English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Amiga scene

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 04 October 2002, 01:57   #21
Unknown_K
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ohio/USA
Age: 49
Posts: 1,379
Send a message via ICQ to Unknown_K
You will never have every rom for all systems since they are not finished. I try to grab a random title and play it on the real hardware to see if I like it or not. Some people collect just to collect and never play the roms. Oh, and get off your ass once a day and go out so the sun shines on your pale skin.
Unknown_K is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 04 October 2002, 02:38   #22
Djay
breakpointUK.com

Djay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Founders System
Age: 41
Posts: 3,089
Send a message via MSN to Djay
i must admit that i have alot more stuff than i ever had on the original format...

and yes, i'm a hoarder.

it just seems that you get everything you need apart from personality....

.... for me, the Amiga Scene is you guys, outside EAB the Amiga scene is a few faceless websites, i don't know anybody that is into the Amiga scene in *real* life, they are into PCs and consoles.
Djay is offline  
Old 04 October 2002, 03:14   #23
Twistin'Ghost
Give up the ghost
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: U$A
Age: 26
Posts: 4,662
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
Retro gaming for most people starts with the first machine they owned or played.
[...]
The funny thing is that each generation of game type from the atari 2600 to the present day interests me. I find it funny how people that liked the old systems cant stand the new ones. Done get me wrong there is alot of crap released today on the PC, but there are some excelent titles coming out also. There was also alot of crap released with the old systems but we only remember what we liked.
[...]
The demo scene like I seen in the c64 era is dead because of a few things. One is that nobody programs direct to the hardware anymore, and few have the deep knowledge of the hardware to even try it. That and todays computers can basically do anything, back in the day people could make the c64 and the amiga do something nobody thaught possible.. well the new hardware makes just about anything possible and its alot harder to impress somebody.
Good thread...a lot of good ideas here.

My first machine...I can't even remember. Pinball, probably. And Amiga was way late in my retro past. Yet it was the one that made the impact. Nothing before it or since it has become as entrenched...my computer soulmate, if you will. But most of the systems interest and often fascinate me. The ones that get me going the most outside the Amiga are C64, MSX, X68000 and Amstrad. Speccy, to an extent. I also enjoy the 80's/90's 8 & 16-bit consoles, I just don't get as excited over them. But my point is that it's not neccesarily going back to our first system.

As for programming to the hardware, it seems to me that the only thing hardware-wise on the PC that's any different from the old days is the faster processor (needed to deal with the bloatware) and external cards. Not much to compare with the custom co-processors offered by the old school machines, namely the Amiga. Everybody these days programs in high-level or object-oriented languages and everything relies on the system. And that system is simply poor, buggy and limited for programmers with so many undocumented API's. A programmer's hands are tied, both by design and by choice. The attitude is nowhere to be found. Creativity is a long lost concept.

And that's the fault of your analogy. Today's computers can't basically do anything. They have a lot of horsepower and a lot of apps - most of which claim they can do this and that in their blurbs, but in actual usage, fall way short. Sound packages swear they can deliver this effect and that effect, but they are buggy and the end product is nothing like described. Same thing with gfx plug-ins in image software. If you believe all the press releases, then yes, modern PC's can do almost anything. I still find graphic-intensive software on the PC to be jerky (except maybe on the very fastest machines of today and even then, I doubt it). Yet an A500 could display stunning demos from a floppy on a 1-meg machine. No bloat, no system overhead doing God-knows-what - just an advanced machine doing what it was created to do: multimedia. The PC cannot make this claim.

I don't believe new PC hardware makes most anything possible, just some things. Stability and compatibility would impress me.
Twistin'Ghost is offline  
Old 04 October 2002, 03:17   #24
Unknown_K
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ohio/USA
Age: 49
Posts: 1,379
Send a message via ICQ to Unknown_K
I had to send electrons all the way to England to find amiga users since they are so uncommon here.

