Amiga vs PC

[amigaksi]

For what I do, there could be no way I could do all my work on an Amiga.  Even something as simple as signing onto facebook or webcam with my friends and family. Does the Amiga do that?  Sure eventually they could make a client to do such things, but it would be painful.
...

Internet was pretty much something that came after Amiga architecture was designed just like game ports, digitized audio/accelerated graphics was something of an afterthought on PCs of the 1980s.  

Sure if your comparing an ancient 486 and Windows 3.11, id pick the Amiga up any day, but we are talking for today's standards..  No Amiga programs could ever touch the features/abilities of that on PCs today.  Sure you might be able to do something good or produce something worthwhile on your Amiga, but it will take awhile...

It works both ways even today.  Atari 800 Pac-man is 8K cartridge (like many other games) and Amiga games are also pretty small given what they do whereas same things on PCs use up a ton of more code assuming you have some good interface to play them.  I'm glad you picked Amiga over 486 as processor should not be the only determining factor.  You have to take into account graphics power, audio power, gaming control, collision detection, etc.  Digital joysticks are always superior to analog for most games.

[amigaksi]

BOOTDISK WROTE:

 Re: Amiga vs PC

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by amigaksi  

I think there's DOSBOX, but it doesn't run Windows 3.1 and it has its limits unlike running it in native mode. Hey, if they can run Windows 3.1 in Windows XP and 98, they should be able to do it in 64-bit OSes.
---------
Wrong.
__________________
Back away from the EU-SSR!


No, you misunderstood the post.  I admitted even 64-bit processors can run older 16-bit stuff but the OS doesn't allow.  Similarly, DOSBOX runs DOS stuff fine but it won't run Windows 3.x stuff.  I.e., it doesn't have the required windows files.

[amigaksi]

When you say it "won't run", you are giving the false impression that it "can't run". It doesn't do it out of the box since including windows 3.1 with it would get the authors nailed up in Ballmer's trophy room quicker than you could say "developers" four times.

Yeah, legality is one reason.  At least you understood it better than Bootdisk.  I wrote: "Similarly, DOSBOX runs DOS stuff fine but it won't run Windows 3.x stuff. I.e., it doesn't have the required windows files."  I can say "Windows 3.1 doesn't run Windows '95 stuff" but you can install Win32S and a few other files and force it to run Windows '95 stuff, but my statement still remains correct.

However, you can install windows 3.x on DosBOX, provided you have a copy of it that is still readable after all these years

DOSBOX does run sound blaster and VGA stuff without requiring installation of any drivers-- it's built-in so if it had the "Win" command somehow virtualized in it, I would agree it runs Windows 3.x stuff.  And as far as installing Windows 3.x, add to the problem of legality that people asking me for 64-bit version of my software don't have a floppy drive and I'm also writing to I/O ports.

Why anybody would want to, of course, is another matter.

I haven't upgraded all of my software to pure 32-bit or 64-bit; I wrote the software so it starts up in 16-bit mode and switches to 32-bit mode once it's running.  That way back when Windows 3.x was popular, I was able to use 32-bit ASM and it didn't gain anything by running under Windows '98SE/XP.  But now, 64-bit OS refuses to run it.  There's no way I can tell the customer "DOSBOX will run the software."

[amigaksi]

YES.

YES IT CAN.

Saying "YES IT CAN" doesn't change reality nor refute my point.  See my previous reply (post #215).

DOSBOX doesn't run Windows 3.x stuff.   Now that I think about it, it may not even run all DOS software properly-- haven't really extensively tested it.

[amigaksi]

jesus christ man yes it does, I've run Fleet Defender and Pirates! Gold in 3.1 under DOSBox.

I can't even run this DOS application I wrote many years ago-- IRQ8.EXE (it runs fine on my Windows machine if I boot to DOS).  

I think they should update it to WinBOX so it runs old Windows stuff w/o requiring any installation or mounting crap.  I never even used the mount command before in DOS and now you are required to use it in addition to installing Windows 3.X on top of it.  And no, my customers will not buy and install Windows 3.X as the whole problem here is they upgraded from 32-bit to 64-bit.

[amigaksi]

:roflmao:

Perhaps they should upgrade hard disks so that you never have to install crap. They'd just come pre-filled as if by magic with everything you'd ever want.


Do you ever read any documentation for software?

