Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: iamaboringperson on September 30, 2004, 01:11:09 AM
-
Here is my official list of the worst Amiga's - and why they're so bad.
1. A1000 - Yes, it was the first and all, but imagine loading a Kickstart disk every time you turn it on.
And, obviously there is crap expansion.
2. A600 - About the upgradability, and crap keyboard. Need I say more?
3. A500 - Better expansion than the A600, but still not good enough.
4. A1200 - Technically better than the A500 (but then, it did come later...), but still crap expansion, and a crap case.
I hope you enjoyed this list.
-
I agree with everything except 4.
To me the A1200 was the common person's miggy, with not much money to expand whereas the 4000's were the wealthy people's choice who had the money to expand.
But since the A1200 was the more popular model more people were buying the add-ons too.
I'd like to add one model to that list though to balance out all the pro things said about it recently...
A2000
:-D
-
I only agree with you on the A600. It didn't advance the platform and
in fact, hurt it in some ways. It was a total waiste of Commodore's
diminishing development resources.
I couldn't disagree with you more on the other three. When the A1000
came out, no one really minded using the Kickstart disk. It only
became a pain when the A500 and A2000 came out and eliminated the need
for the Kickstart disk. Besides, you can't knock a computer with a
keyboard garage. :)
The A500 put the Amiga in homes. It was cheaper than PCs and Macs
and the hardware was supported very well with the sidecar expansions.
The A1200 did the same thing for the 32-bit machines.
--Aaron
-
Greetings Iama,
I agree with your lists. True they're all limited to that extent. That's why they have the tower power options for A1200. On the A500,1000,600. There were none. Customize like o'l doomy with his A500 tower(though not sure if he really did that). :-P
A1200 is just a wee too late when they release it back in the 90's.
Regards,
Gizz
-
Well, exept for the orignal, these models were not meant to be overly expandable. Basically, these are the economy versions. If you wanted power and alot of exspandability you got the desktop models (A2000, A3000, A4000).
-
well i recon the a600 was the only stuff up
and i also towered my a500 and had hard drive cdrom 8 meg fast ram 2meg chipram and 020@25mhz accelerator used it for many years still got it just hybernating
-
I agree with the list, but the problems I have is that I personally think the Amiga 1200 is great. The very first Amiga I first played and witnessed was the Amiga 600, so tis another favorite.. :-)
Since its almost impossible to upgrade an Amiga 2000 to use, then it might be added to the list of them Amigas. 8-)
-
Look, when the Amiga 1000 came out, in 1985, nobody cared about having to load a disk to boot the machine! Maybe when you saw the A1000 is was much later? Yes after the A500/2000 were out, the loading of the disk was very annoying. And as far as expansion, again think 1985. The previous machine that commodore released was the Commodore 128D. Please do not compare later technologies to earlier ones (as far as home computers go)
The A500/1200 were awesome for their time too. I agree with you on the A600, it was crap. If it were AGA, and had a viable CPU upgrade path, it would of been really cool (like the 1200), but not the way it was and it being ECS...
-
The A2000/500 are good machines, to this day. I'm typing this on an A2000 right now, albeit with an 030 and PicassoII card in it. I also towerized a Rev.6 a500 with a Bodega Bay busboard and it is quite useful. Though it has only a 2.04 ROM I can use go online with Miami and use email, ftp, and other clients, though no graphical browser.
-
I'll go with the A500+ for the worst Amiga... only because its my least wanted amiga... Me and the 500 have some History but the 500+ is like the cousin no one talks about...
The A1000 is not only the first Amiga but its my first Amiga too... and the Kickstart disks werent that bad just once when you switch on... not at every reset... plus you could get cracked kickstarts that had extra goodies.
-
Basing the quality of a given computer just on expansion capabilities is pretty lame. And, the A500/A1200 are probably the most expanded Amigas from their given era. The number of expansions for the A500 alone would probably outnumber the combined accellerators, memory cards, video cards, and zorro 3 cards available for the A4000.
