Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: nBit7 on September 19, 2007, 11:39:37 AM
-
An Amiga 500 could smoothly scroll text vertically across a screen. An A500 ran with a CPU running at around 7MHz. A PC running windows with a CPU in excess of 2000Mhz doesn't seem to be capable of this feet why it that?
what's more is a A500 could not only do this completely smoothly but also run colour effects over that text and bounce it up and down or make it follow a sine wave curve.
-
Enable vsync.
-
Piru wrote:
Enable vsync.
I think vsync has more to do with the tearing problem.
I don't think I could notice a frame here or there dropped or repeated. The problem is the very small pauses. Every thing goes very smooth for a second then a small pause.
-
Are you referring to "Scrolling Marquee"? lol
-
Piru wrote:
Enable vsync.
That wont help if your monitor is incapable of either 50Hz or 100Hz, unless you adjust the "Settings/Host/Display/FPS adj" to "60", but then everything goes turbo, but even then there are some minor lags.
Does anyone have a monitor capable of 50 or 100Hz ? how does it feel ? :cry:
-
nBit7 wrote:
An Amiga 500 could smoothly scroll text vertically across a screen. An A500 ran with a CPU running at around 7MHz. A PC running windows with a CPU in excess of 2000Mhz doesn't seem to be capable of this feet why it that?
what's more is a A500 could not only do this completely smoothly but also run colour effects over that text and bounce it up and down or make it follow a sine wave curve.
Yeah, I've noticed that when writing SDL programs in windows... It probably has something to do with the priority of some task related to DirectX... Try compling your on a Mac, everything runs smoothly there, I suspect Apple give the gfx subsytem a higher task priority than M$ do...
-
bloodline wrote:
Try compling your on a Mac, everything runs smoothly there, I suspect Apple give the gfx subsytem a higher task priority than M$ do...
I'm suspecting your monitor is incapable of 50Hz, how about 100Hz then ? I want to know the reason it runs smoothly on mac.
-
Quote:
A PC running windows with a CPU in excess of 2000Mhz doesn't seem to be capable of this feet why it that?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quick answer: Because PC's suck. More technical answer: because PC's suck bigtime. Correct answer: Windows sucks even bigger timer.
honestly this has been my experience my entire life with Windows. If you have to use a 50hz monitor or 100hz or whatever, that ruins the entire point of wanting to put it into Video and record the smooth text. The only reason PC's can even scroll smooth text today and do normal things the Amiga could always do is because they have thrown so much power into PC's these days, that it fakes everything to make you think that Speed no longer matters..................
Ever notice this: No matter how fast a PC is.....Windows always runs at the same speed! it never ever ever gets faster.................sure it does slow down if you have not much RAM, but it never gets faster. The Amiga Flies when you add more speed and RAM, and Workbench works perfect in 7mhz mode.
Ahhhhhhh the fresh feeling of Amiga!
:-)
By the way.........in many cases I have seen.....a PC can't scroll smooth text even if your Running an Amiga Emulator! incredible! what I mean is it looks very funny almost like the inbetween interlaces are missing.
-
It's because Windows is still a bit crap. I come close to a cardiac arrest whenever my PC stutters doing something it should laugh at, which it does sometimes even with a 4200 X2 and an NVidia 7900GTX. Bloody poor show but it does plays awesome games like Elder Scrolls Oblivion 1280x1024 with all options on. I guess it's the Windows failings that make me hold on to my Amiga's....and pray one day I'll have one that uses modern hardware and plays nice shiny new Amiga games. :lol:
-
Why can't a 12mhz amiga run a simple little raycasting/texturemapping engine like Wolf3d? A PC can. Golly, I guess the Amiga sucks.
-
Yup.
Every time hardware advances, M$ do their best to null out the improvement. So far, they've managed this every time - Just look at PC specks and the minimum suggested requirements for the latest version of their OS.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...
Besides, what are they actually "*improving*" each time?
The only things i've noticed, up to XP, are:
Decent USB support
Good in-built library of drivers for P&P
Better networking config
Thumnail images (Though the thumbs.db files spread everywhere...)
Looooottttttssssss more images and fancy fading effects that serve no purpose execpt to use up CPU power and to intentionially (In the case of fades) to slow down the OS.
And plenty of irritating wizards for even the most simple of tasks, downloading photos from a camera, for instance.
Having said that, I dont actually do any programming, im just a normal computer user who can build a PC from scratch once in a while. And i'd better stop ranting, I suppose.
Hodgkinson.
-
Piru wrote:
Enable vsync.
Dosent that only work with opengl or direct3d or similar?
Also even with vsync on, it will still sometimes jerk when a background process is using resources. The amiga could scroll even if the cpu was loaded 90% with other tasks.
Is it even possible to get vsync in apps like powerpoint presentations and similar?
-
B00tDisk wrote:
Why can't a 12mhz amiga run a simple little raycasting/texturemapping engine like Wolf3d? A PC can. Golly, I guess the Amiga sucks.
Planar Graphics, same reason video fades work so well in spite of a 12mhz CPU. Guess the Amiga team chose video over 3d, a sensible choice back then and one that led many to use the Amiga in the first place. :-D
-
Sure it can! Though it will probably not run very well ;-)
Not that it ran very well on a 80286 with ega graphics either, which is basically the specs of the pcs back then.
-
lol. Every time I look at a thread post here and get rid of the notification, a new one pops up just as quick...
-
@ bOOtDisk: Please tell me what 12MHz PC can run Wolf3D decently... I'm curious, what CPU and speed are you talking about .. even When I had 2 IBM made 486DX's, had major trouble running any 3D, or psuedo-3D games.... maybe I just don't care for PC's that much (and therefore don't put as much effort into solving thier problems...)
Another thing, by the time my Win XP machine boots up, I have my A1200T on, and connected to the internet, if I have only a few E-Mails, I would already have had time to check for mail....
(My PC: 2.1 Ghz Athalon, 512MB, WinXP. My Amiga 50Mhz 68060, 128 MB fast, 2MB chip, OS 3.9 w/ BB 1&2)
:roll:
-
a PC can't scroll smooth text even if your Running an Amiga Emulator!
But you can get a PC that scroll smooth text, run A pc emulator on Amiga :-D (at least scroll faster than a real PC, is the only thing that is faster on the emulator than on the real thing)
-
you must be new to the demoscene on the pc. I've seen a few cracktros that easily outdo Amiga cracktros.. please, the PC has way more firepower the the Amiga will ever have.
:horse:
-
TheMagicM wrote:
please, the PC has way more firepower the the Amiga will ever have.
Now come on....NEVER!! I hope one day to quote you on that.
:lol:
-
well if history proves correct I should be a-ok. LOL
-
I'm more convinced video performance is an artifact of the architecture. Let's look seriously at the heritage: the Amiga was designed from the get-go as video compatible, while PC are business with video and sound as a grafted-on after-thought.
