Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: runequester on April 11, 2011, 08:03:09 PM
-
On amigas you use fairly regularly, do you use RTG?
-
I use it on machines where they don't have an Amiga chipset and leave you no choice but to use RTG. I also use it occasionally on emulators but only because chipset emulation on those machines are dog-slow!
-
I don't at present, but I've been thinking of giving it a try.
-
i hope to in the near future but what i would like to know is do all games work in rtg or is it just some?
-
I also use it occasionally on emulators but only because chipset emulation on those machines are dog-slow!
+1
And I have RTG on 1 real A1200T. But I only use the RTG 0.2% of the time because RTG hacks into the OS and installs bugs which break normal AmigaOS software.
Amiga needs Native chunky gfx not silly retargetted to a pc gfx card chunky gfx. Natami FTW!
-
i hope to in the near future but what i would like to know is do all games work in rtg or is it just some?
Just some. Most don't.
-
I use RTG on all my presently active classic Amigas. Not sure why Chaos Lord has such instability, mine work fine.
I only use the native chipset for playing old games and watching demos. If it's OS friendly, it generally retargets fine.
Writing games that work well on both the native chipset and RTG strikes me as a bit of an artform. Each has different strengths and weaknesses and they arrange their data very differently.
-
When I had my A2000 souped up with an 060 and was online with it, yes - RTG all the way. I've essentially traded in that scenario for a MacMini with MorphOS however :)
-
When I had my A2000 souped up with an 060 and was online with it, yes - RTG all the way. I've essentially traded in that scenario for a MacMini with MorphOS however :)
Thats the alternative really on my list too :)
Or Natami as and when...
-
I will never go back to AGA, period. When my Bvision died in october last year, I havent touched my Amiga until I found a new one. Its a much, much better experience. Faster, less eyestrain, more colours, better internet, more possibilities (emulation!), the list is endless.. Can be a hassle to get working properly, but for me that is part of the fun! The reward is worth it all.
(got to admit that I wouldnt part with my Indivision either)
-
I didnt count my MorphOS machines so I answered "no".
When I had my A1200 it was strictly RTG only. All non-RTG games and demos had to go. Today I am happy with my Amiga 500. I wouldnt want any frankenstein Amiga anymore.
-
I use RTG for my main Workbench screen, web browsing, word processing and for a few other apps. I wouldn't be without it.
I have a Radeon card using a 1920x1080 resolution on my A4000 and (IIRC) a Cybervision 643D in the A2000 at 1280x1024.
-
Thats the alternative really on my list too :)
Amiga - more choices than you can shake a stick at.
-
RTG=Yes. Using GVP Spectrum 24/28. Runs well despite not being as premium as some of the others of the time period. I don't really play games on Amiga so chipset video not a biggie for me. I use in conjunction with Cybergraphx 4.
-
I use a Picasso IV Zorro 3 in my A4000D.
Do Macs running CGX on MorphOS and/or Picasso96 on UAE and Amithlon count too?
In fact, will my A1200 count when it gets an Indivision AGA Mk2?
-
When I had my A2000 souped up with an 060 and was online with it, yes - RTG all the way. I've essentially traded in that scenario for a MacMini with MorphOS however :)
Can't vote myself for the same reason. There is no non-RTG MorphOS configuration.
-
Hey Rune,
If you choose to add RTG.. Spend the bucks and go with a Retina BLT Z3 or Picasso IV. The performance difference is evident and it makes workbench usage very nice.
Good luck!
-
Hey Rune,
If you choose to add RTG.. Spend the bucks and go with a Retina BLT Z3 or Picasso IV. The performance difference is evident and it makes workbench usage very nice.
Good luck!
I like the one combination Karlos has:
A1200T Apollo 1240 28MHz / 32MB / Mediator1200 / Voodoo 3000 / OS3.9
But using a Voodoo3 requires a PCI busboard
-
I like the one combination Karlos has:
A1200T Apollo 1240 28MHz / 32MB / Mediator1200 / Voodoo 3000 / OS3.9
But using a Voodoo3 requires a PCI busboard
Nice spot Iggy...
The Voodoo would be an awesome choice.
The purist in me never wanted to leave the zorro card and 68k processors. Silly really, then I bought a peg2 and MOS lol... So much for that ;)...