-
@iama-
The A600 is the only Amiga off your list that I agree with. It was worse than the A500 it replaced, while costing more. A total step backwards, a waste of time and resources, and ultimatly created a bad image releasing a 7mhz machine that late in the game.
My defense of the others follows:
A1000 - Was the first - C'mon, people, there IS a learning curve here. A spectacular machine. And remember, it had to go to production before the OS was finished... That had a lot to do with the design of having kickstart in RAM.....
A500 - The best seller - In the hayday, it was a true unmatched powerhouse in it's price catagory. Had it not been for this machine, I wouldn't have been able to get started with Amiga. I'm sure lots of other people were in the same situation.
A1200 - The AGA update to the best-seller - It came out a little late for the times, but still, when it was introduced, it was a fairly potent machine in a small package, priced at a point it was appealing.
Now, as for one I feel should have been on your list but wasn't... (And I'm sure I'm going to get roasted for this one, but heck, what's a good broiling between friends) is the CDTV.
I mean here are some of the highlights...
(1) The thing has the classic styling of a stereo component... one you hide in a cabinet behind tinted glass.
(2) It couldn't decide if it should be a game console (yet it didn't have any games available on CD at launch time) an expensive AudioCD component (that used CD CADDIES!!) or a personal computer (in a very inconvenient and non-matching form factor)
(3) It featured a remote that didn't work well as joystick, yet was a lousy shape for any other purpose.
The CDTV. A strange solution left looking for it's problem.
-
The Amiga 1000 was THE AMIGA.
Nothing better in its ERA .... except maybe CRAy :-)))
A500 Was THE AMIGA for the masses! again nothing better for the money costs!
A500+ was just a stupid mistake. and it lasted only 3 months exchanged by A600 so no reason to appear.
A600 Was toooo late for the upgrades it offerd, but nevertheless IT WAS an upgrade over 500/500+
Just remember WB2.1 KS2.05 PCMCIA(FABULUS for now! as I have an wireless net card sitting there),
OnBoard IDE and the BEST of ALL (and a record for the amiga line until now: THE SMALLEST!)
A1200 the right direction of upgrading the masses line.
All the other Big Box amigas was machines with higher state of completion against the masses line of their time,
*BUT* was too expensive all of them for what they offered.
so I make 5 categorys :
The WORST: A500+
The Most Completed: A3000
The Most Upgraded: A1200
The Most Powerfull: A4000
The Most Beautifull: A600
The Most Beloved: A500
But all of this started from ONE machine so for a tribute ;-)
The Machine that Changed the Computer World: Alpha One 3xZero .
;-)))
-
Worst Amiga? The Lorraine! Ugh, what a beast! All those wires a...
Hey! Stop throwing things at me!
Although I would like to make a semi-serious comment and say that I think the worst looking Amiga was that god awful "Walker" thing. I'd be afraid to have one on my office desk: people would constantly stroll by and stuff bits of garbage into the floppy slot thinking it was a trashcan!
Ultimately it didn't matter, but I'm kind of glad that one was never released.
Also, what was that one concept only (empty case) post-C= Amiga that Ryan "I am a real Doctor, damn you!" Czerwinski wound up with? Gah, that thing was hideous. Looked like a Compaq Presario ca. 1997ish or so, with that funky, permanently up-angled monitor...yeesh.
But ultimately, my serious opinion about what the WORST Amiga was would be: the Amiga International A4000T. RIDICULOUSLY overpriced, woefully underpowered/under-featured; probably what really killed the Amiga as a sellable product here in the 'States. IIRC for $3000.00USD you got an 040/25 with four megs of RAM and a 250mb HD or something pathetic like that.
-
I'd have to say the CDTV, as it was not much more than an A500 in a desktop with an integrated CD-ROM. Most of what it can do can be done by expanding an A500.
I think the Fat Agnus - display controller that it came with should have at least been an AGA. Perhaps throwing an A1200 in the same box would have made the CDTV a better hit.
Certainly an interesting machine, but I think it was released a little late (1991).
