Am I the only one who doesn't love AGA chipset?

[fishy_fiz]

People seem to remember pc prices incorrectly. In 1995 I paid about $800 AUD for a Pentium mmx 200 + 32meg ram, 8 meg diamond viper video card, sb16, etc.  This was much, much faster than an '060 based amiga and cheaper as well. Having said this I still enjoyed the amiga more, but I thought Id mention it seeing as people are quoting ridiculously innaccurate prices. Now as for longevity, that's aso a crock. A person simply needs to run software suited to the specs. Would someone expect to play amiga quake on a stock a1200, or would they instead use software that works well on thier machine? A p200mmx is still more usable (in terms of performance) than any a1200... again, a person simply needs to chose appropriate software for the hardware (as with any computer, amiga included).
The whole "need to upgrade, bin, buy new, etc." to keep using a pc is complete BS. Sure, it dates quickly compared to amiga gear, but that's simply because PC gear *did* advance constantly. A pc didnt become less usable simply because there's constantly faster gear out there.

Now as for Doom,... I cant agree with people here. Doom rocked. Still one of the best fps games out there. Well designed levels, great enemies, great weapons. It was more than a well crafted bit of code, it was a well crafted game.

[fishy_fiz]

Incidently a $1000 PC absolutely destroys a $200 console. Even $ for $ the gap is quite small these days. A pc that considerably outdoes a ps3 in all areas can actually be bought for less money than a ps3.

[fishy_fiz]

Despite my last 2 posts I do very much enjoy the classic amigas. Theyre my favorite machines and probably always will be, but it bugs the heck out of me reading some of the garbage people write just because something isnt to thier tastes. It sounds like a lot of amiga people still cling onto things that were only partially true 15-20 years ago.

There's no need to justify your hobbies by making up garbage and contorting the truth about other options. Just enjoy it for what it is.

[fishy_fiz]

Only because of Sony forcing Microsoft into a very long life cycle with 360 and Wii proving old tech=massive profit potential. Launch day of console not earing end of life cyle haf a decade later.

In 1990 a $1000 PC couldn't replicate Gauntlet 4 or Thunderforce 3 from Sega console and in 2006 a $1000 PC couldn't do 1920x1080 30fps quality games like Xbox 360.

Rubbish, I challenge you to find me a £250 PC (PS3 price) that plays Gears of War in 1080p better than PS3/360. Win7 licence alone is £70 and another £60 for case and decent PSU let alone an off the shelf machine with a real graphics card (min £100 alone) and then you will need a Bu-Ray drive too....already spent all our PS3 cash without even a m/b CPU RAM or HD I think no? Like I said cheapest bare bones i7 wthout monitor + Windows = £600-700.

An i7 isnt required to outdo either xbox360 or ps3, an i5, am3, or even core2 based cpu is significantly more powerful.... here in australia a ps3 is $469....

quad core 3.2 ghz athlon2 = $100
mobo = $45
blu ray/dvd burnber combo drive = $50
4 gig ddr3@1333 = $45
500 gig sata drive = $45
gf 450 1gig video card = $115


Total price is $400 australian, a far cry from 6-700 pounds "minimum" (in fact its about 1/3rd or less. I guess including casing and keyboard,mouse, etc the prices are on par, but the pc is much more powerful and a lot more versatile).
I actually own an xbox360, and really enjoy it, but Im not going to pretend pc gear is comparitively bad value because it simply isnt.
Also the arguement wasnt for 2006, it was for now. If it was for 2006 then the xbox360 wouldnt be $200 (although I have no problems in admitting that its only in the last year or so that pcs are price competitive for gaming).

Incidently most ps3/xb360 games arent 1080p.

[fishy_fiz]

Sure, but the total of the parts is somewhat under the ps3 price. Including a case and keyboard/mouse to the price brings it on par as I already said. Sure there's better options, but there's also worse ones (Ive not chosen the cheapest gear here). I guess the only ommission is an OS, but we all know how many ppl actually buy their oses dont we ? There's also legally free options. As for the component choices they werent specifically chosen, it was just a random system to show that $ for $ pc hardware is competitive with consoles (especially ps3). Video card is ok, and quite easily best card for that money. ATI has nothing comparable in this price range (even 5770 is more expensive, while being considerably slower). Personally Id go for a 460, but that's another $50.
Also a ps3 doesnt come with a tv/monitor and a pc can just as easily be connected to a tv.

Now just to clarify, I dont say these things as a pc gamer, because Im not a pc gamer. I use my xbox360 much, much more for games. When it comes to games on a pc Im more of a retro/emulation fan which hardly needs even a budget system like what Ive mentioned. The whole point of it is that it gets a bit frustrating hearing the same old, quite frankly rubbish arguements over and over again. Chances are though unfortunately that these responses will fall on deaf ears (this is not a go against anyone, I just mean that Im sure I'll hear the same crap again by people who like to for no particular reason I can see, talk trash about things the dont like and/or understand).