What Makes The Amiga CD32 The Best Amiga?

[roondar]

Originally Posted by Gilbert

...your last reply to me...

No offense, but I've decided to stop replying further to technical points. I was typing up a full reply to your points, one by one.

But, I don't see it leading anywhere, as every time I answer/counter things you just come up with new comparisons that are equally invalid or lopsided. Quite often you end up reusing points I (or others) have already refuted and act as if the previous discussion just never happened. I just don't think it's worth the time to keep making these replies as a result.

Note that I'm not saying you're doing this on purpose, but be aware you do actually do this.

Originally Posted by Gilbert

EDIT : Hey roondar you remember us discussing the opposite of this (me championing the Megadrive) a long time ago? Funny how things change. I didn't even like CD32 much back then. You guys helped change my mind about it!

Actually, sorry I don't remember. Been involved in quite a few threads about the Amiga compared to consoles/pc's, posted so much in these thread I kind of lost track

But even so, I do remember that my overall position regarding AGA hasn't really changed. Since restarting my Amiga hobby in the 2010's, I've always felt that AGA is somewhat underrated and that AGA can (if well programmed) get fairly close, but not completely reach, what the MD can do. The SNES is usually completely out of range, with a few rare exceptions.

Furthermore, I do feel that AGA does offer some things the consoles don't. But, at the same time I don't think these advantages mean that AGA is better than the MD/SNES overall or even most of the time. Rather, I feel it's different enough to be it's own thing with its own pro's and con's, which is (sadly) usually notably weaker for the style of action games you tend to see on consoles.

[Gilbert]

Originally Posted by mcgeezer

Nice.

Alternatively in the future when we can buy flux capacitors from the shop, we burn rubber up to 88, kidnap some Commodore engineers and have them read this thread from the future. This way i’ll not have to code the Worlds greatest compression routine because commodore could just put an extra 1kb of nvram in their next gen console.

We at least need to ask them what their reasoning was. My feeling is back then games didn't save things like high scores (I don't remember any doing it - altho there may have been a couple) so they figured most games would just be saving a few things, and many nothing at all. And they only planned for a save expansion if the CD32 was a success. I imagine they worked out that 95% of games just saved a few things and NVRAM was expensive.

I think it was a bit like the Interface 1 and Interface 2 on ZX Spectrum. One adds Sinclair Joystick ports and I think the other added a microdrive and game cartridge slot (too lazy to look it up). But you can also add a joystick interface for Kemptson or another joystick type without the interface. So a successful system breeds add-ons that are needed and they get supported. No one ever says now "the ZX Spectrum has no joystick ports, that's disgraceful!" - for good reason.

Originally Posted by roondar

No offense, but I've decided to stop replying further to technical points. I was typing up a full reply to your points, one by one.

But, I don't see it leading anywhere, as every time I answer/counter things you just come up with new comparisons that are equally invalid or lopsided. Quite often you end up reusing points I (or others) have already refuted and act as if the previous discussion just never happened. I just don't think it's worth the time to keep making these replies as a result.

Note that I'm not saying you're doing this on purpose, but be aware you do actually do this.

Actually, sorry I don't remember. Been involved in quite a few threads about the Amiga compared to consoles/pc's, posted so much in these thread I kind of lost track

But even so, I do remember that my overall position regarding AGA hasn't really changed. Since restarting my Amiga hobby in the 2010's, I've always felt that AGA is somewhat underrated and that AGA can (if well programmed) get fairly close, but not completely reach, what the MD can do. The SNES is usually completely out of range, with a few rare exceptions.

Furthermore, I do feel that AGA does offer some things the consoles don't. But, at the same time I don't think these advantages mean that AGA is better than the MD/SNES overall or even most of the time. Rather, I feel it's different enough to be it's own thing with its own pro's and con's, which is (sadly) usually notably weaker for the style of action games you tend to see on consoles.

You don't have to reply! I think I made some fair points tho so I think that's why you aren't replying. I noticed that with the Sega guys. As soon as I put some good points to them, they quit the thread claiming it was about something else. That link I gave you shows how the SNES and MD are constantly streaming in and out graphics data from ROM to VRAM. And how the SNES only has 16kb VRAM to store sprite graphics data in (the rest is used for map tiles) Also not sure the MD can display 640 pixel width in sprites like you said. Everywhere I read says it's 320 pixels regardless of sprite size.