-
@StormLord
StormLord wrote:
Just remember WB2.1 KS2.05 PCMCIA(FABULUS for now! as I have an wireless net card sitting there)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have that wireless card actually working with your Amiga? is it online wirelessly with that card?
-
A500+: You couldn't expand it with normal A500-expansions, and It had incompatability issues.
The A600 wasn't great, but it sure kept me running.
I had one with 270 Mb hard drive, 2 Mb chip-RAM, 4 Mb fast RAM, and OS 3.1.
I was so happy about it, that I bough another one when it broke. Unfortunately, the new machine only had OS 2.04 and was never put to very much use. :-(
-
A500+: You couldn't expand it with normal A500-expansions
Yes, you could! and It had incompatability issues.
No, it didn't!
BTW the A1200 was crap! The A 4000 T was a much better machine.
-
I agree with: that the A600 was crap, it was hard to expand had an crap keyboard and it seemed like at gameing console in a wierd way
-
nex4060 wrote:
I agree with: that the A600 was crap, it was hard to expand had an crap keyboard and it seemed like at gameing console in a wierd way
Wasn't the A600 supposed to compete with the NES? A console with a keyboard?
Anyway I think it is a cool machine. It has surface mounted devices allowing its form factor. It has an intergrated harddisk controller. And it has PCMCIA. How can you say it was a step back.
I have three miggy's at home. An A500, A600 and A1200.
What a use most:
1. A1200
2. A600
3. A500
Maybe thats a better crap indicator. The last being the crappiest
-
iamaboringperson wrote:
A500+: You couldn't expand it with normal A500-expansions
Yes, you could! and It had incompatability issues.
No, it didn't!
BTW the A1200 was crap! The A 4000 T was a much better machine.
@ima
You're starting to sound like the doommaster!
I guess in its day the A1200 was a machine I desired whereas the A4000T was way beyond my budget. Both are great machines but it's like comparing your bicycle to my LearJet.
The A500+ did have a lot of the OS2.x, no FAST ram (for the early 1Mb software) and 1 meg chip incompatibilities the A600 did - (though I'm pretty sure you could use most of the same A500 peripherals with it) I know this cos a lot of my favorite games died when I upgraded to 1meg chip to run Dpaint5
-
WALKER, of course :-o
-
The Amiga 600 has to be the ugly's Amiga ever of couse of walker did get released then it would of got this great title instead.
Also the 600 never made any sence from business view point
1) It cost more then A500 & A500+ to produce.
2) It never sold that well until commodore did heavy price cutting.
3) Everone knew A1200 was going to be release soon with AGA.
-
This is a toughie. You have to take in consideration the different generations of the Amiga, ofcourse, and put them in the timeframe they belong in.
I like the A1200 and A2000 most. Both of them are easy to expand and pretty robust. I still consider the A3000 to be some kind of the 'perfect' Amiga.
The A1000 and A4000 are, imo, the worst. Both were rushed to completion and are not what they were supposed to be. Although they were about the best of their kind at the time being, they had to much designflaws. Technically, the A500 was much more what the A1000 should have been.
The CDTV was a great idea, but suffered from several (minor) design flaws (the use of a caddy and a terribly designed remote control, 'only' an A500 without any further expansion). It suffered even more from the terrible marketing, though...
So, imo, the worst Amiga:
1- A4000
2- A1000 (but VERY desirable as being THE Classic!)
3- CDTV
That doesnt't mean I'm going to turn down someone offering me one of the above for free. :-)
-
@Iama
Agreed on the A600, I remember seeing one back in 1992 and thinking "Huh?". It was a step back from the A500, yet was priced at an extra £100, despite it's obvious place as a junior Amiga.
Another Commodore "Doh!" moment.
Next up is the CDTV. It was an opportunity wasted, thanks to it's relatively high price (an extra £250 IIRC over the A500) for a CD ROM drive, no keyboard and that awful CD carrier thingy that you had to eject, fit a disc into and then replace in the CDROM drive.
Personal favs are the A500 (it introduced me to the Amiga, along with however many million others), the A1200 (so expandable for a twelve year old design, you don't see Macs or PCs of that vintage with similar longevity do you?) and the A3000 because whoever designed it thought of everything...