I have my issues with the x86 architecture, especially around performance of commercial software. Scene programmers aside, it seems that programmers do not really understand the limitations inherent in the underlying hardware. There are simply too many hacks to make crappy interfaces work. I will grant that PCIe and SATA are giant leaps forward in terms of hardware architecture. But looking back: IDE is a crap foundation; PCI was a half-baked step back from VLB, even with progression; and AGP was deliberately crippled. Pretty much all in the name of price-points. Better hardware died or was relegated to
But there's still the x86 architecture which is now 24 years old (80386, 1984-ish) and should have died back in the 90s with the advent of 64-bit CPUs (DEC Alpha, PowerPC, and the later SPARCs.) Of course, Intel can produce better marketing and business alliances to keep x86 alive than they can produce a 64-bit architecture.
I get tired of watching video, on broadcast TV no less, with pauses while buffers are repopulated. I hated that a parallel device could bring the system to a stand-still. Greeting a CD-ROM can bring Windows to a full stop, especially if there's bad blocks on the CD. The list continues. While it's true that there's a lot of software to blame, I maintain that the problem is based in hardware, and the software simply cannot handle, accommodate, or subvert the problems inherent in hardware.
-
TheMagicM wrote:
you must be new to the demoscene on the pc. I've seen a few cracktros that easily outdo Amiga cracktros.. please, the PC has way more firepower the the Amiga will ever have.
:horse:
Please give me a link for a 2d demo that can scroll properly. I know you can get close to perfect scrolling using opengl or directx, when nothing in the background eats up resources.
-
Maybe part of the problem is the diversity of hardware. If software is written for x86 it has to be compatible with a huge array of chipsets, which is bound to result in compromise. On the Amiga, at least you know what hardware people will be using (to a degree - there is of course OCS/ECS/AGA).
--
moto
-
Completely OT, but I was absolutely shocked when a very slightly scratched CD put in an Windows server (NT4 at that time) blue screened (!) that server, killing all network connections.
From that time on I can't take Windows seriously. It has improved, but it's still a pain.
-
@LoadWB
I couldn't agree more.
@motorollin
It's certainly a contributing factor. PCs without USB, a sound card and a graphics card can't do a whole lot, while an Amiga can still do what it does with or without those expansions. In some areas, Amigas will perform better without expansion hardware. Still, I'd love to have AmigaOS running on modern hardware.
Maybe the requirement of PCs to have so many features available only through expanded hardware caused, in part at least, the hardware diversity you're talking about. Instead of just needing an expansion device to enhance the computer, PCs need certain expansions just to function. Some expansions will work better than others obviously, so even a basic PC has hardware variations.
Everything beyond audio beeps, and white text on a black background, was an afterthought on PC hardware. It leaves the door open to myriad ways to get things right, and also to get things wrong. With Amiga hardware, when two cards conflict, a PIV and an A4091 for example, you choose one and put the other someplace else. But you don't need either one. On a PC, when your graphics card has a conflict with your motherboard, you're hosed until you get a card that doesn't have that conflict.
@Zac67
I think the only people who take Windows seriously are those who've never used anything else. ;-)
-
put your amiga into 640x512 mode with 16 colors or 256 with aga and see how stuff goes.
an svga screen at 1280x1024 and 24 bit color depth transfers ~120 megabytes per second at 30 frames over the bus to scroll stuff. it also requires cpu intervention.
my wifes computer is a 750mhz athlon classic that had an s3 agp card in it. doing just internet stuff was annoying because of scrolling so i put an old nvidia tnt2 card in and at 1024x768 24bit it is smooth. my computer has an ati 9800 pro and is good to 1600x1200.
i build all my own machines however. if you buy a store bought computer is most likely drowning in crapware and spyware and maybe even viruses.
buy a copy of xp home do a fresh clean install with new drivers for everything and see how it does.
-
Please give me a link for a 2d demo that can scroll properly. I know you can get close to perfect scrolling using opengl or directx, when nothing in the background eats up resources.
Ok, let me look for some stuff that'll run under Linux.
EDIT: my bad, you said windows. nevertheless, let me look around.
-
Re x86 processors...
I have a friend in the world of programming (Machine code...) who absolutely hates the x86 architecture. He'd go for 68k any day if he had to choose between the two.
Besides, what does dual core say to you? ... To me it sounds like a bad way of saying that they've run out of ideas so they're just going to start bolting processors together until they run out of silicon. A new architecture might just be a good idea :idea:
Hodgkinson.
-
TheMagicM wrote:
Please give me a link for a 2d demo that can scroll properly. I know you can get close to perfect scrolling using opengl or directx, when nothing in the background eats up resources.
Ok, let me look for some stuff that'll run under Linux.
EDIT: my bad, you said windows. nevertheless, let me look around.
I dont mind some examples for linux either.
-
Besides, what does dual core say to you?
To me it says that they have kinda reached the speed limit per core with current technology, so to speed things up they instead give you two cpus in one. I personally welcome dual core, as it really improves multitasking which is one step closer to what amiga was with it's custom chipset.
The amiga was in a way a multicore system as well, just that each chip had a specific task to do.
-
B00tDisk wrote:
Why can't a 12mhz amiga run a simple little raycasting/texturemapping engine like Wolf3d? A PC can. Golly, I guess the Amiga sucks.
It can.
But Wolf3d has never been properly ported to the A500.
Just look at Legend of Valour
-
That's just not true, I could do this any day in XAML with WPF. If you are interested in this check out the Visit Mix Website (http://sessions.visitmix.com/).
I think it's a matter of well how you are trying to do this, or why you are saying it can't. Certain windows have different types of "refresh" schemes about them and how the programmer set up the window to do it's redraw and refresh.
I keep hearing people here complain about PCs, most of the time it's not with up-to-date hardware or up-to-date operating systems.
I am not trying to be nasty here but when I follow a thread like this and see statements like:
"I think the only people who take Windows seriously are those who've never used anything else."..
I have to tell you I have done my share of both Amiga development on classic Amiga's using SAS C and Windows Development using Visual Studio since 1994.
The Amiga and PCs are no better or no worse than each other for capabilities and performance in these areas..
This is just another typical "Amiga" thread that mirror someone's perceptions of something that just isn't the case in reality. I can prove all that with timings and code examples if anyone wants to challenge me on it.
Even on the Amiga, you can set up a window that doesn't refresh itself and redraw properly. Many 1.1 and 1.2 programs for AmigaDOS had these problems specifically..
-
I keep hearing people here complain about PCs, most of the time it's not with up-to-date hardware or up-to-date operating systems.
But my experience with Windows is not with up-to-date hardware. I wish it was, but I don't see that as a practical option. The need to constantly update the hardware in order to see the system run the way it's supposed to is part of the reason I don't care for them. I'm big on first impressions, and I don't care for companies that take ten years to finally "get it right". Then again, I'm not big on companies that take ten years to do next to nothing either. ;-)
It's disappointing when I run into someone who has actually used an Amiga, but still thinks of them as close-to-stock A500s or A4000s, and then chuckles when I mention that they should try one that's had the benefit of newer hardware and expansions.
