BTW, 2.x to 3.x software transition was quite smooth.
There is hardly any difference between 2.x and 3.x. It should have been called 2.2.
In 1994 we were happily multitasking and most computer users didn't know what that meant and even claimed it was useless.
Wasn´t this the year Linux was finally running X11 and OS/2 Warp 4 was rumored? The statement is true for 1987 however.
AGA in 1994 was not as bad as you may think,
AGA modes on new HW felt slow compared to the OCS modes on old HW when you were using e.g. Deluxe Paint.
it allowed you to watch ham8 pr0n and animations smoothly. They should have improved more the CDXL format to take advantage of 030/040. Amiga was very cost effective solution.
BTW, 2.x to 3.x software transition was quite smooth.
There is hardly any difference between 2.x and 3.x. It should have been called 2.2.
In 1994 we were happily multitasking and most computer users didn't know what that meant and even claimed it was useless.
Wasn´t this the year Linux was finally running X11 and OS/2 Warp 4 was rumored? The statement is true for 1987 however.
In 1994 AmigaOS was simply superior
I saw an 386 machine that was about as expensive as an Amiga 3000 in 1993. It was running OS/2. It did have CD quality sound, true color GFX, resolutions of 1024x768. This day changed my perpective on PCs.
I think Amiga lost the lead when the CD-ROM arrived. It could store much higher quality images and sound than the Amiga could reproduce. And Amigas were intolerably slow when convertig jpeg to HAM.
