Amiga's place in the modern computing world - 00s

[Sig999]

stefcep2 wrote:

-D- wrote:

Atheist wrote:

Speaking of, don't see PC guy running around salvaging those truly awesome 80286/386/486s ms-dos/win95/98/SE systems. They're quite useless.

That's simply fallacious, there are a huge number of people who collect vintage PC hw/sw. Older x86 systems can be generally as useful as Amigas (linux), in fact, some DOS games were better than their Amiga counterparts (Dune II).
 

How different is our 23 year old system to the current stuff anyhow?

:lol:


Anyway, I agree with persia... Amiga is fun simply because it _IS_ ridiculously outdated and cantankerous. It's a fun tinker toy... but trying to compare an A500 with RAM expansion and blown caps to modern quad core is LUDICROUS.

I have an A4000 with 68060 cv64.  still ridiculous?

Actually - yeah.

[Sig999]

As far as I'm concerned - place in the modern computing world. Doesn't really have one.

This is not a bad thing - Discs of Tron doesn't really have a place in the modern gaming world, but I still think it's one of the coolest arcade games of all time, so much so that my 'winter project' is building a full sized replica environmental cabinet to play it.

No place in the modern aviation world for the Sopwith Camel or the SE5a, but they're still my favorite planes of all time - and doesn't stop me enjoying my 'summer project' of building scale versions of them to fly around.

The Amiga doesn't fit into my modern world of computing at all - but it's not a bad thing. When I've had my fill of the modern world and it's modern computers in my modern job I like booting it up, tinker with it, play some old school games, write a few pages of code, and think of happier - less stressful times.

[Sig999]

From the RKM introduction:

 Never assume that programs can access hardware resources directly. Most hardware is controlled by system software that will not respond well to interference from other programs.  Shared hardware requires programs to use the proper sharing protocols.  Use the defined interface; it is the best way to ensure that your software will continue to operate on future models of the Amiga.

Just sayin'

[Sig999]

It is obvious that actual hardware surpasses many times a 20 years old hardware, and actual software is handy and useful, and recent OSs are full of EYE-CANDY graphical GUIs...

.....and manage to emulate the Amiga on top of all that...

Personally I think WB3.9 was mostly eye candy - so the Ami aint exactly innocent in that dept either.

But it is still true that ONLY THE AMIGA it is the only 20 years old hardware+software system capable (with decent Accelerator, graphic card, and Audio Card [Maybe PCI-BUS based])

But after you've added all that stuff - it's not really all 20 year old hardware - is it?  If you're going to say '20 year old hardware/software - then strip it down to that and go for it.  Otherwise it's just a fallacious comment.

 to be still productive to write documents, browse internet and get mail and FTP (without be harassed from viruses), and to listen music, and good enough for painting and image retouching too...

apart from apples, acorns, atari'.......

Sorry - but the folks who just enjoy the retro look, feel, and fun of the Ami, while acknowledging it's day is pretty much done are also part of the community - love it, hate it,  whatever.

Piss off yourself.

[Sig999]

Problem with one single modern computer configuration is that in a year and a half it won't be modern anymore.

I think that would be a giant leap BACKWARDS into the bad-old days of computing.

As for the Amiga/Vista stuff - I think the only time Amiga would have been mentioned was if a spanish speaking employee was talking about his/her girlfriend.

Amiga was never a blip on MS's radar - they were busy targetting the business market, and the Amiga wasn't a business machine - it was viewed like an Atari console or C64, if as anything at all.

The first time MS took notice of games - or anything gaming - was when it came to their attention that more PC's had DOOM installed on them than Windows 95.

[Sig999]

@sig999: Not if it's built in a modular fashion. Leave room in the specs for multiple, compatible versions of components that can be upgraded (the cpu fast slot on big box amigas is a good example) and you'll find it would take more than a year and a half for the hardware to reach obsolescence.

So...kinda like a PC?

I'm just curious , because folks arguments have been so circular in this whole thread.

[Sig999]

koaftder wrote:
Wow, theres a lot of crap in this thread. Looks like some folks who don't write software or design hardware have come in to have a thing or two to say about things they don't understand.