-
The oldest Amiga I own is the A500 and A500+. The latest Amigas I have and will ever own are my A1200s. I would not list either of this models as worst in any way.
-
i've not had the pleasure of owning an A600, but there are alot of people out there with them tweeked and chipped up with all kinds of addons that wern't thought possible. i like its small form, but hate its "i'm an A500 in a different case" thing going on. when it was released so long after the A500. i mean surely they could have done something with it? i mean the A3000 was the only 32bit incarnation of the ECS chipset. surely that could have gone in there? onboard 020 for the 600, 030 for the 1200, couple of simm slots in each..
other than that, i've owned every machine except the A1000 and 3000 series which i would consider to be the best designed, most thought out, and properly done machine of the entire Amiga line.
its a real shame about the A4000/AGA series though. it could have been so much more. the R&D guys were playing about with DSP sound chips, the AAA chip set, a processor beyond the 68k series, blah blah blah. it was supposed to be released with 31khz video out (amber), scsi and IDE, 16bit audio via DSP with paula emulation, the good ol' 8Mb chip ram ;) etc. etc. ....
and the actual build quality of the A4000D machines themselves? the front didn't fit properly, the power switch on the front was a long plastic stick that went to the power supply switch, the PSU fans were crap, scratched/bleeding knuckles from fitting CPU boards, Zorro daughterboard not lining up with the case leading to occasionally worryingly bent zorro cards... the list goes on... but fair play for making it a fairly small form desktop machine though.
but anyway, damn you commodore! you could have been so much more!... other than seemingly being a tax avoidence scheme....
whats the topic of this thread again? i seem to have lost it somewhere.... :lol:
-
I had two different A500s, a B2000, an A600, an A1200 and an A4000T.
I hated the A600.
I tried to like it, I thought I would be able to get by with that keyboard but I couldn't.
That A600 lasted a few weeks. Then it was outta there!!
The first box Amiga I saw was the A1000 and I wanted that. I don't think a Kickstart disk would have got me down.
So yes, I think the worst one is the A600.
And probably the best all-rounder in terms of price vs performance is the A1200. If I ever get tired of lugging this A4kT around, I will go back to the A1200.
-
What is this for a crap thread? :-x
there is no such a thing as a bad Amiga
Every single model released by Commodore (and pre-Commodore)
[color=FF0000]ROCKED BIG TIME[/color]
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
What is this for a crap thread? :-x
there is no such a thing as a bad Amiga
Every singel model released by Commodore (and pre-Commodore)
[color=FF0000]ROCKED BIG TIME[/color]
:-D Correct Speel. But the worst model of Amiga is the 500+. But rumor has it that this was not built by "Commodore" :sealed:
-
A500+
-
My A500+'s were made in Britain, but have no marks for anything other than Commodore.
I think their advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, you get the classic good looks of the original A500, but RTC, 2Mb of Chip mem (with the obligatory ram board), ECS, KS2 as standard, and it takes almost all the hardware add-ons that were designed for the A500 (even the A501 for 1.5Mb chip mem ;-)).
I've only found a couple of games that don't work, and an upgrade with chip mem can sort that (though I'm not that bothered by it).
The A600 has a plus point in that it's the smallest Amiga, so easier to lug 'round to friends houses for all night gaming sessions!
-
Model and how I value them (0-5, greater = better)
Bad:
CDTV (0), Probe the market before you spend money on it and don't hide what it is.
A500+ (1), Why? New OS and slightly improved graphic vs alot of incompatability... again why?
A600 (1.5), Slowes Amiga and expandability is virutally none existing. Even so, these days it have it's fans.
Medium:
A1000 (2), Lucky for it, it was the first Amiga and therefor I won't cut it by it's ancles.
CD32 (2.5), pointing at CDTV comment and adds that it was little to late.
Good:
A3000T (3), Great... a tower, more space but not much news over the A3000.
A2000 (3.5), fixed alot of issues with the A1000 and great design.