I just think if you look at something like Zool on CD32. It was a very early game for the CD32 but looks way better than the Megadrive game. The Megadrive game looks like it plays better but that's just poor coding for the CD32 version and a better understanding of gameplay mechanics from the console team. I don't see how they can make the MD game look better than the CD32 version. It's always going to be lacking colours.

And you're right you haven't changed your position but I just thought you would find it interesting that you were once defending the Amiga 500 against my Megadrive championing. I was the guy saying that Amiga coders didn't know how to hardware scroll using the best method in the early days. You were right about a lot of things but I stick by that still

[roondar]

Originally Posted by Gilbert

You don't have to reply! I think I made some fair points tho so I think that's why you aren't replying.

Ok, that's enough. This is my last post about this subject.

No, it has nothing to do with you having fair points. I stopped replying because you won't accept the truth. You consistently refuse to listen to what people who do know how the Amiga works are telling you and I'm not going to spend any more effort trying to explain to you why you're wrong.

[Gilbert]

Originally Posted by roondar

Ok, that's enough. This is my last post about this subject.

No, it has nothing to do with you having fair points. I stopped replying because you won't accept the truth. You consistently refuse to listen to what people who do know how the Amiga works are telling you and I'm not going to spend any more effort trying to explain to you why you're wrong.

My nice post to you doesn't warrant that response at all

That confirms it's because I CORRECTED some of your points and you don't want to admit you were wrong. There is no truth when there are errors - like saying the MD can display twice the width of screen in sprites when it's half that. That's a pretty big discrepancy in the truth. Nothing wrong with making an error (I make lots) but not admitting it and pretending it's the truth is strange. But that does explain now why so many MD games use the control panel overlay...

The Genesis VDP has strict limits on how many sprites and sprite pixels it can draw per scanline. For a game running at the 320 wide resolution there is a limit of 80 sprites, or 320 pixels of data. Those 320 pixels include both transparent pixels, and off-screen pixels. Once the limit is hit no more sprite data is drawn on the current scanline. Sonic the Hedgehog uses these limits (the 320 pixel limit) to mask the bottom of the Sonic sprite on the title screen (making Sonic appear below the banner, not above it as seen in MAME now). Adding emulation of the sprite limits also causes missing graphics in places when too many sprites are being processed, this is very noticable in Sonic when you have the invulnerable stars and stand on a bridge

[TEG]

Originally Posted by roondar

I absolutely agree!

Now, had Commodore provided a memory card slot and memory cards from day one this wouldn't be a problem. But they never did anything of the sort, nor required developers to offer options to store data externally. It's basically a giant mess.

Anyway, I was just considering the puzzle for fun

Especially as the 1200 board have a PCMIA slot so we can infer that the necessary logic is on the CD32 board too!

[DanScott]

Originally Posted by Gilbert

I just think if you look at something like Zool on CD32. It was a very early game for the CD32 but looks way better than the Megadrive game. The Megadrive game looks like it plays better but that's just poor coding for the CD32 version and a better understanding of gameplay mechanics from the console team.

George Allan did both versions

[indigolemon]

Originally Posted by TEG

Especially as the 1200 board have a PCMIA slot so we can infer that the necessary logic is on the CD32 board too!

Sadly not, Gayle handled the PCMCIA slot (as well as IDE), and doesn't exist in the CD32.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by Gilbert

My nice post to you doesn't warrant that response at all

My reply has nothing to do with the tone of what you wrote, but rather the contents. In case you missed it, you implied (and now do it again this post) that I know that I'm wrong and leave the thread so I don't have to admit it. The not-so-nice way of putting this is that you were essentially calling me a liar. That's why I reacted that way.

That confirms it's because I CORRECTED some of your points and you don't want to admit you were wrong.

Fine then, I'll answer all your points (in so far I didn't already answer them):

Originally Posted by Gilbert

I thought you said they understated how many colours the Amiga could disiplay while playing back video in your earlier post. And the max number of colours they stated onscreen in Ham 8 mode was lower too according to the specs I googled online. So that's 2 specs they understated.