The Amiga and PCs are no better or no worse than each other for capabilities and performance in these areas.
I disagree. Performance-wise, the Amiga has been soundly beaten in nearly all areas. That's not why I still hang on to mine. It's never been purely about speed. I just have a fondness for the way things happen on the Amiga.
This is just another typical "Amiga" thread that mirror someone's perceptions of something that just isn't the case in reality.
But if that's what's happening on their system, that is reality. Maybe the developers didn't take the time to optimize their graphics engine, or maybe the company put pressure on them to get it out too quickly and didn't afford them the time to get it running more smoothly. In either case, it's not as glaring a problem with Amiga software, old or new.
-
Thomas wrote:
Sure it can! Though it will probably not run very well
Not that it ran very well on a 80286 with ega graphics either, which is basically the specs of the pcs back then.
Yes it did, I remember playing it very well, and finishing it in 1993 in my 12Mhz 286. But I also believe it depended on the graphic card you had. At that time I was using a 256KB ISA Boca VGA Card, that was fast but had some bugs with some software I used. Later replaced it with a Tridend 512Kb TVGA9000 (SVGA) and the newer card was slower than the older one in DOS (but much more stable).
And don't forget that this game was much lighter than Doom (this one required a full 486DX to play really well if I'm not mistaken).
The problem with PCs is that you can't simply measure it's performance based on CPU alone. Back then (and still now) many Top model PCs (with the fastest CPU) were sold with crappy SVGA cards. I remember seing a friends 486DX2 at 66 Mhz bought in Dec 1992 equiped with 420MB HDD, 4MB of ram and then a wimpy 512KB trident TVGA9000, instead of a good ISA SVGA card like a S3 with 1MB or 2 MB of Vram (this was before Vesa Local BUS).
I remember in 1995 having a cyrix 486DX at 40Mhz and 4Mb of Ram and when I replaced the SVGA card I was using (the same TVGA I had in the previous 286) with a VLB 1MB Cirrus SVGA card, the 3d performance in some games almost doubled. Red Baron comes to mind, since I had to switch off the turbo (and run at 25MHz) and sometimes disable the internal cache also to get the game down to a decent playable speed (this same game still crawls in my amiga 1200 equipped with a 40Mhz Apollo 1240 and 64MB of Ram).
Regards
-
Firefox scrolls very well at 1024x768x24on my Win2K with only a classic Athlon overclocked to 950Mhz, my small experience is that it depends on the application.
What I'm amazed is how well iBrowse scrolls at 800x600x24 with a cybervision and a mere WarpEnding at 40Mhz. Almost as good! Still waiting to experience an Amiga with an 060 66mhz or PowerPC, I bet the scrolling is close to perfect. Talk about efficient use of resources.
-
Its both a hardware and operating system problem. The AmigaOS and hardware were always very tightly integrated. SCALA running under Winuae on my dual Athlon 4800 scrolls very, very nicely, but the Windows native SCALA doesn't. The architecture of the PC was based on the CPU doing everything, although thats changed with modern video cards having their own GPU's. I remeber having to reboot my '030 A1200 after a GURU , booting up in 5 seconds and hearing Windows user complain about rebooting: I'd never used Windows at the time and thought well its only 5 seconds, what are they complaining about thinking Windows was like the Amiga. Little did I know
Note that Linux running on a PC (in GUI mode) is not much better than Windows in this regard: Linux takes just as long to boot and shut down, and the interface can slow to a crawl. In fact Linux multi-tasks worse than Windows. One major Linux kernal developer CK has gone on record saying just how snappy and smooth his Amiga was 15 years ago, and with all of the hardware advancements since, we still can't replicate that user experience. Sure CPU intensive stuff like encoding and decoding media is much faster, but the user experience is no better 15 years later. By now with thousand fold speed increases in hardware the OS should be booting up in no time and you should NEVER get locked out because you just stuck in a CD.
The fact is that current PC hardware designs are determined by Windows specifications and as such the user experience will always be the way they are regardless of what OS you use. There would need to be a fundamental architectural change for things to change, but it will never happen because we live in a Windows world.
-
y Tomas on 2007/9/19 16:11:12
Quote:
Besides, what does dual core say to you?
To me it says that they have kinda reached the speed limit per core with current technology, so to speed things up they instead give you two cpus in one. I personally welcome dual core, as it really improves multitasking which is one step closer to what amiga was with it's custom chipset.
The amiga was in a way a multicore system as well, just that each chip had a specific task to do.
Speed what things up? Most of your apps are single threaded ie each individual will run at the same speed as running on a single core cpu running at the same mhz, maybe slower, and yes I agree multitasking will improve because the other task ie app can use the other core. Yeah this may make the user experience smoother if the tasks are cpu intensive, but hell why isn't a single cpu running at 3000 mhz enough to do this anyway? Most PC users may burn a cd/dvd in the background , write word process, and browse or email at the same time. Why do i need two or more cpu's running at 3000 mhz to do this? Its because the hardware architecture and the OS are crap.
-
only thing I see windoze doing better at, with all it's pure horsepower and ram, is flash anim! and...GAMES, which just get a PS3 and that's covered.
-
Ofcourse Windows is also a complete OS and not some half-arsed kludge like OS4...
Who really cares about sidescrolling when there are so many other useful tasks a PC can do effortlessly that are at best half-baked or at worst impossible on any Amiga?
Let's keep it in perspective.
-
It ran very well on my 12mhz 286 with EGA graphics, thank you very much.
-
It ran very well on my 12mhz 286 with EGA graphics, thank you very much.
-
What is the argument? That a modern PC cannot sroll the screen as in a video game? Bullcrap. Play Platypus,a claymation 2d shooter from a few years go. Scrolls fine at 60fps.
Or is this some kind of nerd debate about an esoteric kind of scrolling only l33t Amiga users can understand?
-
An Amiga 500 could smoothly scroll text vertically across a screen. An A500 ran with a CPU running at around 7MHz. A PC running windows with a CPU in excess of 2000Mhz doesn't seem to be capable of this feet why it that?
It has nothing to do with speed, timing rather.
The Amiga has a hardware vblank interrupt to handle scrolling and animation properly.
In Windows, updates to the screen have to be synchronized such that they never happen in the middle of the screen in order to have a smooth 60Hz display. This is in fact very difficult to do..
-
I can answer that since I've pretty much had PC's running concurrently with an Amiga of some sort.
The problem was with your IBM PC's which were specced ultra conservatively to be uber-reliable office machines but that also made them lousy gaming systems.
My EGA AMD 12Mhz 286 ran wolf3D as smooth as silk.