I'm just enjoying the show and waiting for the first 'FIHMA' (fortunately, I had my Amiga) story to bust out

You know the one.... 'Me and Bob here were sitting on the porch waiting for the space shuttle to cross the sky when suddenly we heard one of the dishes had gone bust... well... fortunately I had my Amiga.... So with some wires that Bob stripped from his grandmothers vibrator, and a few arexx scripts we hooked up his TV dish and managed to reestablish coms and save the day...'

Always good for a giggle.


eh there was a point in time when the tall tales, misinformation and boneheadedness used to annoy me - but now I just sit back and let the good times roll.

[Sig999]

Raffaele wrote:

Don't make a fool of yourself...

1) Any Amiga accelerator card it is not produced after 1996...

So even the PPC acclerator cards in Amiga have 12 years on their shoulders...

2) Amiga can mount modern PCI graphic card, and sound card...

No your stupid Acurn Athari and Macinzozz built upto 1992 could mount modern PCI cards.

Only the Amiga has enough manufacturers to create such beautiful BUS extenders like Prometheus and mount modern PCI card, USB 2.0, etrcetera and still being productive with software built upto 1999...

Because Amiga software was far superior in its ages that it could still be used with profit.

Oh... and even a 68030 Amiga with 50 MHz is still productive...

And it emulates classic Macintosh better than Macintosh real hardware...

With the difference that a 68030/50 Amiga is still being usable, while ancient 68030/50 Macintoshes are so sloooooooow and so poor responsive that they seats on their ass.  

Ah... so when you say 20 years - you really meant 12 years?

As for Mac's - I wouldn't know, nor really care - I don't own one - I meantioned the names of the computers that were around at the time that also did what you said.

But I do have to ask - if the PC sucks so hard and all - and the 20 year hardware is so fantastic... why do you want to mount a PCI card again? It kind of goes against the grain of your zealotry dont you think?

As for productivity.. well, I could argue that daisy chaining 6 together and using them as a boat anchor is productive.. there's productivity, and then theres productivity ya know?  Exactly WHAT tasks can you do right now that can't be done better, faster, cheaper?

I'm curious.

[Sig999]

Raffaele wrote:

Again then when Amiga browsers evolved, then they surpassed Netscape Navigator in many camps...

crap. and I've used plenty - Amosaic, Voyager, Ibrowse, Aweb.. every one I could find from 1997 - 2002, on the real machine, on emulators, on amithlon... and I can honestly say that not a one surpassed it.

And this knowing full well that Netscape was a bloated piece of poop.

All over the internet there are testimoniances of people that could affirm that Voyager on Amiga, with enough RAM and a decent processor, it is a very pleasant and unsurpassed experience, more satisfying than any other browser on any platform...

crap.  I used it, and have to say even Konqueror (same time frame) did a better job.

I think you should look up 'unsurpassed' I don't think it means what you think it does.

I'm sorry - but I'm hard pushed to find a single factual reference in your entire post - now we're just pushing into the grounds of lunacy.

The Ami was NEVER that good at using the WWW - it was on the outs even then.. there were many things it was at one time great at.... however this is getting really close to the 'FIHMA' stories.

[Sig999]

Raffaele wrote:

What part of: "Classic Amiga Hardware has 20 years and even latest acclerator card made for Amiga are 12 years old!" you do not understood?  :roll:

Then you should have said '20 year old hardware...oh and this 12 year old hardware..oh and a couple of PCI cards made for the machine I loathe'

*shrug*

But that's pretty typical so I see - making your argument then changing your parameters after someone says 'hey..that's bull'

lets once again see what you wrote:

But it is still true that ONLY THE AMIGA it is the only 20 years old hardware+software system capable (with decent Accelerator, graphic card, and Audio Card [Maybe PCI-BUS based])

it's like a fine print disclaimer on the commercials I edit (that always make me laugh)

I could say ONLY c64 (with maybe a few modern add ons made in the last 10 years)....

[Sig999]

persia wrote:
Yep, it says a lot that the game the song is about doesn't run on the Amiga...

and edited on a mac.....

Not detracting from it - Eric makes some top notch animations, but in that context, yeah, I had a giggle too.

[Sig999]

Raffaele wrote:

Excuse my poor english But in Amiga you can use ancient Picasso96 cards still 20 years old, or even add EL-CHEAPO PCI graphic card that are 5 years old...

I do not see a crime in this...

Still it is only 1992 computer that can mount internal modern PCI Cards with BUS expander...

Also do not make silly statements attempting to confusing readers...