BTW if you guys think its easy to get roms now in a few years the complete TOSEC for every machine will fit on a small part of a super dvd disc. So retro people will hop on the net and d/l 1 file and that started and ended thier TOSEC collection in an afternoon.
Unknown_K is offline  
Old 04 October 2002, 04:10   #25
Unknown_K
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ohio/USA
Age: 49
Posts: 1,379
Send a message via ICQ to Unknown_K
Quote:
Originally posted by Twistin'Ghost
Good thread...a lot of good ideas here.

As for programming to the hardware, it seems to me that the only thing hardware-wise on the PC that's any different from the old days is the faster processor (needed to deal with the bloatware) and external cards. Not much to compare with the custom co-processors offered by the old school machines, namely the Amiga. Everybody these days programs in high-level or object-oriented languages and everything relies on the system. And that system is simply poor, buggy and limited for programmers with so many undocumented API's. A programmer's hands are tied, both by design and by choice. The attitude is nowhere to be found. Creativity is a long lost concept.

And that's the fault of your analogy. Today's computers can't basically do anything. They have a lot of horsepower and a lot of apps - most of which claim they can do this and that in their blurbs, but in actual usage, fall way short. Sound packages swear they can deliver this effect and that effect, but they are buggy and the end product is nothing like described. Same thing with gfx plug-ins in image software. If you believe all the press releases, then yes, modern PC's can do almost anything. I still find graphic-intensive software on the PC to be jerky (except maybe on the very fastest machines of today and even then, I doubt it). Yet an A500 could display stunning demos from a floppy on a 1-meg machine. No bloat, no system overhead doing God-knows-what - just an advanced machine doing what it was created to do: multimedia. The PC cannot make this claim.

I don't believe new PC hardware makes most anything possible, just some things. Stability and compatibility would impress me.
Maybe I am missing something here.
The hardware is unlimited in what it can do compared to old machines, look at what beos could do with multiple video streams. Dont blame the hardware for buggy software problems. The high level programming languages allow faster development since you can get pre made code for all the network, video, interface apects and you can spend most of your time on the main function of the application. There is nothing stopping you from booting a 3ghz P4 system from a linux (dos etc) floppy and running your own c code that interacts directly with your chosen hardware. The amiga stopped being advanced a long time ago, the stunning demo's you refer to were only stunning at that time if somebody was shown those demo's today for the first time I dont think they would think it was state of the art. The audio and video packages today offer many more features then were available 10 years ago. I think your problems lie with the software/OS and not the hardware. I still stand behind what I said, new PC's make most anything possible. It doesnt matter how efficient you program anymore (alot of the old demo's pushed the hardware to its limits, but tooks many years of programming knowledge of the non-evloving hardware to get there), just that you can do what is needed to be done.
Unknown_K is offline  
Old 04 October 2002, 04:51   #26
Djay
breakpointUK.com

Djay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Founders System
Age: 41
Posts: 3,089
Send a message via MSN to Djay
i agree...

today game designers have their games given to them on a plate, they just get some descent renderware and use the graphic card's built-in engine... games aren't actually made from the ground up....

i recently showed some guys some PC demos, they were like, "can you play this then", it was fairly difficult to convince them that they were watching a demonstration, of some groups programming skill..

.. there next question was fairly shocking... "Whats the point?", it just goes to show that the PC is a heartless piece of shit..

.. i imagine that the reason you guys enjoyed the Amiga, is because of the scene... something that PCs lack, the Apple is the nearest thing to a modern computer that has a following... its almost like the underdog that is kept going by the legend.