Yes I did say that. And I also said (which is actually the important part of what I wrote) that these two things were ultimately irrelevant. HAM-8 was almost never used because it's not suitable for games and video playback was at best a gimmick. The things they overstated however, happened to all be things that were relevant for games.

So one last time: Commodore made the CPU in the CD32 seem twice as fast as it actually is, fudged the sprite/object capabilities by not pointing out how limited the Blitter really is and made it seem like the CD32 could display over 1000x as many colours in games than it actually did in reality by not pointing out the 262.144 colour mode wasn't actually, you know, useful.

As for 640 pixel sprite width - if you look at a lot of Megadrive schmups they flash sprites on and off on alternate frames so something is up with the horizontal limit e.g. Musha does this. I guess if you are using a lot of sprites for small objects you are in trouble. Also Rainbow Islands - The megadrive clearly runs out of horizontal sprites while drawing the rainbows.... masive flicker. The Amiga 500(!) can just easily draw them to the background. The CD32 could do a perfect version of Rainbow Islands easy but the Megadrive probably couldn't

Well, it's limited to 20 objects horizontally. So yes, if you try to go above that, you'll get sprite flicker. This isn't particularly odd is it? If you go above the object limit per frame on the Amiga you'll either get lower frame rates (which is also quite bad) or Sprite flicker (which is the same problem).

What is relevant however, is that games like MUSHA are usually more visually impressive than CD32 shooter I've seen (MD shooters are certainly not any worse than CD32 shooters). Also, the 60Hz videos I could find of MUSHA don't actually show this large amount of sprite flicker you're talking about.

Also relevant is how the amount of objects & effects shown in MUSHA even in the parts of the game I saw are clearly beyond what the Blitter or Amiga Sprites could normally handle. Remember, I already pointed out the Blitter can only do around 20 objects in total of the same size as MD sprites.

Oh and... Rainbow Islands on the MD has no flicker. I checked a bunch of videos (incl 60 Hz ones) and there is no sprite flicker in any of them.

My negative points (I have lot of positive points too) about Megadrive games is that they lack onscreen colors and the sound is weak (in general) and a lot have that annoying status panel (if the Megadrive has all these sprites - why use that panel? just overlay the score on the screen)

I already pointed out that most AGA games use either Dual Playfield+Sprites (which limits you to 48 colours) or 64 colour mode (which still isn't more than what the MD does). As for using sprites to do the status panel, there's a good reason why both the Amiga and the MD usually don't do this: if you use sprites/Blitter for a transparent panel, you can't use them for other objects. While the MD has a lot of sprites, they're still a finite resource.

And on a side note, there's far more Amiga games (AGA or not) with a non-full screen for gameplay than MD games. Use of score banners (some of which were impressively large) and/or borders is extremely common on the Amiga. I don't see how you can seriously claim the Amiga has the advantage here.

Here is some interesting discussion about the realities if using sprites and VRAM on the Megadrive and SNES. Is nowhere near as simple as on the Amiga. There is a lot of decompression of sprites that goes on to to save cart space.

I'm well aware of these techniques and I never said that VRAM could not be a limit. However, decompressing GFX on the fly is not exactly unheard of on the Amiga either. Furthermore, what I said about comparing size is actually true - MD GFX are much smaller than Amiga GFX so you simply can't directly compare the size.

Just a small example then:

• A single MD screen layer takes up 1120 bytes of memory (plus the size of the source GFX to show)
• A single Amiga screen layer takes up between roughly 40960 and 81920 bytes of memory (plus the size of the source GFX to show)
• The MD screen does not need double or triple buffering, but the Amiga normally requires double or even triple buffering for its screens
• Double buffering doubles memory requirements (81920-163840 bytes)
• Triple buffering triples memory requirements (122880-245760 bytes)

So depending on what is required for your game, the CD32 can need up to around 220x the space for the screen. In fairness, the size difference for sprites/bobs & tiles is far less extreme (these normally are closer to 1x to 4x the MD size) but also in fairness, animation on the MD can make use of the fact that sprites are just a bunch of tiles which can help make storing different frames a lot cheaper. This is a key factor in why console games tend to be so much smaller than Amiga games. Note also that the vast majority of Amiga games are stored in a compressed form to save space and speed up loading times.