I got Quake playable on a overclocked 50Mhz 386DX40 with a very overclocked Cyrix FPU and decent SVGA graphics card.
Doom, ROTT and Duke Nuke'm 3D were smooth as silk on that system and better then the 486DX33 I had after until I installed a VLBUS graphics card and a DX2/66 CPU.
It just got better from there on... so many options, so many games.
-
Tripitaka wrote:
TheMagicM wrote:
please, the PC has way more firepower the the Amiga will ever have.
Now come on....NEVER!! I hope one day to quote you on that.
:lol:
That day will never come.
-
I haven't seen anything on an A500 that is anything like as good as Wolf3D was on a 286.
And Wolf3D was coded so badly that it could have been optimised to run very well on even the slowest PC's of that day.
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
B00tDisk wrote:
Why can't a 12mhz amiga run a simple little raycasting/texturemapping engine like Wolf3d? A PC can. Golly, I guess the Amiga sucks.
It can.
But Wolf3d has never been properly ported to the A500.
Just look at Legend of Valour
-
Most PC users may burn a cd/dvd in the background , write word process, and browse or email at the same time. Why do i need two or more cpu's running at 3000 mhz to do this? Its because the hardware architecture and the OS are crap.
You don't need 2 or more cpus running at 3ghz to do this. As a matter of fact, I remember doing things like this quite effectively with a pentium 2 running around 300 mhz.
-
clockmstr wrote:
It ran very well on my 12mhz 286 with EGA graphics, thank you very much.
AFAIK, VGA was required for running Wolf3D
And my experience is you needed to run Wolf3d on a 386 in a poststamp screen.
-
Wain wrote:
Most PC users may burn a cd/dvd in the background , write word process, and browse or email at the same time. Why do i need two or more cpu's running at 3000 mhz to do this? Its because the hardware architecture and the OS are crap.
You don't need 2 or more cpus running at 3ghz to do this. As a matter of fact, I remember doing things like this quite effectively with a pentium 2 running around 300 mhz.
It could already on a pentium 75mhz with 16mb memory.
-
clockmstr wrote:
I can answer that since I've pretty much had PC's running concurrently with an Amiga of some sort.
The problem was with your IBM PC's which were specced ultra conservatively to be uber-reliable office machines but that also made them lousy gaming systems.
My EGA AMD 12Mhz 286 ran wolf3D as smooth as silk.
I got Quake playable on a overclocked 50Mhz 386DX40 with a very overclocked Cyrix FPU and decent SVGA graphics card.
Doom, ROTT and Duke Nuke'm 3D were smooth as silk on that system and better then the 486DX33 I had after until I installed a VLBUS graphics card and a DX2/66 CPU.
It just got better from there on... so many options, so many games.
It's what you call smooth as silk. My experience is that it barely ran. Unless you think a poststamp-size dia show runs smooth.
-
clockmstr wrote:
It ran very well on my 12mhz 286 with EGA graphics, thank you very much.
And i have seen fps style shooters that run acceptable even on a a500. Wolf3d was optimized for pc and graphic cards and the amiga port is afaik not the most efficient one.
-
"One major Linux kernal developer CK has gone on record saying just how snappy and smooth his Amiga was 15 years ago, and with all of the hardware advancements since, we still can't replicate that user experience."
Certainly this "developer" doesnt really understand why the Amiga boots up as quick as it does compared to a real OS. A "few things" burned to rom chips ring any bells? The GUI isnt being loaded from disk, mayhaps its umm...in...ROM? just MAYBE that will speed it up a teensy tiny bit.. maybe.. I'm just guessing. I mean, I dont have a Amiga or a Linux box so .....
-
TheMagicM wrote:
"One major Linux kernal developer CK has gone on record saying just how snappy and smooth his Amiga was 15 years ago, and with all of the hardware advancements since, we still can't replicate that user experience."
Certainly this "developer" doesnt really understand why the Amiga boots up as quick as it does compared to a real OS. A "few things" burned to rom chips ring any bells? The GUI isnt being loaded from disk, mayhaps its umm...in...ROM? just MAYBE that will speed it up a teensy tiny bit.. maybe.. I'm just guessing. I mean, I dont have a Amiga or a Linux box so .....
Why can't nowadays OS'es being installed on ROM?
Plus, AmigaOS actually FITS on a very small ROM.
It's all about choices being made while building hardware+software
And I think, and lots of peecee guys with me, that Amiga made the right choices.
Just face it. The first IBM was a very complete (considering technical functionality) computer, but with a very lousy design.
The business market wants complete computers, from a -back then- widely known monopolist that is IBM.
Lousy design which is expanded by 3rd party designs, and upgraded until easter and pentecost are falling on the same day... I mean, that's SUCH a classical source of design errors... :roll:
Commodore was very brave and wise not to expand the commodore 128 any further, and to switch over to the Amiga, technically beseen.
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Why can't nowadays OS'es being installed on ROM?
Plus, AmigaOS actually FITS on a very small ROM.
Have you used an Xbox 360 or a Wii? Or a Symbian Smartphone or a Windows Mobile PocketPC? There's not probem putting an OS on ROM and it boots fast. Are you looking for this level of functionality? I daresay I've seen Linix and even Window$ (or however the frak cool kidz spell it) stripped down so much it would fit on a ROM. But unless you never intend to tweak things, you may want to wait before you buy an eprom burner. invest in an SSD?
-
clockmstr wrote:
My EGA AMD 12Mhz 286 ran wolf3D as smooth as silk.
I got Quake playable on a overclocked 50Mhz 386DX40 with a very overclocked Cyrix FPU and decent SVGA graphics card.
Doom, ROTT and Duke Nuke'm 3D were smooth as silk on that system and better then the 486DX33 I had after until I installed a VLBUS graphics card and a DX2/66 CPU.
It just got better from there on... so many options, so many games.
BS, We had 386 PCs in our highschool, we ran Wolf3d on them, and things went slow, "smooth as silk", in my dreams only :lol:
-
clockmstr wrote:
I haven't seen anything on an A500 that is anything like as good as Wolf3D was on a 286.
Who cares, although great engine, yet SLOW on a 386@25-33MHz, no depth whatsoever. In was not good, it was DIFFERENT, *3D*, that's it.
And Wolf3D was coded so badly that it could have been optimised to run very well on even the slowest PC's of that day.
You outta know better than Carmack! maybe you could optimize and let every one see ?
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Why can't nowadays OS'es being installed on ROM?
Because it's primitive, and you cannot customize/update/upgrade a ROM-based OS, now if you mean eeprom/flash memory, this will happen, actually there are linuces, if I'm not hallucinating, that are installed this way.
-
Because it's primitive, and you cannot customize/update/upgrade a ROM-based OS
Old Amiga hardware does another one-up on modern hardware!
-
Hi,
Just reading some of your posts about PC's verse Amiga
First thing I have to say is you all should get up to date on your computers. The Amiga was fine in its day, it was a fantastic computer, and today it still is a very viable product to fool around with.