Firstly, the mount command is used by DOSBox so that you can mount a host directory as a drive from within the emulation.

Secondly, do you have any idea what would happen to any person, organisation or company that went around giving out Windows 3.x for free with their application?

Tell you what, why don't you try that? Let us know how you get on, will you?

You are running in a GUI environment-- it's an easy enough thing to make something like a PIF that runs the DOSBOX and runs your application.  No mount needed.  No need to read documentation if it's same setup as current GUI.  By the way, I already accepted that there are legal issues, but that never stopped people from cloning other people's software.  I think there are many Windows clones and even Photoshop clones in the PD.   And you didn't even address the point that it's still perfectly legitimate to say that DOSBOX doesn't run Windows 3.1 stuff (period).  Even if you go through all the trouble to install it and find the original floppies, you have cross your fingers and hope the application runs.

[amigaksi]

quit sounding like a pompous bag of dicks.  and no kidding you have to install Win3.1 to run Win3.1 apps.

You misunderstood that argument completely.  It's a fact that PCs have been backward compatible since 1980s when they first came out.  Now all of a sudden you have this 64-bit OS that refuses to run Windows 3.x stuff although processor is quite capable to do so.  So some suggest using DOSBOX.  But DOSBOX itself has problems with even DOS applications and clearly it isn't as simple as saying "DOSBOX runs Windows 3.x stuff."

...compete with modern hardware.  Do you think Pixar is using Amiga's? No.  

Nasa? Nope.

They aren't running your standard PCs either so that's a straw man argument.  And Amiga is good at running stuff it was designed for just like any machinery.  When you want to bloat it with gigabytes of mostly useless dead code in running internet and seeing bloated websites, you will experience a slow-down.

[amigaksi]

Yet noone bitches about having to use WHDLoad on newer Amigas, or that old Mac stuff requires emulation on new macs.

Assuming you are right, two wrongs don't make a right.  And actually WHDLoad is trying to make things run off the hard drive rather than the floppy although there are few that misbehave in the way they use the OS calls or memory.  So that's not the same issue as purposely preventing stuff from running-- seems more like someone just boasting his power to drive out old software.  Mac switched processors so that requires emulation but Intel processor are backward compatible.

funny, the NASA research center by me uses PCs.

You means the employees using the internet or the ones they use for the fancy stuff.

[amigaksi]

True, 100% backwards compatibility is a wet-dream noone will ever perfect. Deal with it.

Hah, you are not dealing with it by dismissing something that can still be avoided.  I'm dealing with it by telling people not to use 64-bit OSes.  It's a waste of time.  By the way, even Photoshop for Windows 3.x runs pretty well on XP and I don't see any reason to buy a 64-bit version or use a 64-bit OS.

I mean the ones doing research.  I like how you just spew ignorance about a place you have never been to.

You're wrong.  They used souped up machines last time I visited.  They even used souped up Amigas at one time at least some of them.  You're the one spewing out ignorance.  You can't dismiss something because NASA or Pixar don't use it.  What kind of argument is that.  You use what gets the job done (period).  For me 64-bit OSes don't get the job done; 32-bit OS and 16-bit OSes do and Amiga is one of them.  Amiga was meant for gaming and multimedia stuff and it still serves that purpose for me.

[amigaksi]

My games get better benchmark scores with the 64bit OS on my 64 bit processor.  But you dont play games since you don't seem too fun.

Actually, I play more games than you.  I have 5 different machines from 1980s to present for playing games.  I don't care about benchmarks of the CPU-- I only care about how good the game is, the controls, the collision detection, and the smoothness and wait time.  You're just getting too emotionally involved because of your attachment to PCs and can't see the clear cut argument.

Oh, really now?  When did you visit last? 1993?  I was there twice in the past two years and one time was for classes.

In the rapidly evolving world of technology, you'll find most big-name places use state of the art shit, not relics of the past just because they remember how cool it was 20 years ago.
...

As I said, the argument has no basis to decide the machine for someone.  Most people nowadays are addicted to and involved with internet so that's a reason to use modern PCs.  NASA is using a mix of various PCs-- it's no clear cut that they use a standard PC-- you are going by your limited one-sided experience.  Nor does their research warrant someone else imitating them.  

Oh I thought NASA used souped up amigas!?  

In your emotional irrational frenzy to reply, you misread my statement.  Go back and re-read what I wrote.