Great:
A4000D (4), except for the change form old SCSI standard for IDE it was great.
A3000(4.5), Slim design can be both a positive and negative factor, love the built in SCSI & SD.
A1200 (5), A more flexible and value for money Amiga doesn't exist.
A4000T (5), Best of them all when it came but not as flexible nowadays as the A4000D.
-
For me its a toss up between the A500+ and the A600 as they didnt offer anything different to the existing Amiga models. Im not sure about the CDTV or even the CD32 ( :-o ), but the CD32 was definately better than the CDTV.
-
iamaboringperson wrote:
Here is my official list of the worst Amiga's - and why they're so bad.
3. A500 - Better expansion than the A600, but still not good enough.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
The A500 was THE Amiga!(at least in european countries)
And it had all kinds of expansion. 040-card? You got it. Internal graphics card? Yep External ZII-adapter? Sure
I can only think of three things that can´t be used on the A500: Prometheus PCI-card(Z3), VlabMotion(Z3) and PPC but those doesn´t work on a A2000 either.
If the Coldfire-project ever gets completed I will put one in a A500.
The A2000: The Amiga in US and Germany, a reliable old workhorse.
The A1000,A1200 and A4000: We need to have something on the market and we need it yesterday.
The A500+:Hey I´m here, the updated A500 with greater graphics and more chipmem. What do you mean canceled? I was just getting started.
The A600:The troubled kid, not only starved by its evil stepparents, but also bullied for its odd look.(it´s a 8-bit! No it´s a broken pc-laptop!)
Comment from A500+:You really canceled me for that one, you can´t be serious???!!
The A3000:Technially superior but not a great seller.
CDTV:A philosophical challenge. Why do I exist? Is there any meaning in my life? Why did Philips cloned me, and called it CD-I?
CD32: A great machine but bad timing.
So the A500+/A600-thing was the only real mistake.
-
We have all forgotten the Access, Draco, Casablanca and WonderTV!
Any opinions on those??? Maybe someone even owns one??
-
I didn't like A1200 and A4000. Too little and too late. Mac/PC world was catching up and people were begging for more (AAA ?) after years of Commodore's inactivity and design flops (A3000 was a good machine).
But many people bought them so I have to go with the A600. It was a cut down (but overpriced) version of the original, coming years after the A500 - it just didn't make any sense. Things would look better if it had an internal PSU instead of the external brick.
-
The AGA chipset Amiga should have came out 2/3 years earlier than they should.
-
@leirbag28:
Check this (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=45645) news posting about wireless cards for the Amiga.
/Patrik
-
Don't know if there was a "worst" Amiga but the A4000 was the most dissapointing, I had been expecting 16 bit sound at least but it didn't change at all. Now we know what they were working on and what it really is (a glorified A3000) so it's even more dissapointing given what it could have been.
As for the A1000 I was using it last night, it doesn't make that much noise until you do something with the disc drives which are dog slow and can make quite a racket!
-
Probably the worst Amiga of all was the A500+.
A500 were used by the majority of the market for games, so releasing something practically the SAME as it (the A500+) with incompatibilities to games (KS 2.0) was pretty crappy.
A600 was never intended to be released as the next best seller, but only as a slim-line update to the A500 line.
It was crippled of any serious upgrades, however small form factor, easy upgrade to 2MB chip / 4MB fast ram, built-in PCMCIA port, IDE port, and RF/Composite out ports were a step up from the A500, for sure. The only mistake about it was the fact that Commodore didn't include some sort of a kickstart switcher in order to provide 1.3 and 2.0 roms at the same time, as the included 2.0 roms took away compatibility with a lot of classic software. Since it was intended as a games machine, the A600 should have had a kickstart swithcer in it definitely!
The A600 was no different of an upgrade from A500, as PSOne was to the original Playstation. :-) Simply a cash cow to the already well established best seller, however A600 probably didn't succeed as well as PSOne.