-
Guys if you are going to spend all kinds of money to upgrade a classic do yourself a favour and pick up a cheap 1ghz powermac for $100 and reg morphos for $150 and $250 you have a box that will kick any rtg amigas ass.
-
Guys if you are going to spend all kinds of money to upgrade a classic do yourself a favour and pick up a cheap 1ghz powermac for $100 and reg morphos for $150 and $250 you have a box that will kick any rtg amigas ass.
Hey Mag,
Your best buddy Franko won't run that OS on his Macs (but he seems to think AOS4 and the X1000 have something to do with "real Amigas").
Your argument makes sense when you consider that a Mediator busboard costs more (by itself) then the entire system you've mentioned.
-
Ive said it before, but RTG gfx is soooo much better than custom chipset for anything remotely serious. Makes an Amiga feel much more solid, not to mention the speed increase. If I only had the one Amiga it'd be RTG based, no questions, but I like to have an AGA machine too, just cos I get a kick out of working within its limitations.
-
Ive said it before, but RTG gfx is soooo much better than custom chipset for anything remotely serious. Makes an Amiga feel much more solid, not to mention the speed increase. If I only had the one Amiga it'd be RTG based, no questions, but I like to have an AGA machine too, just cos I get a kick out of working within its limitations.
The solutions that allow both to co-exist are ideal for running everything.
-
As for MOS/PPC Mac vs. spending money on classics, theyre different kettles of fish. I'll spend decent money on my classic without thinking twice. It's a unique machine with unique hardware and software. What it sets out to do it does well. MOS on the other hand does nothing no other machine does (in fact it shares most of its sftware base with other machines), and its hardware is quite generic. Classics excel at doing what they where intended for whereas MOS/PPC mostly gives a substandard effort at being what it sets out to be (a "modern" system).
This isnt to say I dislike MOS, far from it, but I really dont see it as an alternative to spending money on my classics. It's simply a different kettle of fish.
-
It's a unique machine with unique hardware and software. What it sets out to do it does well. MOS on the other hand does nothing no other machine does (in fact it shares most of its sftware base with other machines), and its hardware is quite generic.
This. I don't use my Amiga because I want it to be exactly like a modern PC, I use it because I like it for its own sake and its own peculiar nature - same with all my other old computers.
-
As for MOS/PPC Mac vs. spending money on classics, theyre different kettles of fish. I'll spend decent money on my classic without thinking twice. It's a unique machine with unique hardware and software. What it sets out to do it does well. MOS on the other hand does nothing no other machine does (in fact it shares most of its sftware base with other machines), and its hardware is quite generic. Classics excel at doing what they where intended for whereas MOS/PPC mostly gives a substandard effort at being what it sets out to be (a "modern" system).
This isnt to say I dislike MOS, far from it, but I really dont see it as an alternative to spending money on my classics. It's simply a different kettle of fish.
I don't disagree with you about MorphOS being a "different kettle of fish" than a Classic Amiga computer, but the rest of your post is quite negative and IMHO, inaccurate. Although the software base for MorphOS native is small, it does exist and only MorphOS compatible hardware can run those programs, or games, and more native MorphOS software is being written all the time. That part is no different than what is happening with the AmigaOS4.x camp, or even the AmigaOS3.x group, with the exception that MorphOS2.x can also run most of the software that was written for AmigaOS1.x to 3.x faster than the original hardware and can even run many AmigaOS4.x software titles through an emulation wrapper.
MorphOS2.x is not for everyone, but it does fill a purpose for those of us who want an Amiga-Like experience that is faster and has certain improvements over the original system software, while running on faster hardware that is (slightly) newer. MorphOS2.x is not intended to compete with Windows, or MacOSX, or even Linux on the latest and greatest hardware that has just been released, so I disagree with your statement that MorphOS2.x does not do what it was intended to do and do it well.
I also spend money on my Classic Amiga systems and enjoy using them, but for me, MorphOS2.x is just one more way for me to enjoy running some Amiga software and also a step forward, while still keeping most of the feel from the original. Your mileage may vary and I completely understand that, but I have to disagree with most of your statements regarding what MorphOS2.x is, or is not.