...
Djay is offline  
Old 04 October 2002, 08:26   #27
Twistin'Ghost
Give up the ghost
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: U$A
Age: 26
Posts: 4,662
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
Maybe I am missing something here.
Probably.
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
The hardware is unlimited in what it can do compared to old machines, look at what beos could do with multiple video streams. Dont blame the hardware for buggy software problems.
That's not what I said at all. You are mixing my comments about software with what I said about custom co-processors. Off the top of my head, let me see...OK, show me a big, badass powerful PC format a floppy disk while also doing...erm, most anything really. An age old thing that itsy bitsy old-school Amigas were doing in their infancy. No fancy graphics or anything needed here, just a basic function done on every computer. Since modern hardware is "unlimited in what it can do compared to old machines" and all. If it passes the test, I will bang up some more examples.
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
The high level programming languages allow faster development since you can get pre made code for all the network, video, interface apects and you can spend most of your time on the main function of the application. There is nothing stopping you from booting a 3ghz P4 system from a linux (dos etc) floppy and running your own c code that interacts directly with your chosen hardware.
Pre-made code is nice if you want everything to look and behave exactly the same way. It has its place, I suppose. I find it effective having menus, requesters, etc. to be uniform in applications and utilities. But in games? It's one of the problems in games these days. It's like having games that are created with a construction kit, IMHO. And you yourself are the one who said to not blame hardware for buggy software. Who the heck is using the hardware if they're relying on prefab everything. We were talking, too, about the capabilities of one machine against another, so the software hasn't much to do with what the machine itself is or is not capable of.
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
The amiga stopped being advanced a long time ago, the stunning demo's you refer to were only stunning at that time if somebody was shown those demo's today for the first time I dont think they would think it was state of the art.
It stopped being advanced?!? Unusual choice of words. The demos didn't stop being stunning, although this may be the case to you. I wonder what current PC's provide you that falls under the auspice of "stunning". Unreal Tournament? IE? Playing MP3 files? The Amiga never stopped being advanced - in fact, it was so far ahead of its time, most of the technological advances of today's machines only need porting over to the Amiga. The only thing the Amiga needs to do them is horsepower - something which modern PC's certainly have beaucoup loads of. Far less than an Amiga would need to perform the same task due to a more logically designed hardware base. I'd like to see the PC world create the kind of stunning demos found on the Amiga by the bucketload. I have looked at the PC demo scene and find it a crashing bore with the same routines reshuffled from demo to demo. (yawn)
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
The audio and video packages today offer many more features then were available 10 years ago. I think your problems lie with the software/OS and not the hardware. I still stand behind what I said, new PC's make most anything possible. It doesnt matter how efficient you program anymore (alot of the old demo's pushed the hardware to its limits, but tooks many years of programming knowledge of the non-evloving hardware to get there), just that you can do what is needed to be done.
So you think having custom co-processors offers no advantage to slamming every instruction through the processor? Stand behind what you like, but I disagree with you most wholeheartedly.
Twistin'Ghost is offline  
Old 04 October 2002, 09:41   #28
Toni Wilen
WinUAE developer
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hämeenlinna/Finland
Age: 42
Posts: 19,940
Quote:
What do they regard as being the finite "final" version of WinUAE? One that handles all of the technical specs of the "classic" A500/2000/3000/1200/4000 in emulation?
Probably, I don't know

Quote:
OK, show me a big, badass powerful PC format a floppy disk while also doing...erm, most anything really.
Twistin, please stop this nonsense. Windows NT/2K/XP and Linux can format floppy with minimal CPU power usage. I think you used this useless argument half a year ago or so also. You should blame Microsoft instead for creating stupid floppy driver for W9x

Real reason for stupid games are money hungry software houses and game designers without imagination not PC hardware...

Last edited by Toni Wilen; 04 October 2002 at 09:50.
Toni Wilen is offline  
Old 04 October 2002, 09:51   #29
Fred the Fop
flaming faggot
Fred the Fop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Versailles
Age: 49
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
Originally posted by Twistin'Ghost
Good thread...a lot of good ideas here.

My first machine...I can't even remember. Pinball, probably. And Amiga was way late in my retro past. Yet it was the one that made the impact. Nothing before it or since it has become as entrenched...my computer soulmate, if you will. But most of the systems interest and often fascinate me. The ones that get me going the most outside the Amiga are C64, MSX, X68000 and Amstrad. Speccy, to an extent. I also enjoy the 80's/90's 8 & 16-bit consoles, I just don't get as excited over them. But my point is that it's not neccesarily going back to our first system.

