DoomMaster's whereabouts

[BoingBoss]

Hi jeffimix,

But doomy, I thought you only used Amigas and C64s and were an executive for Commodore

Actually, I love all computers.  I have owned, operated, repaired, and upgraded EVERY type of personal computer that has ever been made.  I have been working with computers since the very first personal computer hit the market.  The first computer that I ever bought for myself was a Commodore Vic 20, but I used the earlier computers before that.  My two favorite computers of all time are the Atari ST and the Commodore Amiga.  I also like the Commodore 64, 128D, and the older Macintosh computers.

[BoingBoss]

Hi MAD,

I once had a 520 ST and I think it was quite a terrible computer. GFX were ok but sound-wise it was a joke compared to the A500.

Did you try using your Atari 520ST's MIDI ports?  If you have a MIDI keyboard hooked up to an Atari ST computer many games will automatically play it and the music sounds much better.  The Amiga computer does not have built in MIDI ports, so it must rely on it's sound chip to do all the work of sound processing.  The Amiga computer was released six months AFTER the Atari ST, so of course it is going to be slightly better.

95% of the time, games were better on Amiga

NOT TRUE!  The Amiga is more powerful then the Atari ST, but that does NOT mean that the Amiga is a better computer.  In fact, even though I love my Amiga compters, I find myself using my Atari St computers more.  I use my Atari ST computers about 60% of the time and my Amiga computers about 40% of the time.   :-D

[drHirudo]

NOT TRUE!  The Amiga is more powerful then the Atari ST, but that does NOT mean that the Amiga is a better computer.  In fact, even though I love my Amiga compters, I find myself using my Atari St computers more.  I use my Atari ST computers about 60% of the time and my Amiga computers about 40% of the time.   :-D

So, you need more time to get the work done on the Atari ST than on the Amiga? No wonder. :lol:  :-D

[BoingBoss]

Hi drHirudo,

So, you need more time to get the work done on the Atari ST than on the Amiga? No wonder.

NO, a stock Atari ST is actually faster then a stock Amiga.  The Amiga runs at 7.1 MHz and the Atari ST runs at 8 MHz, .9 MHz faster then the Amiga.  Also, I actually like using my Atari ST computers more then my Amiga computers, but I love them both.   :-D

[HopperJF]

@BoingBoss

Do you have both your Atari and Amiga computers on the Internet?
If so what is the Atari internet software like

[Jope]

BoingBoss wrote:
I have owned, operated, repaired, and upgraded EVERY type of personal computer that has ever been made.

So, how did you like the FM Towns machines? Was the Acorn Electron nice, or did you prefer the BBC Micro over it? What about the Commodore MAX? What kind of upgrades did you do to that?

Please be a little more rational in your claims.. You most likely haven't used EVERY type of personal computer ever made. Most weren't even available in Canada.

[Calen]

NO, a stock Atari ST is actually faster then a stock Amiga. The Amiga runs at 7.1 MHz and the Atari ST runs at 8 MHz, .9 MHz faster then the Amiga. Also, I actually like using my Atari ST computers more then my Amiga computers, but I love them both

Your correct, and being an Atari expert you could also agree  it may have had a chance to show that extra difference in gaming, but did it?  well not when the ST went anywhere near sampled sounds, the difference was lost and then some.
As said in a previous thread, the Amiga started to shine when it stopped getting ports from the ST and the game developers started to dig into that fantastic hardware available.

The Amiga demo scene always had that :-)

[jeffimix]

The Amiga computer was released six months AFTER the Atari ST, so of course it is going to be slightly better.

 :juggler:

Odd, being as I was flipping through a magazine of that era and it had an AtariST review that said it might give the Amiga and Mac a run for their money :insane: . Meh, who cares anyhow.  :mickeymouse:  

[TjLaZer]

Doomy,

Yes, The Amiga was slower, but the Amiga used custom coprocessor chips to aid the CPU, so in reality the Amiga was faster. That is why the games on the Amiga are better and smoother.  

From what I remember the Amiga needed to be slower anyway because of Video timing?  Been way to long...

[BoingBoss]

Hi HopperJF,

Do you have both your Atari and Amiga computers on the Internet?

I do not have any of my Amiga computers or my Atari ST computers on the internet because I have a Pentium 4 PC for that kind of stuff.  I use my Amigas for playing classic Amiga games, video work, and music.  I use my Atari ST computers for playing classic Atari ST games, MIDI music, animations, and classic Macintosh emulation.

Anotherwards, I use my Amigas and Atari STs for FUN.  I use my PC for making money and for work.   :-)

[BoingBoss]

Hi jeffimix,

Odd, being as I was flipping through a magazine of that era and it had an AtariST review that said it might give the Amiga and Mac a run for their money

Are you sure you read that magazine article right?  Because the Atari ST DID come out six months BEFORE the Amiga did.  I should know, I was one of the very first people to buy one.   :roll:

[BoingBoss]

Hi TjLaZer,

Yes, The Amiga was slower, but the Amiga used custom coprocessor chips to aid the CPU

The Atari ST computer also had custom chips to aid its CPU.   :-D

[B00tDisk]

BoingBoss wrote:
Hi TjLaZer,

Yes, The Amiga was slower, but the Amiga used custom coprocessor chips to aid the CPU

The Atari ST computer also had custom chips to aid its CPU.   :-D

They didn't do anywhere near as good a job, though.

[BoingBoss]

Hi B00tDisk,

They didn't do anywhere near as good a job, though.

Actually, they did just as good a job.  Both the Atari ST and the Amiga computers were made really well and they do what they are suppose to do.  The Amiga was mainly designed to do video work.  The Atari ST was mainly designed to do MIDI work and classic Macintosh emulation.  And both have excellent games to play.   :-D

[Karlos]

@Doomy

One question. Why do you always refer to it as my "Pentium 4 PC"? As a PC owner myself, I'd be way too embarrased to admit owning one of Intel's worthless fan-assisted room heaters :-D

After all, as a professional, you can't be using one of those CRAP intel TOYS for your work, can you?

Go and buy yourself an Athlon64 based system - it'll "blow the doors off" any P4 system :-D

[BoingBoss]

Hi Karlos,

Go and buy yourself an Athlon64 based system - it'll "blow the doors off" any P4 system

Actually, my Pentium 4 PC does everything that I want it to do accept run Blood and Shadow Warrior without crashing.  I am going to down-grade my machine back to a Pentium III, 500 MHz.  That was the best processor I every used.  EVERYTHING worked on it and worked really well.  I still use Windows 98 Second Edition because I like it better then Windows XP.  In fact, I do NOT allow people using Windows XP to enter my game rooms at Kali Game Server.  I have placed a NO Win XP sign on my game rooms.

Karlos, Why should I upgrade to a newer processor when the one I have now works just fine?  You guys are never satisfied.  I on the otherhand am perfectly happy with what I have (just as soon as I down-grade to a Pentium III, 500 MHz processor).   :-D