You use what gets the job done, yes.

I don't know how to you can manage state of the art research on a machine that can barely hit up the googlebox9000, etc.

Huh, I already agreed internet is better on modern PCs, but I still use 32-bit OS for it.  You have any reason to tell me I should stop using Amigas for gaming and multimedia?

I'd trust something designed on a s.o.t.a PC over something designed on a rickety Amiga3000 with a buncha addons.

Again, since you already agreed that use what gets the job done, it depends on the task.

[amigaksi]

You mayyyy want to rethink that remark there chief.  You are again stepping foot on ignorant soil.

Name calling won't help you nor your opinions.

It's not one sided.  I sure didn't see any Amiga's in action.  Find me a NASA project running on Amiga shit, and also, you dodged the "when were you there last" question.  Probably because you weren't there recently, or may not have even been to the one where I am from.


what statement, I was too busy laughing at you and playing games.

Exactly.  You have to read before you reply.  I didn't dodge anything-- you misread my statement or never read it.  Once you read my statement properly, we'll continue.  I don't have to go there; I have an easier way to get in touch and find out although I have been there.

1) You can't play new stuff on the Amiga, and homebrew is lacking

Just your speculative, concocted excuse.

2) If you think an Amiga trumps any modern multimedia experience, you're even stupider than I thought.

You are lost.  You agreed that it's to get the job done so it gets my job done and I NEED to go directly to I/O ports to control my devices.  Once again calling names won't help you-- you need to calm down and think things over.  In fact, you may need to learn to read before you reply.  That's the normal procedure in forums and emails.

You got bluray and surround sound coming out of your Amiga?

I threw that away as it didn't fit my needs nor my audiences.  I stick to multimedia CD since they work on majority of machines-- don't need anything more at this time.

I'll tell you whose REALLY stupid-- the person who just goes and gets a 64-bit OS and makes most of his previous software useless.  You are using ancient technology at 32-bits or 16-bits; why not try the truly over-bloated 64-bit OS that's incompatible  with your software.

[amigaksi]

(psst, Karlos, all my 32 bit games work under Win7 x64, please don't tell amigaski that his head will explode)

Looks like you missed first half of the argument like he did (or purposely misinterpret it so you can blurt out some nonsense).  I already cited two examples -- all of my software is internally 32-bit and doesn't run on 64-bit OSes.  Photoshop for Win 3.x that cost me $700 doesn't run on 64-bit Windows OS.

[amigaksi]

No, the person who is really stupid is the one that thinks a 64-bit OS is incapable of running 32-bit applications and offers no benefit over a 32-bit OS.
...

Is that what I wrote?  I said and "16-bit and 32-bit" and if you followed the context you know exactly what I meant.

You obviously know very little about how x86_64 is implemented.

That's your speculation.  I can run all of my stuff in 64MB of RAM -- don't need 4GB+ of addressing space.  Anyway, given your misunderstanding, I'll just dismiss your insult.  

I don't need to know the benefits of 64-bit OSes if compatibility is sacrificed for hundreds of utilities and software that I use daily.  As far as games go, I play games on old machines like Amiga and Ataris.  64-bit OSes are more bloated than 32-bit OSes.

[amigaksi]

This is precisely what I did when moving from XP to XP x64.  I have not looked back since, though I did have one crappy old invoicing program which refused to run in 64-bit, so I have to run an instance of XP in VirtualBox.  

Unfortunately, not all old software is crappy like your program may have been.  And VirtualBox doesn't run unless you have some Professional Version of Windows 7 64-bit so haven't seen what restrictions that has when it does run.  Nor can you request people who buy machines with 64-bit OSes to partition their hard drives afterwards.  Many don't even give the original OS Cd with the machines even if they wanted to.  Dropping compatibility with old software (16bit and/or 32-bit) was a mistake.

If/when I have to upgrade to Windows 7 I will go 64-bit.  As well, I am pushing 64-bit 7 to all of my customers.  Microsoft did a smart thing with Windows 7: to obtain WHQL certification you must produce 32- and 64-bit drivers.  Thus, a device which says it is Windows 7 ready with the logo and WHQL signing, it will work with your system whether it is 32- or 64-bit.

That's the other crap pulled of my Microsoft-- certification of software.  I originally thought that was to prevent viruses/spyware but nope.  They give warning and sometimes fail to install perfectly fine usable software.

