitive at the time). It came with the DCTV hardware which allowed 24-bit composite display on any Amiga. You could scan and paint 24-bit images, use adjustable transparency brushes, rub-through, stencils, blending, drop shadows. The only drawback was that DCTV Paint was for composite images only - not RGB.

I made some pretty neat images with that program. I coloured B&W movie images I scanned. I scanned myself then added me to different movie scenes I scanned ("hey, I didn't know you were in The Godfather"). They looked pretty realistic too - composite blends nicely and you don't see the pixels.
mr_a500 is offline  
Old 05 November 2006, 22:27   #35
dambuster
Zone Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dundee / Scotland
Posts: 151
When I bought my first amiga (a1200) - nothing at that time (for the price) could come near to the amigas video editing capabilities.
Genlock, titling graphic overlays etc. When combined with a KRP 20 edit controller i had frame acurate linear offline and online editing. It wasnt untill the likes of the Matrox Rainbow runner or the Pinnacle DC30 cards appeared that i had to look seriously at replacing my miggy editing suite. It went in to the cupboard - liked it tooooooo much to sell.
dambuster is offline  
Old 05 November 2006, 22:48   #36
Cassius
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 18
It`s genius what an user on the german heise.de board wrote about the A1k:

"Der Amiga jedenfalls war 1985 etwa wie ein Stück Hardware,
das man in der Wüste von Nevada aus
einem abgestürzten UFO geborgen hatte."

"The Amiga was anyway 1985 like an piece of hardware,
which one has savaged out
in the desert of Nevada
from a grounded UFO."

I hope my translation was a little bit correctly. I think it was an great quote.
Cassius is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mac Amiga Emulation & Lion Washac support.OtherUAE 11 23 November 2011 19:55
Caveman coinop-not joe&mac rare_j Retrogaming General Discussion 6 19 February 2011 06:29
Emplant Board & what Mac OS? amigasociety New to Emulation or Amiga scene 1 14 February 2010 11:47
experimental uae for linux ( & mac too?? ) mtb support.OtherUAE 57 15 September 2004 13:19
Joe & Mac Exodus HOL data problems 1 28 April 2004 14:52

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 00:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.09546 seconds with 12 queries