But
Face it the Amiga today compared to the modern computers using the new Intel dual core chips with a modern graphics card like the nvidia series, or ATI series is just plain slowwwww. Today the Amiga couldn't even think of playing games like Far Cry, Doom3 or Fear.
Face it the Amiga hardware is out of date, slow by todays comparisons, and is better laid to rest.
I will agree that windows especially Vista sucks. I use Ubuntu linux for my main OS, and Windows Vista for my games. I wouldn't trust Windows with any of my important stuff, since I am always trying new things with my computer. Linux has really stood the tests so far. It has only crashed once since I tried to put some program on it that it pointed out that it could be malicious software. Vista which I installed at the same time has crashed 4 times since I installed it. (so much for a more stable OS huh Billy boy) Anyhow I still use my Amiga 4000 and my Amiga 3000 because they have not crashed since the day I bought them, oops the 4000 crashed once because of operator error formating one of the five hard disks, the operator sort of formatted the wrong one. This doesn't mean that the Amiga is better, it just means that as far as stability the Amiga in my opinion is still number one. Face it as far as speed, the Amiga lags behind, it cannot play the games being brought out today.
Main computer: Gateway GT5238E, E6600 dual core, Graphics card nvidia 7600GT, dual layer dvd cd rom drive, 2 gig memory, with 250 gig sata drive. Main OS Ubuntu Linux, secondary OS Windows Vista on 250 gig ide drive.
Play around computer: Dell, Pentium 4, 2.2 gighz, with 1.5 gig memory, DVD rom drive and 40 gig hard drive. Main OS Kubuntu.
Old trustworthy computer: Amiga 4000, 40mhz, GVP Video (can't think of name, but like toaster, with only dual camera switcher.) Picasso II, 18 gig memory, SCSI card with 1.2 gig harddrive. Great for storing data and pictures.
Amiga 3000 stock
Amiga 1200, with ppc processor, 030 processor, and home made power supply.
CD32 with expansion
5 CD32 cards all work but just cards nothing else. Fun to experiment with.
Amiga 500
So any of you clowns wanting to argue about which computer is better give me a call.
Today sorry to say PC rule, Amigas are still fun and MACS wouldn't own one if you gave it to me.
smerf
-
@smerf
What you wrote is as true now as it was 10 years ago.
Surely this can't be any news for any Amiga user here.
-
smerf wrote:
Hi,
Just reading some of your posts about PC's verse Amiga
First thing I have to say is you all should get up to date on your computers. The Amiga was fine in its day, it was a fantastic computer, and today it still is a very viable product to fool around with.
But
Face it the Amiga today compared to the modern computers using the new Intel dual core chips with a modern graphics card like the nvidia series, or ATI series is just plain slowwwww. Today the Amiga couldn't even think of playing games like Far Cry, Doom3 or Fear.
Face it the Amiga hardware is out of date, slow by todays comparisons, and is better laid to rest.
I do not believe you, how DARE you ?! :pissed:
:-D :lol:
-
I could imagine this thread ending up pretty much here.
A PC can do smooth scrolling. Windows can do smooth scrolling. Multi core CPUs doesn't make a PC more similar to the Amiga, that's just silly. The custom chipset used in the Amiga cannot be compared to multiple CPUs or even a single CPU. Post '95 PCs use dedicated chipsets, bus mastering, DMA etc. just like the Amiga did. These concepts are not specific to the Amiga, but rather hardware solutions which have been used in many different designs.
Wolf3D ran fairly well on my 286, even though this CPU is rather inferior compared to the 68k (imho). The biggest reason is chunky graphics, which both the Amiga and ST lacks. Planar graphics may have been a good idea in '84, but it was a bloody bad decision for the Amiga 1200 and Atari Falcon.
-
Why are there so many posts in this thread with an 'amen' factor in it? :lol:
-
This is a scheduling issue, and it is an age-old problem that plagues all OSes. It has nothing to do with hardware, and many other OSes have this problem, depending on what the system is doing.
If you play an "OS friendly" game on the Amiga, it might have studdering issues, too. You can only get guaranteed performance if you disable multitasking. Of course, this defeats many of the reasons for having an OS in the first place, and is not an acceptable option these days.
If you run the DirectX test suite, you'll almost certainly get perfect vsync with no studdering at all. I never get studdering when running the test. Ever.
Also note that many modern game consoles are having studdering/tearing issues, too. The reason is because thanks to the HD craze, developers are trying to code consoles as if they were PCs, where the software is not hard coded for just one screen resolution, but instead has to adapt to different video orientations (including widescreen). They are also using OSes instead of just writing memory blocks wherever the heck they want. Does that mean console hardware sucks, too? No, it's a coding issue. Whether it's an OS or a game issue, or both, is a matter for debate.
My take is that people just don't care about refinement these days. It's all about max framerates and bragging rights. If Microsoft were to make changes to Windows so video performance were more consistent, but was slower, you'd better believe PC enthusiasts would b**ch about it to no end.
The only solutions is to make a gaming OS, or switch the OS into "game mode". That's easier said than done, given how many games are installing kernel-mode DRM drivers and otherwise taking control of your PC away from you. It's a sad situation, but for the most part, everyone is to blame... at least in terms of software.
PC hardware today isn't what PC hardware was 20 years ago. It doesn't suck anymore. The last remaining Amiga enthusiasts still haven't figured that out.
-
If you play an "OS friendly" game on the Amiga, it might have studdering issues, too. You can only get guaranteed performance if you disable multitasking. Of course, this defeats many of the reasons for having an OS in the first place, and is not an acceptable option these days.
The Amiga could smoothly scroll text in a window that wasn't the focus.
If you run the DirectX test suite, you'll almost certainly get perfect vsync with no studdering at all. I never get studdering when running the test. Ever.
OK Direct X seems to be the only way too get smooth video.
So why don't apps like Powerpoint make use of it?
My take is that people just don't care about refinement these days. It's all about max framerates and bragging rights. If Microsoft were to make changes to Windows so video performance were more consistent, but was slower, you'd better believe PC enthusiasts would b**ch about it to no end.
I would think people would like change that made a noticeable difference. eg. A media player that scrolled long media titles completely smoothly. vs encoding mp3 2% faster.
PC hardware today isn't what PC hardware was 20 years ago. It doesn't suck anymore. The last remaining Amiga enthusiasts still haven't figured that out.
New PC hardware certainly does not suck. But the user experience most certainly still does suck. eg. clicking on a menu can sometimes take several seconds while on a Amiga it was instantaneous. Putting a disc in causes a PC system to stop.