-
3. A500 - Better expansion than the A600, but still not good enough.
4. A1200 - Technically better than the A500 (but then, it did come later...), but still crap expansion, and a crap case.
what?! are you out of your mind! the A500 is a classic! A powerhouse at the time, you didn't need anymore then a memory expansion and the people who wanted to, could attach a hard disk. believe me, the expansion part was _no_ problem at the time. people who wanted to buy expansions and had the money simply bought an A2000. In fact it was plain stupied to buy a A2000 if you would not expand it!
same thing for the A1200, beauty in a small package, it was complete right from the start.
you have to remember that these things came out in the 80's and begin 90's. i don't know, but i think my 500 lasted for 5 years without the need for an expansion (except memory upgrade :-D ) and at the end i could still play all the latest greatest games.
-
A1000 was very good for the time. You can expand it with practically anything but you have to plug a riser board into the 68K slot. I wanted an external hard drive, but couldn't afford it. Having to boot kickstart didn't bug me since Workbench came up so fast, anyway. I had already used a Mac when I got my 1000, so I knew I was getting off easy. The oldest Amiga was a rocket compared to a top-end Mac in '88. :-)
I wasn't a big fan of the 3000. Expandable, yes, but out of the box it was basicly a 500 in terms of graphics, and way too expensive.
The 4000 was also a real disappointment. Same graphics as the 1200; actually slower since the faster CPU robbed some graphics cycles, or some stuff like that. Good for number crunching but not much else. I took one look at the screen refresh speed at 640x400x8, and knew Commodore was going down.
so releasing something practically the SAME as it (the A500+) with incompatibilities to games (KS 2.0) was pretty crappy.
Well, Commodore DID warn people not to hard-code the thing. Couldn't delay 2.0 forever.
A standard '020 in the 500+ would've been nice. It was certainly too little for the already underpowered 1200. Moore's Law meant nothing to Amigas.
-
@Wacoon
I disagree about the A3000 (probably because I have one that I bought new!). It didn't have the same graphics as the A500, it was full ECS with 2M Agnus. Combine that with the improved architecture, SD/FF, built in SCSI, HD floppies, etc. and it was great for it's time.
Comparatively, the A4000 was a disappointment. Removing SCSI and the SD/FF and not offering expected upgrades like DSP really hurt. For it's time, the A4000 was much more overpriced than the A3000.
-
A500 and A500+
A600 & A1200 is great computers!..:-)
-
A500+ was the worst Amiga ever. It wasnt real A500, it wasnt A600, it was A500+ with poor game compatibility without anything interesting on the machine.
I owned A600 (upgraded from A500) and it was really cute. I could use cheap IDE HD (it was sloooooooow but still), it came with Kickstart 2.05, PCMCIA slot for cheap expansion cards, and mine came with 2MB chip RAM. It was really "wow!" when majority was using A500 and few poor souls with A500+. Of course I could not run all games anymore, but to be honest, A1200 was not better in that.
-
RRRRRRRRRggggghHHH
I'd have to say the A3000....
because I got some of the very first... apparently not quite finished ones, though Commodore didn't mention that to me. Maybe somebody warned me about using ther Digi-View thing with an A3000...? Somehow, it destroyed the A3000 internally.
Commodore, in a show of excellent customer service, sent me a new A3000 without even asking for the old one back! So... then I had two A3000s. It wasn't long before the new one was destroyed in some weird way also, apparently by the Digiview thing but possibly due to aulty electronics inn other ways (according to the techs I talked to, it just wasn't really ready to be released at the time... must have been Fall '89) . We had the motherboards replaced on both of them, if I recall.
The A3000 was great, though, MUCH better than an A500 due to the 68030 processor, higher resolutions, built in HD and WB 2.0. However, man games - Shadow of the Beast or instance - simply would not run properly, due to the graphics hardware or the OS I guess.
If I could do it all again, I'd get a 2000 or 2500 and soup it up instead of buying the A3000. We did end up with two, though.. that was cool.
-
The worst Amiga has to be the A600.