More importantly, the consoles can and do (as you show) quite easily stream cartridge data "instantly" from anywhere in the ROM. This is not something that the CD-ROM drive of the CD32 can actually replicate because CD's are not good at fast random access, the seek times of the CD32 are quite high.

The point was - that is the Amiga 500 version of Battle Squadron based on 1985 tech. The CD32 one would be twice as good. I read the interview on the Codetapper website and the dude said that Hybris alone has "100s of colours" onscreen on the A500 version

The point is that Amiga to console ports tend not to be good indicators of what the console is capable of and that console-Amiga ports almost always end up worse than the reverse.

So that's not fair saying I am insulting Amiga developers by praising the CD32.

Like I said, I'm not saying you do it on purpose (and I included older developers in this as well, not just newer ones). But clearly, you do imply it. Case in point:

... No one back in the day made decent CD32 games ...
... So the CD32 has a lot of untapped potential ...

I read the above to say a) older developers didn't make decent games and b) current developers are unwilling or unable to use all this potential. That does seem to me at least to imply what I said.

If that isn't your intention, perhaps try not phrasing this point like you do.

I feel in the CPS1 thread we established the CD32 could do close versions of CPS1 games (using dual playfield and its big sprites) so I don't think saying it can beat the 16 bit Megadrive is any way controversial. Especially since it could fit the Megadrive Ghouls n Ghosts cart into it's 2Mb memory twice over.

That was not the conclusion of the CPS1 thread .
The conclusion was that the CD32 could, in most cases, probably create a graphically cut down version of CPS1 games that play well. Not that it could create close versions.

As for the cart size: again, you can't compare carts sizes to Amiga storage sizes, the systems work differently and store data differently. Cartridges and Arcade ROM sizes are almost always (much) smaller than their Amiga equivalents.

Originally Posted by Gilbert

I just think if you look at something like Zool on CD32. It was a very early game for the CD32 but looks way better than the Megadrive game. The Megadrive game looks like it plays better but that's just poor coding for the CD32 version and a better understanding of gameplay mechanics from the console team. I don't see how they can make the MD game look better than the CD32 version. It's always going to be lacking colours.

Ok, so let me get this straight: the CD32 version doesn't run well but looks nice and the MD version doesn't look as nice but runs a lot better. And you take this to mean that the CD32 version could be made a lot better (without any evidence for this, you just state it as if it's a fact) and that the MD version can't be made better (again, no evidence supplied).

This is exactly why I have issues taking your posts seriously. Zool on AGA runs in Dual Playfield mode. That is to say, it runs using about 48 colours, plus a few for the Copper gradient. It lacks the graphics line scrolling effects the MD uses. The main reason it looks more colourful is not because the MD can't display the colours (the foreground is almost identical and when you look at the shared background elements in the two version they also look almost exactly the same), but rather that the MD designers chose to use a different style of background that could be easily scrolled in layers. This gives it a different look.

But they both use roughly the same number of colours.

There is no truth when there are errors - like saying the MD can display twice the width of screen in sprites when it's half that. That's a pretty big discrepancy in the truth. Nothing wrong with making an error (I make lots) but not admitting it and pretending it's the truth is strange.

But that does explain now why so many MD games use the control panel overlay...

The Genesis VDP has strict limits on how many sprites and sprite pixels it can draw per scanline. For a game running at the 320 wide resolution there is a limit of 80 sprites, or 320 pixels of data. Those 320 pixels include both transparent pixels, and off-screen pixels. Once the limit is hit no more sprite data is drawn on the current scanline. Sonic the Hedgehog uses these limits (the 320 pixel limit) to mask the bottom of the Sonic sprite on the title screen (making Sonic appear below the banner, not above it as seen in MAME now). Adding emulation of the sprite limits also causes missing graphics in places when too many sprites are being processed, this is very noticable in Sonic when you have the invulnerable stars and stand on a bridge

Let's first point out the obvious: the person who got me to conclude the MD could do 640 pixels of sprites per scanline was NOT me, but you. You said, without any other context:

Originally Posted by Gilbert

... The MD can only display 20 sprites per line. ...