-
I don't disagree with you about MorphOS being a "different kettle of fish" than a Classic Amiga computer, but the rest of your post is quite negative and IMHO, inaccurate. Although the software base for MorphOS native is small, it does exist and only MorphOS compatible hardware can run those programs, or games, and more native MorphOS software is being written all the time. That part is no different than what is happening with the AmigaOS4.x camp, or even the AmigaOS3.x group, with the exception that MorphOS2.x can also run most of the software that was written for AmigaOS1.x to 3.x faster than the original hardware and can even run many AmigaOS4.x software titles through an emulation wrapper.
MorphOS2.x is not for everyone, but it does fill a purpose for those of us who want an Amiga-Like experience that is faster and has certain improvements over the original system software, while running on faster hardware that is (slightly) newer. MorphOS2.x is not intended to compete with Windows, or MacOSX, or even Linux on the latest and greatest hardware that has just been released, so I disagree with your statement that MorphOS2.x does not do what it was intended to do and do it well.
I also spend money on my Classic Amiga systems and enjoy using them, but for me, MorphOS2.x is just one more way for me to enjoy running some Amiga software and also a step forward, while still keeping most of the feel from the original. Your mileage may vary and I completely understand that, but I have to disagree with most of your statements regarding what MorphOS2.x is, or is not.
Thanks Dave,
I almost felt inadequate when comparing a legacy system with my MOS system.
While the sole purpose of an original Amiga system is to run Amiga applications, MorphOS systems are designed to run AOS applications and MOS native applications (and the native applications are usually a big improvement over the legacy apps).
And Ambient is much nicer visually then Workbench.
-
RTG - for 14 - 15 years already. It has been a necessity to keep Amiga somewhat useful in Internet use.
-
I don't disagree with you about MorphOS being a "different kettle of fish" than a Classic Amiga computer, but the rest of your post is quite negative and IMHO, inaccurate. Although the software base for MorphOS native is small, it does exist and only MorphOS compatible hardware can run those programs, or games, and more native MorphOS software is being written all the time. That part is no different than what is happening with the AmigaOS4.x camp, or even the AmigaOS3.x group, with the exception that MorphOS2.x can also run most of the software that was written for AmigaOS1.x to 3.x faster than the original hardware and can even run many AmigaOS4.x software titles through an emulation wrapper.
MorphOS2.x is not for everyone, but it does fill a purpose for those of us who want an Amiga-Like experience that is faster and has certain improvements over the original system software, while running on faster hardware that is (slightly) newer. MorphOS2.x is not intended to compete with Windows, or MacOSX, or even Linux on the latest and greatest hardware that has just been released, so I disagree with your statement that MorphOS2.x does not do what it was intended to do and do it well.
I also spend money on my Classic Amiga systems and enjoy using them, but for me, MorphOS2.x is just one more way for me to enjoy running some Amiga software and also a step forward, while still keeping most of the feel from the original. Your mileage may vary and I completely understand that, but I have to disagree with most of your statements regarding what MorphOS2.x is, or is not.
Youve sure read a lot into things I never really said.
What I said was perfectly accurate. Simple fact is MOS *doesnt* have much in the way of software comparable to the classics, and the hardware itself is quite generic. Yes it has some decent software, but there's nothing overwhelmingly enticing for me about it (nor any of the other "NG" options). I dont particularly find 101 little bits and pieces exciting which is what the majority of original "NG" software is if you exclude the classic 68k/ppc library and open souce software.
Negative, maybe, but Im simply pointing out truths, so if its negative it simpy relects the state of the "NG" options. Again, this isnt to say I dislike them,.... Ive spent hundreds and hundreds of hours coding for them. I wouldnt do that if I was disinterested. Simple fact is there's no market, ergo very little exciting software that's not derived from exisiting software. The same is true of classics thse days too.
I never for a second suggested MOS was in any way, shape, or form bad. Heck I ever said so in my post.
I also never implied that classics are in any way the only option. Im interested in all amiga flavors and have had both MOS and OS4.x machines before (and currently also still have an AROS box).
Long story short, I just dont see any of the NG options as a replacement for the classic amigas yet. Its not as simple as "want an rtg amiga, buy a ppc mac and mos, it's faster too" as suggested, which is what I was responding to. Again, theyre simply different kettles of fish.
-
Youve sure read a lot into things I never really said.
