Crappy comparison of Amiga 1200 vs Atari Falcon

[paul1981]

Not sure why he keeps making reference to pc and mac sound cards too, saying that by the 90's the Amiga's sound was lagging behind. Maybe he doesn't know that 16-bit sound cards have always been around for the A1500/2000/3000/4000 machines. Even the wedge-cased Amiga's got 16-bit sound cards...these connected via serial/parallel, pcmcia, or clockport.

With the standard 68EC020 cpu onboard the A1200, the bus is 24 not 32-bit. Adding a cpu upgrade with fastram gives 32-bit. Unless he was referring to AGA? If he was then the falcon bus width should have been listed as 16 not 32.

Check this (very long) thread out if you fancy some Atari vs Amiga discussion/arguments/flame-wars. They talk about the Falcon vs. A1200 too later on in the thread IIRC:

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/29957-atari-st-vs-amiga/page-1?hl=fastrobplus  amiga  1000

Enjoy

[paul1981]

The Falcon is more powerful, of course. Only a raging fanboi would say otherwise. And no, I'm not an Atari fan (the horror!).

Stock yes on paper. But their OS is just a load of Tosh. What's all this I read about:

While the Falcon has its operating system in ROM, the multi-tasking version ships on floppy. There is a good reason for this (Other than it wasn't ready when the Falcon first shipped!), many professional applications would not work well with this new system, especially timing critical programs like Cubase and Logic. For these to run properly, the more common ROM based operating system was used while power users who needed the new functions could install the new operating systems on their hard drives. Even with this installed, there was always the option to boot into the single tasking OS with the use of a control panel applet, which could also configure other options on the machine, like the advanced sound system and the new high speed serial port.

Sounds like a compatibility nightmare to me.

[paul1981]

The Amiga is not just another computer. They're alive, they have a soul. They're full of charisma from the moment electricity flows through their custom chips.

[paul1981]

It matters little that the Falcon was slightly quicker, had better sound capabilities and a DSP.

When the A1200 cost £399 and the Falcon cost a whopping £999 when they launched in the UK.  Even if you add in a Blizzard 1230/50 + some fast RAM, and a small HDD, the A1200 would still have come out cheaper by a few quid.

So IMO, in terms of cost versus performance the A1200 is the better machine.

£999? Wow, I had no idea! That's a lot of dough! Would have been a Microbotics 68030 accelerator though as the Blizzard wasn't out in 1992/3. Correct me if I'm wrong though. MX1230 or something was it?

[paul1981]

I'm at Scotch Corner motorway services at the moment. All I wanted was a sandwich and a bag of crisps... So I got to the counter and the lady said 'It's cheaper if you buy a drink with it because there's a Meal Deal.'
So I had to buy a drink too despite not wanting one. Just doesn't make sense to me (besides ripping people off).

[paul1981]

Trolling.... WTF

Is it no longer possible to have any conversation with fellow amigans withoug getting flamed....?

I knew that you were referring to a stock A1200. They have been very rude to you. If anyone was trolling here it was definitely them with their ridiculous trolling accusations.