I took that number to be accurate because I assumed you're not trying to lie (I did check it just to be sure and found that indeed, the MD can display 20 sprites per line in several sources). Then I merely multiplied the number 20 by the size (32x32 pixels) of MD sprites. That gives 640 pixels. As I just pointed out, I did also check to see if I could find anything about sprite limitations and didn't find any indication of the 320 pixel limit you're now started to refer to here. Some examples of the stuff I found:

Originally Posted by https://segaretro.org/Sega_Mega_Drive/Technical_specifications

Sprite plane: 80 sprites on screen, 20 sprites per scanline, 16 colors per sprite,[26] integer sprite zooming[27] (up to 320x224),[24] definable sprite priorities, 32 bytes per sprite tile,[13] sprite flipping, virtual 512×512 sprite space,[28] sprites can be combined into larger sprites, up to 1280 sprite tiles (80x 32×32 sprites)

Note that these specs, which I used and are identical to many other spec sheets on the MD online, do fit with my claim of up to 20 sprites per scanline @ 32x32 pixels = 640 pixels wide.

Originally Posted by https://megacatstudios.com/blogs/retro-development/sega-genesis-mega-drive-vdp-graphics-guide-v1-2a-03-14-17

• Genesis can display up to 80 hardware sprites on screen at once
• Genesis can display ~20 sprites on the same scanline before sprite overflow issues occur and sprites are not displayed

Note that again, no mention of any 320 pixel limit so this also fits with 640 pixels per scanline. Their more in-depth explanation further down the page also doesn't mention this limit. In fact, your post is the very first time I've ever seen this mentioned anywhere. Doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean I'd like to see the source of this for myself before agreeing with you. And obviously, it also doesn't mean I'm trying to hide/lie about anything.

In other words: your implication that I'm essentially lying couldn't be further from the truth as I merely repeated what I had seen you and other sources say. However (and this needs to be pointed out): even if the MD could only display 320 pixels of sprites rather than 640 pixels of sprites per scanline with an 80 object maximum, that would still give it much more sprite pushing power than the AGA Amiga's sprites+Blitter.

The conclusion here is that even if you are fully correct about the sprite limits and I was fully wrong, it still doesn't change that my actual point here (the MD can normally display significantly more objects in a frame than the CD32) remains true.

Anyway, I do hope to end this discussion soon. I find it not to be very productive.

[TEG]

Originally Posted by indigolemon

Sadly not, Gayle handled the PCMCIA slot (as well as IDE), and doesn't exist in the CD32.

I was not aware of that. Thanks for the info.
So another negative point for the CD32 to pretend for the "Best Amiga" price.

[saimo]

Gilbert,

the title of this thread, "What Makes The Amiga CD32 The Best Amiga?", is based on an implied (but very clear) statement: "the Amiga CD32 is the best Amiga". The way you put it makes it even stronger, as you present it as a given.

For that statement to be true, from an objective point of view, the Amiga CD32 should at least offer technically everything that all the other Amiga models offer and be as good in all the related areas.
Now, the Amiga CD32 doesn't have:
* a keyboard, unlike all the other Amigas;
* an RGB out, unlike all the other Amigas;
* floppy drives, unlike all the other Amigas;
* a parallel port, unlike all the other Amigas;
* a 68030 or 68040, unlike the A3000 and the A4000;
* FAST RAM, unlike the A3000 and the A4000;
* an IDE controller, unlike the A600, A1200 and A4000;
* a SCSI-II controller, unlike the A3000;
* a hard drive, unlike the A3000 and the A4000;
* a scan doubler + flicker fixer, unlike the A3000;
* as many expansion slots as the A2000/A3000/A4000;
* a PCMCIA slot, unlike the A600 and the A1200.

Note that the Amiga CD32 could still be arguably considered the best Amiga even if it missed a little something or was slightly worse at something, but, as you can see from the (probably incomplete) list above, it comes short in many, many areas.
Conclusion: the Amiga CD32 is not objectively the best Amiga.

From a subjective point of view, the fact that some people here prefer other Amiga models proves that the statement is not true. In other words, if the statement had been true, nobody would have found other Amiga models better. For example, the fact alone that the Amiga CD32 doesn't have a keyboard does not make it an attractive Amiga to me, as the Amiga is a computer to me, not a games console.