As for programming to the hardware, it seems to me that the only thing hardware-wise on the PC that's any different from the old days is the faster processor (needed to deal with the bloatware) and external cards. Not much to compare with the custom co-processors offered by the old school machines, namely the Amiga. Everybody these days programs in high-level or object-oriented languages and everything relies on the system. And that system is simply poor, buggy and limited for programmers with so many undocumented API's. A programmer's hands are tied, both by design and by choice. The attitude is nowhere to be found. Creativity is a long lost concept.

And that's the fault of your analogy. Today's computers can't basically do anything. They have a lot of horsepower and a lot of apps - most of which claim they can do this and that in their blurbs, but in actual usage, fall way short. Sound packages swear they can deliver this effect and that effect, but they are buggy and the end product is nothing like described. Same thing with gfx plug-ins in image software. If you believe all the press releases, then yes, modern PC's can do almost anything. I still find graphic-intensive software on the PC to be jerky (except maybe on the very fastest machines of today and even then, I doubt it). Yet an A500 could display stunning demos from a floppy on a 1-meg machine. No bloat, no system overhead doing God-knows-what - just an advanced machine doing what it was created to do: multimedia. The PC cannot make this claim.

I don't believe new PC hardware makes most anything possible, just some things. Stability and compatibility would impress me.
I don't worry about the Pee Cee world, I own an iBook
Creativity is the hallmark of Apple.
Anyway,although you may have a point about the PC not being able to do most anything, I shudder to think what a bad situation we would be in, in the medical field, if we did not have blazing speed of the chips now and the superb imaging of the graphics cards that my office's machines need. Graphic intensive software is best on the Apple platform, as it is very popular with the creative field. But we are discussing PC's here anyway.
Fred the Fop is offline  
Old 04 October 2002, 09:55   #30
Fred the Fop
flaming faggot
Fred the Fop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Versailles
Age: 49
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
Originally posted by Djay


.. the Apple is the nearest thing to a modern computer that has a following... its almost like the underdog that is kept going by the legend.

Umm, superb OS and software and beautiful and stable hardware, partially due to the closed architecture dogma of Apple, may also have ahnd in it's 7 percent market share, mac.
Fred the Fop is offline  
Old 04 October 2002, 11:19   #31
Twistin'Ghost
Give up the ghost
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: U$A
Age: 26
Posts: 4,662
Quote:
Originally posted by Toni Wilen
Twistin, please stop this nonsense. Windows NT/2K/XP and Linux can format floppy with minimal CPU power usage. I think you used this useless argument half a year ago or so also. You should blame Microsoft instead for creating stupid floppy driver for W9x
I hope you're kidding...
Quote:
Originally posted by Frederic
Creativity is the hallmark of Apple.
Then how do you explain that atrocity called Quicktime? And on the PC, even Windows Media Player is more intuitive than that hideous QT player, which is about as user unfriendly an app as I've seen on the PC.
Twistin'Ghost is offline  
Old 04 October 2002, 11:50   #32
Oscar Castillo
Junior Member
Oscar Castillo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 282
Send a message via AIM to Oscar Castillo
Quote:
Originally posted by Twistin'Ghost
I hope you're kidding...

Then how do you explain that atrocity called Quicktime? And on the PC, even Windows Media Player is more intuitive than that hideous QT player, which is about as user unfriendly an app as I've seen on the PC.
Quicktime isn't intuitive? The interface controls are about as simple as you can make them. Why are you so down on Quicktime?
Oscar Castillo is offline  
Old 04 October 2002, 11:59   #33
Fred the Fop
flaming faggot
Fred the Fop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Versailles
Age: 49
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
Originally posted by Twistin'Ghost