-
When I say Wolf3D was slow on a 386 @ 25Hz I dont mean it was like, say, Microprose Formula 1 Grand Prix (is the name correct ?) on a standard 7Mhz A500, but that it was SLOOOOW compared to the "sily smooth" clockmstr claimed it be, on a 286 @ 12Mhz of all too, that's just silly, you may love your old PCs, but there's no reason to make things up , common. :rtfm:
Don't get me wrong, when PCs got 256 colors and adventure games to use those colors, then I had some fondness I must admit, I'd phantasize about getting one, only because how good adventure games could look.
I actually got one in 95, a 486DX4 @ 100MHz @4MB RAM, Heretic flowed when moving within corridors and thing like that but bacame like Micropose Forlmula 1 Grand Prix (almost, I'm serious) on a A500 when you moved to open areas with a few enemies in them.
-
LoadWB wrote:
I get tired of watching video, on broadcast TV no less, with pauses while buffers are repopulated. I hated that a parallel device could bring the system to a stand-still. Greeting a CD-ROM can bring Windows to a full stop, especially if there's bad blocks on the CD.
Try Burning a DVD, and watch the *ENTIRE* system pause when the Burn starts (Lead-IN), and then everything goes at 30x speed to catch up when the main track is started.
-
@LoadWB
According to Dave Haynie, PCI was/is better than Zorro (3?), and they might even have switched to that given time.
@Tomas
If there is a 2D PC demo that doesn't run on Windows, it'd probably stand a far better chance of running smoothly, without mysterious pauses! I guess that something like QNX would be even better than Linux?
-
@whiteb
Try Burning a DVD, and watch the *ENTIRE* system pause when the Burn starts (Lead-IN), and then everything goes at 30x speed to catch up when the main track is started.
No pauses here, which is quite expected as the whole thing works via DMA anyway.
-
nBit7: OK Direct X seems to be the only way too get smooth video. So why don't apps like Powerpoint make use of it?
1 - Hardware support. Powerpoint often runs on crap hardware like business laptops.
2 - Powerpoint is just crap.
3 - Powerpoint works more like a web browser (for example, XML and XSL) and less like a game engine (blits and virtual textures). Do you get smooth scrolling from Java applets? I don't think so.
nBit7: I would think people would like change that made a noticeable difference."
What's "noticeable" varies depending on taste. Microsoft caters to the common people, and to a lot of the population, smooth scrolling isn't a noticeable improvement to justify the work that goes into the system.
Windows may not be very good, but you do have to understand the priorities of Microsoft's customer base. They don't think like Amigans, that's for sure.
But the user experience most certainly still does suck. eg. clicking on a menu can sometimes take several seconds while on a Amiga it was instantaneous.
That usually depends on the GUI toolkit, not the OS. The only app on my machine that has a woefully slow GUI is Firefox, and only since I updated to v2. I find it amazing the the file requester in that app is ridiculously sluggish, while every Windows app I have, including Photoshop and even Java (!), has instantaneous response.
whiteb: Try Burning a DVD, and watch the *ENTIRE* system pause when the Burn starts (Lead-IN), and then everything goes at 30x speed to catch up when the main track is started.
I had that problem constantly when I was using Win98. Since upgrading to Win2K (and now XP), I've never had this issue, or made any coasters. Win98 actually had tons of scheduling issues when playing games, too, supposedly all related to memory management. The upgrade to Win2K simply amazed me.
I don't like the design of Windows, but since dumping Win98, I have few few complaints about its performance. Almost every problem I have with the system can be traced to my SoundBlaster drivers (Creative Inc. is infamous for their horrid drivers).
-
Einstein wrote:
When I say Wolf3D was slow on a 386 @ 25Hz I dont mean it was like, say, Microprose Formula 1 Grand Prix (is the name correct ?) on a standard 7Mhz A500, but that it was SLOOOOW compared to the "sily smooth" clockmstr claimed it be, on a 286 @ 12Mhz of all too, that's just silly, you may love your old PCs, but there's no reason to make things up , common. :rtfm:
Don't get me wrong, when PCs got 256 colors and adventure games to use those colors, then I had some fondness I must admit, I'd phantasize about getting one, only because how good adventure games could look.
I actually got one in 95, a 486DX4 @ 100MHz @4MB RAM, Heretic flowed when moving within corridors and thing like that but bacame like Micropose Forlmula 1 Grand Prix (almost, I'm serious) on a A500 when you moved to open areas with a few enemies in them.
I am originally a pc user.
And I am sooooo glad the MS-DOS days are over.
fussing around with EMM386, single tasking, sound card drivers... Let's say it was just one big FUSS.
Nowadays it's far better, but still, it's bloatware. Why does it take up gigs of hd space? WHY?
I say, things need to be redesigned because of what we want with our machines.
Amen.
-
its kindof like when audio cds first came out. record albums were considered obsolete and you could prove a dozen ways that cds were better. but there were people out there (still are) that liked the fuzzy tunes scratched out by a needle on plastic. it felt "warmer" or "more dynamic"
i just got my amiga hooked up again after some remodelling and using emulations. and i can tell you i am all for emulation and aros etc. but when i sat in front of my 3000 for the first time in a while and fired it up; i like the warm feeling. nostalgia is a good thing sometimes.
i dont really care for my pcs like i do my amiga maybe its because i have so many or because some are in a render farm and i dont really interact with them the same way. im not going to say they are pathetic technology next to my mighty amiga though. it is special beause it is different, but not perfect.
-
Hi,
Lets get down to facts, the Amiga was designed at first as a super fast game machine that was converted to a computer, because of its superior chipset at the time (paula, agnes and gary) the kernel which is the same as a BIOS was very individualized to this computer. Its video, sound and disk access could be programmed to do things on their own. Also Jay Miner used a different type of video so that you could use the Amiga on a TV, this led to sort of a round pixel instead of a square pixel (round pixels sort of blend in better when moving a video around the screen I think, I could be wrong on this one but I am to LAZY to dig through my old Amiga boxes to verify this) but, since most of you Amiga guys where crying about how smooth the Amiga seems, I loaded up the new Amiga Forever 2006 disk yesterday and played a few videos that they give you on the AF disk, I noticed that these movies really sucked video wise on the PC, whenever the sound got to complex they lagged, and the jaggies (due to square pixels) really ruined the delight of watching the movie. Then I pulled out my Amiga 4000 and loaded in the same movies, the sound and the video where immaculate even though the Amiga did not have the shading, and texturing as my PC nvidia card, now I did notice that the Amiga video seemed to play slower than the PC but the video and sound where still immaculate compared to the PC, now this could be because the PC was trying to emulate the Amiga OS, so windows played the video faster, but tore up the video due to pixelization (square pixels) even with anti alizing on. Then to test out my theory, I started to play some of the mpegs off of Aminet 18, I used my Ubuntu OS for this, the mpegs played super fast, and the video was super compared to the Amiga, but there was no sound on these. The point is the PC sound system is not as good as the Amiga, the PC stutters when there is a complex waveform, this is probably due to the Amiga sound chip. Then I loaded in beryl on the Ubuntu system. I watched a DVD movie on one screen, a mpeg movie on the other, played some chip tunes from Aminet on the other, and loaded in a web page on the other, beryl displays a cube on the screen that can be rotated as you turn the center wheel on the mouse, nothing slowed down, the sound didn't stutter, and everything looked great. My analysis is this Windows Vista sucks, Ubuntu is close to and just about as much fun as the Amiga, and the Amiga with the slower 68040 processor still reigns supreme for these features due to its special chip set. Now remember this PC computer I am using is a new intel E6600 running dual core at 1.86 ghz with a near top of the line nvidia card.