To avoid the accusation that I'm dismissing the strong points of the Amiga CD32, here are its unique features:
* built-in CD-ROM drive;
* NVRAM (well, for completeness, it must be said that also the A3000 has an NVRAM);
* basic hardware chunky-to-planar capability;
* a multi-button joypad;
* headphone jack.
Although nice to have, such features are not related to the shortcoming and thus don't make up for them. Moreover, the NVRAM and the chunky-to-planar capability are just too poor (for the reasons that others explained already).

So, does the above mean that the Amiga CD32 is rubbish? Certainly not: it just means that the Amiga CD32 isn't the best Amiga.
Does the above mean that I hate the Amiga CD32? Certainly not: I'm just pointing out that it isn't the best Amiga (for the record, I'm glad the Amiga CD32 exists). The same goes for the many others here who tried to show you the fallacy of your statement/arguments.
Does the above mean that the Amiga CD32 should not be considered the best Amiga by you (or any other Amiga CD32 enthusiast)? Certainly not: you're perfectly entitled to consider it the best Amiga... for you

Finally, please keep in mind that you're discussing here with people who have deep knowledge of the Amiga hardware, whereas your words show that you don't have a good technical understanding of the capabilities of the machine and of hardware in general. To substantiate this last claim of mine, here are a couple of very simple thing you said:
* CD32 also has better 3D capabilities too. (from post #406)
* Don't forget CD32 has 128 sprites really. (from post #446)
Quick answers:
* the Amiga CD32 has no 3D capabilities whatsoever;
* the Amiga CD32 has 8 sprites just like any other Amiga.

This is only meant to say that when it comes to technical matters what you write tends to be wrong/false, and that when you get answers from knowledeable people you should rather try to understand them instead of countering them with more meaningless babble.

At first, you looked to me like a genuine Amiga CD32 lover who just happened to discover that his belief was just that, a belief, not a universal truth. But that was just my impression: I have no idea of who you really are, what you really think and what you really are after. But I can safely say that, in this thread, your behaviour: has been disrespectful towards those who patiently tried to have a conversation with you; is the same behaviour of blind fanatics who just won't listen to reason; is trying hard and slyly to hammer into everybody's head your personal truth.
Please, for your own good first of all, cool down and:
* accept that the Amiga CD32 isn't the best Amiga for everyone;
* there's nothing wrong with the Amiga CD32 not being the best Amiga for everyone;
* users of other Amiga models don't hate the Amiga CD32;
* enjoy your Amiga CD32 as much as you want and be happy!

[PortuguesePilot]

I really considered a lot about posting this, given my role as a moderator, but I keep seeing people trying to reason with Gilbert and decided to post it anyway. So here goes:

I really don't understand why you guys keep trying... The worse kind of blindness is the one that springs from the unwillingness to see. And Gilbert just doesn't want to see. In earnest, it appears to me as if he has a delusion. Delusions (a fixed, false belief that conflicts with reality and that, despite contrary evidence, the affected person cannot let go of their convictions and those convictions are reinforced by the misinterpretation of events or situations) are often 'created' by the minds of people to deal with a very large emotional trauma (or derive from other psychiatric conditions, like psychosis or paranoia). The delusion serves as a "protective cushion" for the ego to spare it from grave pain that the harsh reality would bring them. Deluded people like Gilbert would more often rather kill themselves than to face the harsh truth. They're the "Cyphers" of this world, who would rather take the red pill than the blue one.

He will always resist to waking up. There's no point in throwing reality, logic and reasoning towards him, because he will always dismiss them in order to further his delusion. Therefore: there is no point to this thread. Better to just let it die...

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by PortuguesePilot

Delusions (a fixed, false belief that conflicts with reality and that, despite contrary evidence, the affected person cannot let go of their convictions and those convictions are reinforced by the misinterpretation of events or situations) are often 'created' by the minds of people to deal with a very large emotional trauma (or derive from other psychiatric conditions, like psychosis or paranoia).