20 years old motherboard it is still 20 years old motherboard...

You can't change this fact...

I never said I could - but it that isn't what you originally stated.  You mentioned being productive and using the web and FTP and writing documents and fixing images... well all those things could be done with other computers at the same time, which means that they can STILL do these things - on their existing hardware.

So, you original statement is false... not only from a hardware standpoint - but also from a software standpoint (which you also mentioned - 20 year old hardware/software)

From a software standpoint the '20 year' (which btw would be 1988) is invention too.  When did Amosaic come out? 1996ish?
Amitcp 1993ish?

Again, the Ami did some wonderful things in it's hayday that other computers COULDN'T do.. for instance when it came out the PC was using 16 colors and the Mac at the time, even though it had a gui interface was using 2.

Inventing stuff detracts from the machines very real accomplishments and makes you look foolish.

[Sig999]

So...hang on....

Amiga browsers were unsurpassed and better than Netscape Navigator.....

or Amiga had not so good software in browsers compared to the Mac?

I'm confused... which is it?

Seriously.

[Sig999]

Recently on some Amiga forum sites (i remember it on Amigaworld.net, if I remeber it well) I read the testimoniances of people who used Voyager last version and they said that the feeling they had with Voyager it was better than any browser experience they had...

I could not testimony it by myself, because I do not own Voyager, so I can only report their comments...

Why I should not believe them?

(/seaching the internet to find these testimonies)

I used Amosaic when it came out - and it wasn't that great and that was around 1996. by that stage Netscape was a far better browser - I think that was around Netscapes prime, before it's downhill slide into bloatware.  I had used Netscape at work on a 486 since it came out around 1994 - thus I had great hopes for a Amosaic on my home machine (my Ami).  So - I used them both reguluarly within the same 24 hour period.

As for Voyager/Netscape - you can beleive whatever you choose to read.. I'm saying 'I used them both - side by side - and it simply ain't so'

That's my testimonial - so I don't NEED others when I've actually done it myself.

When had great hopes for Amithlon and tried every browser there was at the time - including the last versions of Voyager and Ibrowse.  So - I not only tried them, but tried them on the equivilent of an accelerated Amiga AND a graphics card.  I tried them alongside Netscape

And to tell the truth - even if it HAD suprassed Netscape, by that stage that was no great accomplishment anymore.

Now.. to say something is 'unsurpassed' is something different again - that is to say it is the best - now being the best experience can be a subjective thing, but no matter how I slice it - I can't see using the web with Voyager as unsurpassed... not by a long shot.

That's just the way it is - here in reality.

Seriously, this whole argument is like saying I can put a CD ROM on my Sega Megadrive and outperfom a Playstation 3.  It can't, it won't, and to tell the truth that doesn't bother me because if I wanted to use a playstation 3 I'd buy one.  The fact that it can't is part of it's charm and appeal.

[Sig999]

I think you need to re-read that second one.

It's saying that he THINKS it sucks while agreeing it lacks features and is not as good.

He 'prefers' to use ibrowse...


See above anyways - I've used them both side by side - I don't LIKE mozilla - I don't LIKE netscape (as I've said before it became a big bloated pile of pooh) - that being said, it is a better browser.

It does it's task better - it displays web pages better.

And that's all it really comes down to.  And as the web marches on and people use it more and more, as it adopts more and more features, ibrowse, voyager, etc. will fall further and further behind to the point (which I think we are at very close to, although others may disagree) to where the machine is no longer technically able to use the modern web productively.

The first is an interview with the head of DiscreetFX - it mentions very little about browsers other than he prefers Firefox over Internet explorer and that he uses Ibrowse on his Amiga.

In case you haven't followed this - DiscreetFX are supporting the Amizilla project - an amiga port of Mozilla (which has never happened) which is probably why it is brought up in the interview at all.

It doesn't say anything like what you've written.  If it does please show me - because that certainly isn't what I walked away from reading either of these 'testimonials'.


Sorry - but try again


If anyonere were saying 'Ibrowse/Voyager are better than Mosaic' - THAT would be a statement of truth... not the fantastic slam dunk folks some folks would rally behind... but it would be a statement of truth, and something you could prove...... and right now that would be something indeed.


Right now you're saying that product X I don't use on a computer I don't use is better than product Y that I don't use.

That's not really grounds for an objective argument anyways.