Now also I tried playing a dvd movie in the Amiga by using a converter to burn a movie to cd rom. Due to this transfomation the video was degraded some. The Amiga played the movie but stuttered and slowed down. Frame rate was slower probably due to CPU overload.
Now I don't usually use my Amiga anymore, except for my checking account and old games, it does have OS 3.9 on it, it is an A4000 with a 68040 card. It took me close to 3 hours to get the cd to play the movie due to setting up the movie player, maybe I am an idiot, but I felt like I was in an early stage of Linux trying to get full color out of the Picasso II card, and I never did do it, and B&W is not good especially for how much it stuttered. Will look into this matter more.
The Amiga's age is starting to show.
smerf
-
Yes, try it on a Mac first, it has far fewer problems with video. In fact, it is the best progression from an Amiga. I even run UAE on my Mac.
-
Some comments on past generations of PC hardware...
All PCs of given minimum spec are not equal. Those TVGA 9000 VGA cards mentioned, yes, they suck the big one, very slow. I have even found them in cheap pentium systems, couldn't beleive it, that's the way to build a pentium that gets whupped by a well specced 386. I was sorta lucky in getting a used Chips and Technologies VGA card for my 386, was about 5x as fast as a trident TVGA, despite only having 256K of video RAM. It was as fast as some of the cheapest (i.e. slowest) PCI cards, but didn't have the RAM for SVGA modes. Anyhoo, this meant that doom played quite well on a 386sx40 with 4MB, conversely, one guy I knew with a 486dx2-66 had to run it in low res, because his VGA card sucked that bad. That 386 didn't like doom 2 so much, which liked DX CPUs and 8MB of RAM a lot better. PC BIOSes in that era often had a settable divisor of the system clock speed for the ISA bus speed, slowest was 6 I think and was likely the default, worst case scenario woulda been a 25Mhz 486 running the ISA at a little over 4Mhz, slower than an original PC. Highest was usually 3. Jiggling cards around could get this working even with a 50mhz system clock, with the result that you would have a little screamer of a system. That 386sx40 setup I had, I got well tweaked up and balanced and it was the equal of many a cheap 486 system, and some not so cheap. With the talk of Wolfenstein 3D and the 286 though, I think of the extemes I have encountered on that class. The original IBM AT 286... slow as treacle, really slow, faintly faster than the original PC of course, but damn slow. I have had "Turbo XT" class machines that would run rings around an IBM AT. Then on the other end of things was a board I came across with a Harris semiconductor licensed 286 CPU, it ran at 20Mhz. Set this one up to see how it did... it was quite amazing it had some lower end 386es beat for sure. Ran windows 3.0 on it in standard mode and it was very brisk and useable.
Smoothest windows 95 machine I ever had or saw, had a Pentium 60 in it, yes, the 5V space heater version. The motherboard only had ISA slots. I found an ISA orchid SVGA card with something like a GD5340 on it, and it had a bus CD-ROM mitsumi or something, and 3 assorted HDDs which I think I even doublespaced to get some room on. This thing was a rock, it must have been very very close to a MS original development hardware machine spec or something. As long as you didn't try anything particularly processor intensive, like playing a high bitrate MP3, you'd have sworn you were using a P-166MMX or something recent and spendy for the time. It was just as smooth as butter. Other pentium and win95 machines I've had and used just weren't smooth like that was. A close second, was a machine with a Cyrix MII PR366 chip in it, that flew on 95 and when we upgraded to 98SE, felt very fast and was smooth... again, until you did something CPU/FPU intensive. AMD K6-2@450 felt slower as did a PII-400 but when it came to the crunchy stuff, you soon knew you didn't have much of a CPU, a P200 would outperform it on anything needing much FPU. For web-browsing and document thrashing though, those particular systems felt a lot faster than they were.
Anyhoo, my point in this, rather than boring you with all the specifics of PC systems I have thrown together from junk, is to note that some combinations of PC hardware just seem to be a lot nicer than others. Maybe it's the way the timings sync with a particular processor at a particular speed on the motherboard. Maybe it's the perfect combo of graphics card, hard disk and CPU. (I've known theoretically fast HDDs that turn a system into a dog) I wish I knew WHAT made these particular system combos so damn good. I know I would take good care with the setup and try and get the best out of it, but I'd do the same to anything.
Obviously in the Amiga's case, everything was specced to run nicely together. This apparently doesn't happen when you throw a PC together, but sometimes you hit it right, and get a machine, that almost... alllllmost... might compare to the smallest part of what makes an Amiga so satisfying to use.
By the way, some of those IBM "486" desktops shipped with an IBM made cyrix design that was basically a 386, I think IBM managed to cripple it even beyond it's basic cyrixness, and they were real dogs. I don't think I've met a particularly fast IBM machine, ever. Okay, had linux running decent on a PS/2 386/16, but it was a bit like tommy the pinball wizard, given that I intended it to be a router, 'coz I couldn't find any MCA ethernet hardware for it. The only IBM hardware I have much respect for are Model M keyboards and P series monitors, which I'll buy used any time I see them.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled PC h8 in. :-D
RW222
-
According to Dave Haynie, PCI was/is better than Zorro (3?), and they might even have switched to that given time.
Actually, what Haynie said on the TeamONE ML was he dumped Zorro IV developement for PCI since it was now industry standard and was on par with Zorro IV. Many reasons why Amiga had exotic interfaces/buses was there was not truely decent standards to follow back then.
Dammy
-
nBit7 wrote:
An Amiga 500 could smoothly scroll text vertically across a screen. An A500 ran with a CPU running at around 7MHz. A PC running windows with a CPU in excess of 2000Mhz doesn't seem to be capable of this feet why it that?
what's more is a A500 could not only do this completely smoothly but also run colour effects over that text and bounce it up and down or make it follow a sine wave curve.
The simple answer? It can. I play multiple layers of uncompressed D1 video, or compressed HD video with over a dozen tracks of audio all synced together even running the monstrous OS that is Windows XP. And that same Windows system can boot Winuae and run all your amiga programs. Its not been a horsepower issue for a long time, there have been software problems, but frankly they've been resolved a long time ago.
-Tig
-
umm ... can anyone tell me the date ? I seem to have dropped back in time to the 90's ?!?