Yep, a lot of people have delusions. One of them is that the capabilities of other consoles such as the Megadrive, SNES, PlayStation or Xbox have anything to do with this thread. They are not Amigas, and therefore by definition cannot be the best Amiga.

The argument seems to be that since the CD32 is (purportedly) inferior to all other consoles it cannot qualify as the best Amiga. But it certainly is the best Amiga console. So if you prefer consoles to desktops then the CD32 has to be best Amiga for you.

Various people here have continued the Amiga community's tradition of belittling Commodore and their creations, to the point of spouting easily disproved lies or 'just asking questions' when they have nothing to criticize. I'm not sure why they do this, but it suggests a deep-seated emotional trauma caused by false beliefs that conflict with reality.

Whenever a question asks what is 'best', you know the answer will be subjective - and when the subject is Amiga there will always be a pile-on by self-loathing users who feel it let them down in one way or another. Then there are those genius armchair engineers who are quick to point out supposed failings and confident they would have done a better job. Commodore should have done this, Commodore should have done that, it's basically a giant mess! Whereas those of us living in the real world are constantly amazed by what they managed to achieve.

Having said that, I don't mind the off topic discussions and 'robust' debate. Not only does it bring back fond memories of the banter we used to engage in, but I have learned a bit about subjects I would not otherwise have bothered to research, and it's entertaining!

Therefore: there is no point to this thread. Better to just let it die...

Don't be silly, this one the best threads going right now, and it hasn't even gotten started yet!

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by roondar

Now, had Commodore provided a memory card slot and memory cards from day one this wouldn't be a problem. But they never did anything of the sort, nor required developers to offer options to store data externally. It's basically a giant mess.

A memory slot would have been a problem, because it would have cost more money as well as making life more complicated for users.

The storage capacity could have been a bit larger (and I'm sure the next model out would have done so, if Commodore had survived) but it had enough space for the title I developed so it wasn't an issue for me. Of course during development I used a floppy drive, and that wasn't a problem either because it was handled seamlessly. But I would not have been happy if Commodore had required me to offer that option.

As for being a 'giant mess', how does it compare to games consoles that had no nonvolatile storage at all and had to include battery backed RAM in the cartridge? Every such game you bought was costing you more money to make up for the console's limitations. But nobody complains about that 'giant mess'.

Instead of denigrating the CD32's capabilities we should be thinking about what we could do to improve it. My solution was to add a floppy drive using a cheap DIY interface, but if game save storage was all you needed a simple EEPROM upgrade could easily be applied. I would love to try that myself, but for some reason CD32 prices have skyrocketed recently - and since Covid killed my income...

[TEG]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Now, the Amiga CD32 doesn't have:
* a keyboard, unlike all the other Amigas;
* an RGB out, unlike all the other Amigas;
* floppy drives, unlike all the other Amigas;
* a parallel port, unlike all the other Amigas;
* a 68030 or 68040, unlike the A3000 and the A4000;
* FAST RAM, unlike the A3000 and the A4000;
* an IDE controller, unlike the A600, A1200 and A4000;
* a SCSI-II controller, unlike the A3000;
* a scan doubler + flicker fixer, unlike the A3000;
* as many expansion slots as the A2000/A3000/A4000;
* a PCMCIA slot, unlike the A600 and the A1200.

To avoid the accusation that I'm dismissing the strong points of the Amiga CD32, here are its unique features:
* built-in CD-ROM drive;
* NVRAM (well, for completeness, it must be said that also the A3000 has an NVRAM);
* basic hardware chunky-to-planar capability;
* headphone jack.

Can be added to the CD32 doesn't have section:
* 68020 but 68EC020

Can be added to the CD32 unique features section:
* the ability to handle from scratch 6 buttons paddle (correct me if I'm wrong)

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

and since Covid killed my income...

I hope you will find a way to compensate

[-Acid-]

Originally Posted by roondar

Ok, that's enough. This is my last post about this subject.

Few posts later replies with an essay

You are wasting your time trying to engage with him on the subject as others have also pointed out as he dismisses any and all evidence put forth that go against his fairy tale. I don't even waste my time reading his replies on this thread anymore as it's the same set of bs revised in each post.

[EAUniW]

Oh lord, it's like ST vs. 500, but over a jumped up CD player.

