Wii vs. CD32

[Hammer]

Xamiche wrote:
The CD32 may have been "32Bit" but it could in no way compete with the PS1 or Saturn IMHO. I think Mode 7 on the SNES would have even given the CD32 a run for it's money.

Copper based effects can duplicate Mode 7 effects e.g. Brian The Lion. CD32’s 020 processor has been crippled with UMA(unified memory architecture). CBM should have slightly over clocked the 020, included 881 math co-processor and some fast ram.

http://cd32.amiga32.com/reviews/brianthelion.htm

[Hammer]

Xamiche wrote:

Hammer wrote:

Xamiche wrote:
The CD32 may have been "32Bit" but it could in no way compete with the PS1 or Saturn IMHO. I think Mode 7 on the SNES would have even given the CD32 a run for it's money.

Copper based effects can duplicate Mode 7 effects e.g. Brian The Lion. CD32’s 020 processor has been crippled with UMA(unified memory architecture). CBM should have slightly over clocked the 020, included 881 math co-processor and some fast ram.

http://cd32.amiga32.com/reviews/brianthelion.htm

Yup. Not bad that a 16-bit console can keep up with a 32-bit one. :lol:

020 in CD32 is crippled anyway.

At that time, CD32 should have delivered a low end 486 class performance.

[Hammer]

Psy wrote:

But even back then in the US, there was a concerted effort to make the world a single operating system world, and games were either Sega or NINTENDO. Marketing folk cleverly refered to the Amiga as outdated, and even though it was ahead of the competition for so long. Commodore rode that train for way too long.

That is because Commodore sucked at marketing.  Commodore should have just copied Sega's advertising style in the early 1990's of just saying how pathetic their competition is and talking like the competition is so laughably bad they are no threat.

For example:

This Ad focuses on Genesis being faster and cheaper then the SNES, Commodore could have done the same comparing the Amiga to a IBM compat (no point mentioning the Mac or AtariST as the point would be taking potential customers away from the IBM compats).

Commodore could have chewed the IBM compat in TV commercials even more then Sega chewed out the SNES as IBM didn't care about games thus there would be no major advertising campaign to defend the IBM compatible as a gaming system, thus the only ads gamers would see regarding the IBM clones is they suck as a gaming system. IBM wouldn't object as IBM positioned the IBM PC as a business PC, Commodore could have even have spun IBM marketing to their advantage, going see even IBM agrees with us that IBM PCs suck as a gaming system.

But in the 1992 and 1993, the X86 PCs is ascending as a gaming platform i.e. falling 486 based PC prices vs 040 based prices. The PC has advantage of native chunky graphic architecture for Doom type games.

[Hammer]

Xamiche wrote:
The CD32 may have been "32Bit" but it could in no way compete with the PS1 or Saturn IMHO. I think Mode 7 on the SNES would have even given the CD32 a run for it's money.

CD32 doesn’t have a proper 3D GPU.

[Hammer]

Psy wrote:

Hammer wrote:
But in the 1992 and 1993, the X86 PCs is ascending as a gaming platform i.e. falling 486 based PC prices vs 040 based prices. The PC has advantage of native chunky graphic architecture for Doom type games.

Intellivision had more tame ads showing Intellivision games next to Atari 2600, Commodore could have done such ads till 1990 when Sega started its aggressive ads against Nintendo and simply copy Sega's more agressive style.

If we look at Sega's success, Sega went from less then 1% of the console market to over 50% in only 3 years.  If Amiga had that kind of rapid growth in market share in the early 90's then by 1993 the Amiga would be far too big to not get Doom ported to it.  Again remeber IBM probably would not have launched a counter advertising campaign to defend the X86 as a gaming platform, as IBM was already driven out of the PC market, also at the time Microsoft marketing would have no matched to Sega style marketing.

Why would the X86 PC world care about IBM? Remember, IBM was against the PC clone market. IBM lost the PC market ever since the first 386 PC was launched (includes IBM's failed MCA vs Intel's VLB/PCI).

The defence of PC market is done by Intel (i.e. "Intel Inside" initiatives**), AMD (i.e. extended X86 to 64bits, X86 cloner), VIA(X86 cloner), S3(VIA), ATI(AMD), NVIDIA/3DFX and various other X86 centric IHVs.

"Intel Inside" initiatives was started sometime in 1990.
"Intel Inside" initiatives also herald the time that Intel Corp’s reference designs (includes Intel's VLB/PCI) leads X86 PC clone army, thus completely dethrones IBM in the X86 PC hardware design leadership. Also, Intel is active in complier technologies and optimisations.

CBM/MOS is not going to fight IBM, it's going to fight semi-conductor monster Intel Corp.

Lets not forget gaming on the X86 till 1998 was a pain in the add because of Dos being overly complex for the average gamer and Windows 95 sucking all around.

Not a big issue with DOS Protected Mode Interface (DPMI) games e.g. DOOM and Descent doesn't use EMS or XMS memory.

I was runing WinDoom soon after Win95 was released. MotoRacer (1997, DirectX 3) was runing on my S3 Virge 3D card just fine. I was running Win95 OSR2 (second Win95 release) pior to Win98 (1998).

WinDoom was one of the demos during development preview of Windows Chicago (aka Windows 95).

After S3 Virge 3D, I soon switch to nVIDIA Riva 128(1997,DirectX 5) and TNT(1998, DirectX 6).

I disagree with "Lets not forget gaming on the X86 till 1998 was a pain".

[Hammer]

And how well could Intel counter Commodore slamming the X86 like Sega was doing with the SNES?

Intel has sizable marketing dollars to spend. Secondly, 1993 built PCs can run the game called Doom.

Compared to the Amiga, the X86 was a pain in the ass.

Depends on the Amiga machine i.e. running legacy A500 games on A1200/020 i.e. running degrader or retrokick. On both sides, dealing with legacy software can be an issue.

In 1993, I have an A3000/030@25Mhz which can't run some  A500 games.

At 1993 time period, there was a hole in CBM’s A1200/20 and A4000/040 line up i.e. mid-range price PC. A3000’s IGP was not competitive against a similar priced X86 PC. A4000/030 was release later but it was too late.

[Hammer]

arkpandora wrote:

I've always been a PC user, but all the fussing around with conflicting IRQ's of soundcards and things like that. I got myself my first Amiga500 back in 1998 or so, and had to get used to it's user friendlyness

Most people (including most journalists - even Amiga specialists) since the 80s thought that bad architecture and operating system were the necessary drawbacks of any computer that was not a simple game console.  The reason for this is that these features were associated with the compatible PC computers which were in turn associated with both professional use and big-sized (even empty) desktop or tower boxes, both of which are strongly linked with a vulgar masculine obsession with power and "size".  As this obsession was unconscious, it may be enough to explain the monopoly of the worst computers and the fall of the Amiga.

X86 PC clone distribution model with a single standard was considered to be superior to 68K PC’s fragmented model.