Then how do you explain that atrocity called Quicktime? And on the PC, even Windows Media Player is more intuitive than that hideous QT player, which is about as user unfriendly an app as I've seen on the PC.
Ok Twist. creativity is NOT the hallmark of Apple.
Not at all.
Not by a long shot.
Uh Uh.
No way.
Nichts.
Fred the Fop is offline  
Old 04 October 2002, 12:52   #34
Twistin'Ghost
Give up the ghost
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: U$A
Age: 26
Posts: 4,662
Quote:
Originally posted by Oscar Castillo
Quicktime isn't intuitive? The interface controls are about as simple as you can make them. Why are you so down on Quicktime?
Unless they have drastically changed the way it works from the version I have, then no it's not intuitive. If I download, for example, a bunch of trailers or tv spots and half are mpeg and the other half qt, with WMP I can load one mpeg after another and they each open in the same window instead of one on top of the other. If I close a movie and want to still have access to the interface, I can't because the window which opens (detached from the interface) closes both down when you click the [X] on the movie window. A quibble, that. If I want to drag and drop a movie, it creates a new window, which is clunky. I don't like the interface. WMP allows you to toggle off parts of the interface to a more stripped down view, whilst QT doesn't. And the volume knob is clunky. Neither program offers adequate frame stepping. But worst of off is the fact that you cannot toggle the pause on and off with the same button. Having two buttons is fine, but the pause button should toggle.
Twistin'Ghost is offline  
Old 04 October 2002, 13:21   #35
Korodny
Zone Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 658
Directly hitting the hardware is simply not possible anymore. How do you want to directly hit the hardware if your typical target customer may have one of a myriad of more or less up-to-date graphic cards installed? You can't code for 20 different hardware platforms (=20 different gfx cards), especially if you don't have any documentation available (nVidia). You're simply forced to stick to abstract APIs.

The situation is slightly better on consoles, as the hardware specs are fixed in this case. Compare the first batch of PSX-1 games with the later ones, and you'll see that the game developers learned how to use the hardware more efficiently.

As far as custom chips are concerned, the PC has cloned most of the Amigas big advantages by now. A modern GFX card is a collection of highly powerful custom chips, the main difference is the fact that it's geared (nearly) only towards 3D operations (as opposed to the Amiga's hardware scrolling/BOB/raster manipulation based approach). Even low budget gfx cards come with a blitter now, practically all components in a modern PC are able to do DMA.

IMHO, the PC suffers from three problems the Amiga didn't have:

- thousands of individual configurations and badly documented hardware
- a lousy OS (that's a pretty big factor)
- big game companies with no imagination but lots of business sense
Korodny is offline  
Old 04 October 2002, 16:19   #36
Unknown_K
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ohio/USA
Age: 49
Posts: 1,379
Send a message via ICQ to Unknown_K
Games are like they are today because PEOPLE BUY THEM THAT WAY. The game market is growing noth shrinking. Just because you dont like the way its going doesnt mean everybody else does.

If doom 3 came out and nobody purchased it I am sure ID would try something different, but when they know they can make a few more million doing the same old shit they WILL.

I am sure M$ could upgrade thier floppy drivers if people actually still used thier floppy for anything these days. BTW I just loaded my email, launched 2 new sites in IE and browsed the HD on my server all while win2k is formatting my 3.5" 1.44 floppy in the background (light on the drive never went out). Does your amiga have a cartridge port? My c64 does... dont compare new machines with functions on older ones that are OBSOLETE.

Pre made code is nice because its usually somewhat optimized and checked for bugs before its sold. Do you want to rewrite common networking routines every time you make a program that uses the LAN? No you want to grab the common building blocks and then make your specific function work.

As far as a demo scene goes, I play games not demo's. The DEMO's show that if you have nothing else going on on the machine you can get some nice looking graphics function up and running. Too bad you cant do that in a game because it takes 100% of the machine for that function. What impresses me on the PC is 3d sound (by Areal RIP) that actually made you think something was behind you in a game. Large compressed textures like in Unreal Tournament 2003 that make things look alot nicer. Environmental bump mapping so objects look like they have a texture to them in 3d. Being able to run in high resolution 3d at 60+ fps on a system with a $69 video card at a refesh that doesnt hurt my eyes. Being able to play a 4v4 game of Age of kings against real people with 1600 units running around in real time over the internet while I am in my room on a rainy day. The fact that all of the cool functions developed in hardware end up as a usable function in Direct X so they end up being used in the games that come out after.