I think the A500+ is passable because it advanced the A500's architecture and brought us ECS and Workbench 2.x to the low end systems, but the A600 was just a plain step backwards. If the A1200 came along straight away instead of the A600 (a good 6 months earlier or so) things would have been so much better, and they would have been another 5-6 months ahead with AAA by the time Commodore folded (or completed it for all I know)
-
Right, so at the moment it's looking like a cross between the CDTV, the A500+ and the A600.
For starters, not much has been mentioned of the CD32, which had practically nothing going for it in terms of software, and as soon as other Amigas got affordable CD drives (and something called a Playstation came around) it was useless.
The CDTV? Still plays CDs, doesn't it? Well, then. Can't be the worst if you can listen to Queen on it.
The A500+? The worst Amiga? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR TINY LITTLE MI-hold it, calm down. No, it wasn't the worst. I'd make the argument that, as someone else touched upon, this was the Amiga to the Amiga 500 as the small PSOne was to the original Playstation. Not physically, on the outside, but it was spruced up. And I had around 250 games for it. 250 worked without incompatibility issues. Cheers. Still can't quite see the reason for the '+' was for.
So, this leaves the A600. More for less. Flight sims are rendered useless, it was released at about the same time as the A1200 (uh- wha?), but at least it could fit in a briefcase.
Hm, the A600 is the worst then, followed by the CD32.
-
Granted, I'm a little late to the party here, but I feel the need to defend my Miggy. So En Garde!
I own 2 A500+'s, one I bought cheap (even though it came with a hard drive), and one which was given to me. Both of them have survived numerous moves (at least 7) and are still in perfect working order. Freakin' tanks, these things. I tell ya.
I can play games, I can program in a number of languages (ARexx being my personal favorite), I could even jump onto BBS's (back in the day) and raise a little hell here and there.
Sure, it wasn't the be-all and end-all Uber-Komputer (insert umlauts over every other vowel there...), but it sure isn't the "Worst Amiga Ever!!!11 OMGWTFLOL!!!"
(sorry...that's my tween-ager AOL-user impression...) ;)
Blah blah blah...anyway, yeah. You get the picture. That little machine rocks! To the point where my son (who grew up with it) begged me to install AmigaForever on his PC.
Boy's a chip off the old block. Hoo hah.
-
ha ha ha, it turns out we really don't like amigas after all.
if I've got this right:
the A1000 had no kickstart roms and only 256k of ram
The A500 was too basic and limited in its expansion options
the A500+ was incompatible and had no real reason to exist
the A600 was obsolete by the time it was out
the A1200 was too little too late; could not play DOOM
the A2000 was too heavy, big and ugly for being a disguised A500
the 2500, 1500 were as above
the A3000 was buggy and SOTB didn't run
the A4000 had no flickerfixer and Ramsey was buggy
the CD32 had no games-
the CDTV was not much more than a CD player you connect to your TV
the AmigaONE is broken
the Pegasos is not Amiga
AROS PCs still make the annoyning df0: click sound
- have I missed something?
:-D
-
Wait, Doom did work on the A1200! Even a bog-standard one. Just ran l--i--k--e---t--h--i--s.
There, I've defended one of them...
-
Wow, I must be out of touch. . . I didn't know there was a bad Amiga :-D
-
amigean wrote:
ha ha ha, it turns out we really don't like amigas after all.
if I've got this right:
the A1000 had no kickstart roms and only 256k of ram
The A500 was too basic and limited in its expansion options
the A500+ was incompatible and had no real reason to exist
the A600 was obsolete by the time it was out
the A1200 was too little too late; could not play DOOM
the A2000 was too heavy, big and ugly for being a disguised A500
the 2500, 1500 were as above
the A3000 was buggy and SOTB didn't run
the A4000 had no flickerfixer and Ramsey was buggy
the CD32 had no games-
the CDTV was not much more than a CD player you connect to your TV
the AmigaONE is broken
the Pegasos is not Amiga
AROS PCs still make the annoyning df0: click sound
- have I missed something?
:-D
:lol:
That's pretty much on the money....yes!