We all know the best Amiga ever was the 500. It ushered in mass acceptance of the Amiga and it was never bettered in a substantial way. AGA was no more than a tweak and a slight evolution.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

A memory slot would have been a problem, because it would have cost more money as well as making life more complicated for users.

No, it would have made life better for users because the provided level of storage is far too small. Note that one of the competitors Commodore itself names has 32x that amount and that users of that system complain about this being not nearly enough for more than a game or two all the time. At least they should've included a standard Amiga floppy drive interface. This would've fixed the whole issue.

As for being a 'giant mess', how does it compare to games consoles that had no nonvolatile storage at all and had to include battery backed RAM in the cartridge? Every such game you bought was costing you more money to make up for the console's limitations. But nobody complains about that 'giant mess'.

No one is complaining about that "giant mess" because these consoles never claimed to be able to save data in the first place. It was therefore a nice surprise or a perk when you got a game that did offer this ability.

The CD32 however, does offer NVRAM and does claim it can save your games. But it's such a small amount that many games on the system defaulted to using passwords and codes anyway, didn't offer any save-game ability or just didn't save all relevant data. And if you do want to save your game, you often could only save progress for one or two games - which is completely underwhelming.

Instead of denigrating the CD32's capabilities we should be thinking about what we could do to improve it.

I'm not denigrating the CD32's capabilities, I'm being honest about what it is and isn't. I have never said it's a bad system, nor do I actually think that. But I my reply was in a thread with someone who is claiming that 1KB of NVRAM is more than enough and that it's just stupid developers not knowing their stuff that's the reason you can't save some of your games/more than one or two games on the system.

Originally Posted by -Acid-

Few posts later replies with an essay

You are wasting your time trying to engage with him on the subject as others have also pointed out as he dismisses any and all evidence put forth that go against his fairy tale. I don't even waste my time reading his replies on this thread anymore as it's the same set of bs revised in each post.

Yeah, I don't like it when people imply I'm a liar. But I will start to slow down/stop posting here because you're right - it won't help.

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by EAUniW

Oh lord, it's like ST vs. 500, but over a jumped up CD player.

That's simply because a CD-ROM drive for the A1200 was never launched.

AGA was no more than a tweak and a slight evolution.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Yep, a lot of people have delusions. One of them is that the capabilities of other consoles such as the Megadrive, SNES, PlayStation or Xbox have anything to do with this thread.

Yeah, totally agreed. Wonder who has started it all? http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=23

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

They are not Amigas, and therefore by definition cannot be the best Amiga.
The argument seems to be that since the CD32 is (purportedly) inferior to all other consoles it cannot qualify as the best Amiga. But it certainly is the best Amiga console. So if you prefer consoles to desktops then the CD32 has to be best Amiga for you.

This is an extreme goalpost shifting exercise. There's the thread's title on top of this page, look up, better yet read the OP itself. It says nothing about console vs desktop preferences but refers to Amigas in general.

But, you're right about one thing: seeing as CD32 is the only Amiga console it certainly is the best Amiga console. Can't argue with that

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Various people here have continued the Amiga community's tradition of belittling Commodore and their creations, to the point of spouting easily disproved lies or 'just asking questions' when they have nothing to criticize. I'm not sure why they do this, but it suggests a deep-seated emotional trauma caused by false beliefs that conflict with reality.

To be honest, I prefer direct ad hominems instead of thinly veiled cod-psychology masquerading as such. But, since we're in the "armchair expert" zone, you might consider people who confuse objectivity with negativity.

In my book, saying that some Amigas were perhaps better than CD32 is certainly the former, and denying a possibility of holding such position an exercise in zealotry.

If only OP was willing to accept that some people might have different opinion and would agree to disagree, this thread would have finished around page 5. I wouldn't say he chose "spouting easily disproved lies" instead, but we have certainly been treated to a heap of dodgy and unfair arguments, comparisons, and misdirections. So, if there's one fault in this thread, it's people (me included) actually continuing to reply instead of bailing out early.

[jotd]

isn't the CDTV a console too? it would compete with CD32 then, so unclear which one is the best

I think this thread had some pretty informative parts. The opinion based parts should be ignored, enjoy the rest.