What I said was perfectly accurate. Simple fact is MOS *doesnt* have much in the way of software comparable to the classics, and the hardware itself is quite generic. Yes it has some decent software, but there's nothing overwhelmingly enticing for me about it (nor any of the other "NG" options). I dont particularly find 101 little bits and pieces exciting which is what the majority of original "NG" software is if you exclude the classic 68k/ppc library and open souce software.
Negative, maybe, but Im simply pointing out truths, so if its negative it simpy relects the state of the "NG" options. Again, this isnt to say I dislike them,.... Ive spent hundreds and hundreds of hours coding for them. I wouldnt do that if I was disinterested. Simple fact is there's no market, ergo very little exciting software that's not derived from exisiting software. The same is true of classics thse days too.
I never for a second suggested MOS was in any way, shape, or form bad. Heck I ever said so in my post.
I also never implied that classics are in any way the only option. Im interested in all amiga flavors and have had both MOS and OS4.x machines before (and currently also still have an AROS box).
Long story short, I just dont see any of the NG options as a replacement for the classic amigas yet. Its not as simple as "want an rtg amiga, buy a ppc mac and mos, it's faster too" as suggested, which is what I was responding to. Again, theyre simply different kettles of fish.
For you, perhaps. As for me, I don't have nearly as much interest in legacy apps. And I can run a fairly decent web browser, play back DVDs (and most HD video), and use more than 256 colors at once.
-
For you, perhaps. As for me, I don't have nearly as much interest in legacy apps. And I can run a fairly decent web browser, play back DVDs (and most HD video), and use more than 256 colors at once.
256 colors a plus in an RTG thread ? Little odd dont you think. Amigas have been running more than 256 colors for 20 years via rtg.
Yes, MOS can offer a nice compromised system for the modern computing world. But this is maybe my point. Everyone else (even phone users) are running 1080p video, have fully functioning browsers (no discredit to Fab's MOS OWB, its the standout browser for "amiga" systems), play bluray video, have gaming more modern than quake3, etc, etc.
I just find the classics more interesting and leaving me with less wants. The classics do what they set out to do nicely. Any NG amiga option stands out as comproised because a person expects more from a current system.
Also, incase you missed it Im not anti NG amiga, and quite like MOS. Would I have spent hundreds of hours developing for those systems if they disliked them, or didnt get the point ? As much as I like them though, and as much as I did what I could to try to redeem the problems with them I find myself discontent with them still.
-
RTG - for 14 - 15 years already. It has been a necessity to keep Amiga somewhat useful in Internet use.
Your view on what constitutes Internet seems quite narrow then.
-
Agree with you guys on MOS.
MOS on my Peg 2 has always felt like what the next Amiga should be. Ambient's update to the workbench is, imho, a perfect transition to the 21st century.
I still enjoy my 3000 with my kids, but MOS is really polished and complete. It would be nice to see the Natami be released for another perspective. But for now, from my standpoint of running many amiga 68k apps and being fairly modern, MOS has the advantage and makes the most sense...
-
Only under WinUAE.
-
Yep A4000, CS2 68060, CV64 and Indivision, CGX v4. Best of both worlds. I sold a CV643D plus its semi-working scan doubler to buy the Indivision.
Beacsue I had RTG since about 1998, I didn't buy a another computer until 2007. When I ran Amiga productivity apps I relised just how that software flies on an RTG screen. I also ran MS Office, and Photoshop 3 via Shapeshifter, played Mac Doom inside Shapeshifter, used Netscape, Internet Explorer, Acrobat for PDF's, scanned 24 bit images (into Photoshop as well). RTG opened up so many options for me.
-
I have an A3K with a GVP Spectrum card, which is a fantastic combination. The Spectrum is not fast compared to other cards, but with the passthrough for the A3K's 31kHz display output, I can seamlessly switch between programs running on RTG and ECS. So I can use Workbench, AWeb, etc., in higher resolutions and also run hardware-banging games and demos.
-
I recall when RTG meant that certian graphics packages (ImageMaster r/t, ADpro, ImageF/X, and others) could ReTarget the image to the early 24bit display cards/framebuffers such as Firecracker24, OpalVision and others, allowing one to actually see all 24bits of color while manipulating the image thus lifting the optical barrier of working on a 24bit image in standard Amiga resolutions.
To answer to OP question:
Yes with the A3000.
No with the VT/Flyer system.