RTS ,FPS, and flight simulator type games (some good some bad) have no equal outside of the intel PC period.

Having said that racing games, shootemups, and arcade type games are 100% better on cheap dedicated hardware that runs on a big screen TV (well next to the original arcade machine anyway).

People need to have an open mind and use the best platform for what they want to do, this usually means using more then 1 companies product or having dedicated machines for specific tasks. Anybody that sits there spouting off the amiga is the best game machine in the world is stuck in a time vacuum while the rest of the world is moving on. Each machine that I own had its time in the limelight for gaming, and I enjoy playing those classic games on that hardware from time to time. But the most powerfull architexture is always the one that just came out and it will always be able to do something that the older machine just cant do because it is faster, has more memory or just because new technology came out allowing it to do so.

If commodore was still around they would probably be making machines that are alot closer to the PC then to the old amiga's because thats where the technology and the user base was going. If you cant continuously inovate you end up with no market share (apple), or extinct (3dfx).
Unknown_K is offline  
Old 05 October 2002, 06:24   #37
Fred the Fop
flaming faggot
Fred the Fop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Versailles
Age: 49
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
Originally posted by Korodny


IMHO, the PC suffers from three problems the Amiga didn't have:

- thousands of individual configurations and badly documented hardware
- a lousy OS (that's a pretty big factor)
- big game companies with no imagination but lots of business sense
Yes, this makes sense. And especially that the dopes at CBM had NO business sense
Fred the Fop is offline  
Old 05 October 2002, 09:01   #38
Shatterhand
Warhasneverbeensomuchfun

Shatterhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rio de Janeiro / Brazil
Age: 34
Posts: 2,689
Quote:
If doom 3 came out and nobody purchased it I am sure ID would try something different, but when they know they can make a few more million doing the same old shit they WILL.
This was discussed so many times before that I am getting tired of reading this kind of shit.

Just because it sells, it doesn't mean it's good (I.E, Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, and movies like Scooby-Doo and MiB II ) .

The fact is, that gaming industry now is BIG, and it reaches MILLIONS of people. And people are just STUPID. Is it so hard to see that?

'nuff said
Shatterhand is offline  
Old 05 October 2002, 09:15   #39
Twistin'Ghost
Give up the ghost
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: U$A
Age: 26
Posts: 4,662
Well put, Shatterhand!

Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
Games are like they are today because PEOPLE BUY THEM THAT WAY. The game market is growing noth shrinking. Just because you dont like the way its going doesnt mean everybody else does.
Make up your mind - you keep flipping back and forth between popularity and quality. One does not equal the other, so please refrain from lumping them together as if popularity is the equal to satisfactory product. Because Britney Spears has a larger fan club does not make her more innovative than Mozart! The opinions about the differences between machines are my own; if you don't agree with them that doesn't mean I am forcing them on you simply by stating them. I am every bit entitled to my take on my subjective standards as you are, despite the way you respond here pounding everything down as if it's the gospel.
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
If doom 3 came out and nobody purchased it I am sure ID would try something different, but when they know they can make a few more million doing the same old shit they WILL.
That doesn't make it a good product! Do you work in the accounting firm of the software company or play the games? Look how many Police Academy sequels came out (just because people kept buying it). At the end of the day, it's an artistic disaster in spite of its popularity at the boxoffice.
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
I am sure M$ could upgrade thier floppy drivers if people actually still used thier floppy for anything these days. BTW I just loaded my email, launched 2 new sites in IE and browsed the HD on my server all while win2k is formatting my 3.5" 1.44 floppy in the background (light on the drive never went out). Does your amiga have a cartridge port? My c64 does... dont compare new machines with functions on older ones that are OBSOLETE.
Well I see people having to use floppies enough to merit some consideration. At our publishing bureau, people still bring in floppies, zip disks and CD's. If it's not supported, then why is it there? Or better yet, why does it now work for you in W2k? Should this have not been an easy fix like way back in the 90's? Glad to know they finally got around to figuring out how to simultaneously make this work. But Toni already pointed this off before you (that certain versions of the OS allow it). Why do you tell me not to compare new machines with functions on older ones? Floppy drives are not exclusive to new machines. And anyhow, isn't your entire reply a comparison of new and old machines? Double standard...
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
Pre made code is nice because its usually somewhat optimized and checked for bugs before its sold. Do you want to rewrite common networking routines every time you make a program that uses the LAN? No you want to grab the common building blocks and then make your specific function work.
Somewhat optimized, huh. I guess I'm supposed to go "Wow!" at this? Checked for bugs...is this a selling point? That should be a given. And why the analogy with the networking routines? I said in my message that pre-fab code has its place, just not in games. Stick with responding to what I say and not some elongated diatribe!
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
As far as a demo scene goes, I play games not demo's. The DEMO's show that if you have nothing else going on on the machine you can get some nice looking graphics function up and running.
I think a lot of people would disagree with that particular cop-out. If you only like games and not demos, that's your call...why even respond about it? But to foolishly claim that demos only exist to show the machine has nothing going on is such a contrived, ignorant statement, I am shocked that you hit the Submit Reply button without editing that part out first.
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
Too bad you cant do that in a game because it takes 100% of the machine for that function.
Hmmm...a lot of Amiga games were created by coders from the demo scene and they used those tricks of the trade to produce arcade quality games on the Amiga. Which is part of why the Amiga legacy is so strong, even in this (clearly) jaded age. Just because the PC can't take it down to a machine level with Windows running underneath it all does not mean that machines are not capable of doing this.
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
What impresses me on the PC is ... [SNIP!]
I really don't care what impresses people about the PC. Sorry, that's just me. But I am curious what (if anything) impresses you about the Amiga?
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
People need to have an open mind and use the best platform for what they want to do, this usually means using more then 1 companies product or having dedicated machines for specific tasks. Anybody that sits there spouting off the amiga is the best game machine in the world is stuck in a time vacuum while the rest of the world is moving on.
Did somebody here spout off that the Amiga was the best game machine in the world? Point it out to me, because I missed it. You are the one who needs to have an open mind. I express what I feel is superior about Amiga - in response to your comment that PC hardware can do almost anything. To which I disagreed and stated it could do some things. I use various different apps for each job. In audio alone, I have used practically every app in the book and most of them fall way short - especially the DirectX stuff you are so fond of. And even as I stated this before, you still try to pidgeon-hole me into this stereotypical Amiga hippie who won't use anything else! To say nothing of trying to sell some point dedicated machines for different tasks. A game PC, an audio PC, a work PC, an internet PC...erm, I'll pass.
Twistin'Ghost is offline  
Old 05 October 2002, 10:21   #40
Fred the Fop
flaming faggot
Fred the Fop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Versailles
Age: 49
Posts: 2,802
While I must admit I do not get the jist of Unknown_k's "reason" for demos, I will aver, for me, to sit and watch a fuckin' demo is ridiculous. I am an impatient, input kind of person. I could not give a rat's hairy ass about demos, whether they are on Apple ][GS, C 64, Amiga, Aatri St ,etc.
There are many people who love them, code them, collect them. That's fine. But they don't do a thing for me. I am speaking for myself and no one else here.
Demos.
You can keep 'em.
Fred the Fop 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
Where are your 'friends' from the Amiga scene? Tim Janssen Amiga scene 210 17 June 2015 01:45
Slowing down the timing on a NTSC A600? Svetlana support.Hardware 4 11 June 2012 14:47
ethernet slowing down A2000 to crawl orange support.Hardware 3 02 July 2009 03:29
New to the Amiga scene and here AB Positive Member Introductions 8 10 May 2009 16:51
Help with slowing down a game Jim Coders. General 0 19 February 2004 01:04

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 15:54.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Page generated in 0.35578 seconds with 12 queries