Irrespective of the operating system, I believe we should have been 64-bit 15 years ago, but Intel was really damned good at flogging their aging 32-bit architecture.  Granted, in some cases a good dual-core 32-bit Intel gave faster benchmarks than AMD's 64-bit procs, but that never meant 32-bit was superior.

Looks like we don't have much in common.  Intel retained compatibility while Microsoft got rid of it.  Intel was always ahead of Microsoft-- when 80286 was 24-bit addressing Microsoft was still using 640K DOSes mainly.  When Intel had 80386, Microsoft was mainly Windows 3.x in segmented mode.  It's a bigger boost going from 16-bit to 32-bit but not so as much going from 32-bit to 64-bit.  That also introduces the 64-bit pointer issues which many high level languages didn't support.  And you can always bank in RAM into the 32-bit space (for the rare apps needing 4GB+ RAM) like they did with EMS and they could have mapped flash drives directly to memory mapped areas and avoid the obsolete hard drives.  You can adapt basically any algorithm to less than 1 or 2 GB of linear RAM.

OMFG.  Yeah, I remember a couple coming in to see me in the retail store in 1997.  They were told they needed a 233MMX system (PIIs were either just around the corner or just released, IIRC) with 64MB RAM and what not.  At the time to OS of choice was Windows 98 and 166MMX and 200MMX were more than adequate.  

It's still adequate to get most jobs done if you don't upgrade the OS which hogs up more and more memory with every upgrade.

[amigaksi]

@ amigaksi


I use Win7 x64. and i run VMWare. and i run Win98se. and play diablo, quite well i must say. I also run dosbox. in win7 X64. and play old 16bit dos games, and it works quite well.
I have not tried UAE yet. but i bet ya a dollar it works just fine. Then i can play most amiga games on my win7 x64 install.

Looks like VMWare also requires installing the older OS as well as VMWare itself which doesn't look like freeware.

Partition hard drives afterwards?
Exactly what do you mean by that?
I run the same disks with the same partitions as i did with xp. (some disks even W2K) I have just reformatted them with an updated version of ntfs, or converted them on the fly.

I need to run 16-bit and 32-bit software that works on Windows 3.x like Photoshop and most of my stuff.  Windows 98SE and XP run my software fine but not 64-bit Windows.  One proposed solutions were partition the hard drive, but that also still requires installing/buying Windows 3.x OS and head-ache repartitioning for customers that may not be so technically inclined.  They basically went and bought a new computer and told me my software no longer works.  Unfortunately, they bought a machine with a 64-bit OS.

Is it the OSs fault that some retailers don't include the OS disks?

What compatibillity has been dropped?
I still use old software. Name some REALLY usefull old software that don't work under win7 x64.

Yes, it's the OS's fault that there was no solution given to run old software that doesn't need any upgrade or newer OS features to run with full functionality.  The fact of the matter is, when I benchmark my software on Windows 98SE w/64MB and Windows XP w/1GB RAM, it runs better on Windows 98SE.

The certification referred to in previous post is certification of drivers. If someone want to have certified drivers, they must make both 32 and 64bit drivers for their hardware. Uncertified drivers still works, though.

Yeah, most uncertified drivers like belkin WIFI still work but those dialog boxes sure try to create doubt in people's minds with messages like: "WARNING: Press continue to install, but if your hard drive crashes or monitor blows up, don't tell us."

[amigaksi]

This is so true.

I guess it's easier to say "we don't need it" than "you're right, it would be great, but we don't have it now, that's too bad". Seems like some people still live in 1989, thinking the Amiga is still cutting edge in a lot of areas... Problem is it's 2010, and it's lagging in pretty much every areas instead.

Not true for me in 1989.  I had an Atari 800, Amiga 500, and AT&T 286 w/LAN card connecting to my college VAX (sort of like internet).  Each one had their uniqueness-- the math processing (microcap?) and communications were better on the 286 as it had a math coprocessor, the Amiga 500 had the unique Copper (amongst other things), and the Atari 800 had fast booting cartridges and programmable text/gr. modes in BASIC.  

Now the PC has progressed a lot, but nonetheless some aspects of the older machines remain unique.  Just like a parrot is inferior to a human yet has some unique features like ability to fly and it's colorfulness.