Are you guys seriously ranting about how much better the Amiga is over the PC ?
I know standards had dropped lately in the Amiga community in the past few years, but I didn't realise things had degenerated to this pathetic level!
Come on grow up, get a life, meet a girl (or boy depending on your preference) cause this topic is soooooooooooo sad!
Well I'll leave you nerds to your prattlings, I'm off to play on my Commodore 128 ;-)
-
And that same Windows system can boot Winuae and run all your amiga programs.
Actually I used VT4.6 daily with multiple video and audio streams on a SCSI raid array. You can emulate say, and AGA CD32 games and play uncompressed video at the same time. BUT there is a performance hit, I have a dual 2.8 Ghtz Xeon system from HP.
The fact that you can even achieve that with all the processes windows runs is pretty impressive though.
The biggest pain in the but on the Amiga is lack of flicker free video as standard. The only game in town is the Amiga 3000 and the super denise- AGA modes used on other models.
-
Sparky wrote:
I'm off to play on my Commodore 128 ;-)
I wonder if AROS can be ported to that..
with integrated UAE and everything (http://starwarsloser.info/smile/happy/happy0037.gif) (http://www.squidoo.com/seonorwich)..............................(http://starwarsloser.info/smile/happy/happy0022.gif) (http://www.squidoo.com/seonorwich)
-
Welllll.... there's an ELKS port to the z80... which might mean you could get the hosted version of AROS compiled for it... but the z80 in the 128 is hobbled to half speed... so ELKS is gonna be a dog on it anyway. UAE.. yeah right.. lowliest machine I ever tried running it on was a 386SL20 with 4MB (DOS UAE) took 6 hours to initialise the gui... then when WB finally appeared, I couldn't tell if it was locked up or just so damn slow, rebooted back to DOS, end of story.
-
Thanks for the info RW222, no bounty then I guess.
-
@Smerf
No one is arguing that Amiga Speed is better than PC........... its not about that.
its about this. If Amigas were made up to date in the Speed department............it would crush it in all that it already crushes it in plus speed.
The Amiga is about functionality. It is just such a logical and "Proper" computer. PC's will always be a wack job.
Basically Amiga is a very well made Car that runs at 80miles per hour max. and a PC is a Mini with the Body of a Truck slapped onto it and an small engine with the Power of a Trucks engine and speed of a Lamborghini. One day its all gonna topple down! all that crap is just piled onto what was meant to be a Calcualtor.
DO this test yourself............Try Speeding up Windows to be faster than what its normal speed is. AINT GONNA HAPPEN. WIndows may slow Down, and Windows may run SMoothly normal............but it never runs faster! AMiga OS ont he other hand................runs perfect in 7mhz mode..............ad more colors and resoltion and speed it up............and guess what happens? it runs faster! besides it running normal.
ITs all about the way Amiga OS and the Amiga Hardware work together.
Ever notice how much more fun it is to play a Playstaion2 or 3 or Wii compared to any game on a PC or even the same Game on a PC? its just funner..............way funner on the consoles no matter what you do................this is the same with the Amiga.................no matter what you do the Amiga OS is so functional and wayy funner.
I dont know a single human being who loves Windows as much as Mac nerds love Mac OS or Amigans love Amiga OS.
I think this is what Amigans here are trying to say. Amiga just works. And by the way...........Mac OS is just beatiful.............just beatiful in its presentation.............it is however very closed like WIndows where you get the feeling your being controlled rather than you controlling the OS the way you do on Amigas.
By the way....I see you got 5 CD32 cards.............what cards might those be? wanna sell me one? :-)
-
Ever notice how much more fun it is to play a Playstaion2 or 3 or Wii compared to any game on a PC or even the same Game on a PC? its just funner..............way funner on the consoles no matter what you do................this is the same with the Amiga.................no matter what you do the Amiga OS is so functional and wayy funner.
Not for me. I hate consoles... They blow donkeys...
-
Amigas are fun, no doubt. There are some old games I still love to play on occasion. Tinkering with the OS is just fun.
I don't have any problems with my PCs though, either. Gaming and demos are fantastic. (Come on... who played FEAR, or watched a recent ASD demo, and can say "it sucks"???) Emulation is fast and can be just about perfect, WinXP rarely crashes, and my system boots (and shuts down) in seconds. (BTW -- A very small amount of preventative maintenance will keep your windows box in perfect working order almost indefinitely.) Yes, there can be a small amount of frustration at times... but that goes with any hardware/OS.
-
>WinXP rarely crashes, and my system boots (and shuts down) in seconds.
Hmmm, I don't think so, not in my experience at least.
-
You guys just don't really want to admit it but the PC can do all of these things including realtime 3D..
Watch The Video (http://www.sneath.org/tim/wpf.htm) Look at the apps, explore it yourself.. Realistic people will debunk this entire thread..
-
Minuous wrote:
>WinXP rarely crashes, and my system boots (and shuts down) in seconds.
Hmmm, I don't think so, not in my experience at least.
Then, assuming the hardware is even relatively modern, you have a problem.
Either
1 -- The hardware is poor quality or failing
2 -- The OS is mis-configured and/or unoptimized, wrong/outdated drivers, etc
A good WinXP machine should shutdown in about 3 seconds. (Maybe a little longer if you're running an antivirus.) After bios init, it should boot easily in under 20. (My old Athlon box could do it in 14, and that's 2002-era hardware.)
After 4 years of running severely overclocked, the single issue I had with my last PC was an occasional BSOD, which I finally tracked down to a failing Linksys wireless card. (And that annoyance lasted about a week).
Buy good hardware, spend a few days researching how to properly configure the OS, and Windows will give the average user years of trouble-free service.
-
I deleted it and installed Win98SE, much better, faster than XP and more stable and compatible.
-
No one is arguing that Amiga Speed is better than PC........... its not about that.
its about this. If Amigas were made up to date in the Speed department............it would crush it in all that it already crushes it in plus speed.
The Amiga is about functionality. It is just such a logical and "Proper" computer. PC's will always be a wack job.
I'll keep that in mind the next time I boot up UAE and watch two programs murder each other and take the OS down with them when they stomp all over each other's respective memory addresses. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Minuous wrote:
I deleted it and installed Win98SE,
Oops. Have fun never upgrading your system's hardware to anything new.
much better
Wrong.
faster than XP
In the same way that switching a C64 on is faster - guess what functionality isn't there?
and more stable
Wrong. Win98 relies on the same legacy tech that Win95 did: an underlying DOS structure (a 16 bit dos structure) with 32 bit extensions. The woes this can cause are well documented.
and compatible.
Uh-huh. What was the last DX for Win9x? 8? 7? Are there even drivers for half the new devices out there for 9x? No? And surely you can't be talking about backwards compatibility with DOS for old games - bootdisks and memory managers, anyone?
Clearly you're happy with Win98, but don't build it up to be something it isn't: a substitute for WinNT based OS's.