-
My list for the worst Amigas ever would have to be the following:
Amiga 600
Amiga 1200
Amiga 4000
Amiga 4000T
AGA was a selling gimmick that Commodore used to sell these low quality Amiga models. They wanted people to move away from the then popular, higher quality Amiga 2000 and 3000 Series. The lower quality Amiga 600 was meant to replace the higher quality Amiga 500 (Commodore's most successful Amiga model). Commodore could no longer afford to produce the high quality Amiga 2000, 3000, and 500 Series, so they were pushing the sales of the lower quality Amiga 600, 1200, 4000, and 4000T. People in America quit buying the Amiga because of this.
-
What a surreal thread! Somebody calling the Amiga 1000 "The worst Amiga ever?!?!"
The Amiga 1000 is the Amiga!! I didn't know there was even a small percentage of the population that didn't understand that. I think it was Dale Luck or somebody of that stature who said "You can determine if it's a true Amiga is it has a keyboard garage." How can you be "the worst something" when you are the benchmark?
I'd cry "trolling!" but I really think the person who started this thread was serious!
I'll bet this guy calls the Atari VCS the "worst game console ever" and Sean Connery the "Worst Bond Ever!" :-P
-
Surely the worst amiga ever was the atari ST - a cruddy A500 wannabe :-P
(just having a wee joke)
-
My A500+ was ace. I never had incompatibility issues - then again, I always read the back of software boxes under the section "Hardware Specifications Required".
Many a day I had fun playing "Bart Simpson Vs The Space Mutants", one of the Dizzy adventures or another, the F/A-18 Flight Simulator. I'm only 20 now, so you can imagine how young I was at the time.
Don't mess with the A500+.
I agree about the A600 tho. It felt too small - keys were too close together, no num pad. My friends didn't do anything with their A600s that my A500+ couldnt do.
How I miss those days.
Samuar
-
The first 500 I bought was AFTER it was discontinued and the price at software etc. was like $200 clearance. The guy kept trying to talk me into buying a 600, but I already had a 2000HD so I wasn't budging. Guess it was a good thing.
-
My list of worst Amigas:
A600 - More expensive and less usefull A500. It had no reason to exist and brought nothing to the table over a stock 500 aside from the IDE controller. It was a game machine that rendered itself incapable of playing some of the most popular games of its time (flight sims) through its lack of a numeric keypad.
A3000 - Even with its 32bit bus, it brought little to the table over the 2000 (in fact, even after its release the A2500 with A2630 accelerator and A2091 controller were still more sought after until they were cancelled). ECS is the downfall of this machine. Its only saving grace was the A3000T. The 3000 is the poster child for the Amigas chipset stagnation. OCS/ECS were allowed to linger way too long while PCs were slowly but constantly moving toward mCGA and VGA.
My disagreements with the other models I've seen listed.
A1000 - Yea, it came with little RAM (though 256k was big in a time of 64-128k home computers) and had to be booted from floppy (Kickstart), but the advancements it brought to the table more than makeup those shortcomings. When it came out it could easily have been singing "Can't Touch This" whenever placed next to a Mac or IBM-PC of the day, most of which also had to be booted from diskettes.
A500+ I have no problem with a machine coming out the door with 2.0. I think Commodore and developers coddled 1.3 users too long which caused the OS to stagnate as much as the chipset. 1.3 users were the tail wagging the dog. For every game title they cried would not work under 2.0 there were plenty that would. They would then also cry whenever something released for 2.0+ (especially if a magazine cover disk had 2.0+ programs on it) because they still only had 1.3.
A1200 - For its size, you cant beat its expandability. PCMCIA for network cards (unfortunately only realized now with such cards being so inexpensive), full CPU slot which can take the machine up to an 060 or PPC with graphics card and HD controller options and a built-in IDE HD controller. Look at how people are using the clockport for further expansion possibilities. All in a machine you can stuff in a bag to take to Users Group meetings. I think its features fit the bill nicely for its intended market.
I cant find much fault with the A2000 or 4000. The 4000 is what the 3000 should have been so its only faults are in being delayed so long and releasing with the buggy 3.0 CPU card.