The Red One X vs x1000

[utri007]

Some bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@! here, but also good points of views.

It doesn't make sense to buy X1000 just for playing old amiga games. They are emulated and that kind of emultion doesn't require much. Even Sam 440ep can emulate A500 without a problems. So if you are not a rich man, don't buy X1000 just for old games.

If you are planning to use old pruductivity software that is a different thing. 99% of them works very well with Amiga OS4 and really fast when comparing to any 68k Amiga.

What would I suggest to you is buying a second hand Sam 440ep or ep Flex. Really nice little mobo with very high quality. With that you get NG Amiga very economy price and you can see do you like it OR not. Only extra thing is whdload key file, if you want to play whdloadized games.

If you have used Amiga OS3.5/3.9 you most likely like it.

What is bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@! is that playing old 68k games would require some effort. OS4.1FE installs RunInUAE when you install OS, so you can start those games just double click even if they are NODOS disk images. With Amiga OS4 you will get working emulation eviroment as it have a required kickstart files, os disks, etc licenced. Unlike other NG machines.

As a bvonus Sam 440ep is very well supported by OS, ithas a all needed drivers, like 3d etc.

[OlafS3]

Some bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@! here, but also good points of views.

It doesn't make sense to buy X1000 just for playing old amiga games. They are emulated and that kind of emultion doesn't require much. Even Sam 440ep can emulate A500 without a problems. So if you are not a rich man, don't buy X1000 just for old games.

If you are planning to use old pruductivity software that is a different thing. 99% of them works very well with Amiga OS4 and really fast when comparing to any 68k Amiga.

What would I suggest to you is buying a second hand Sam 440ep or ep Flex. Really nice little mobo with very high quality. With that you get NG Amiga very economy price and you can see do you like it OR not. Only extra thing is whdload key file, if you want to play whdloadized games.

If you have used Amiga OS3.5/3.9 you most likely like it.

What is bull%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@! is that playing old 68k games would require some effort. OS4.1FE installs RunInUAE when you install OS, so you can start those games just double click even if they are NODOS disk images. With Amiga OS4 you will get working emulation eviroment as it have a required kickstart files, os disks, etc licenced. Unlike other NG machines.

As a bvonus Sam 440ep is very well supported by OS, ithas a all needed drivers, like 3d etc.

The advantage compared to AROS is not that much big anymore. The rom replacments work very well now and the majority of games work with it. You even need one set and not different like normally.

[danwood]

Even Sam 440ep can emulate A500 without a problems.

Can it?  My A1XE struggled with a lot of titles and that was 933mhz, load up something like Pinball Fantasies and see how un-smooth and jittery the vertical scrolling is.

I maintain that anyone buying an "NG" system to play classic Amiga games/titles is crazy, an A1200 with WHDLoad or an A500 with a Gotek will give you much less headaches, be more authentic and cost a lot less money.

[Yasu]

I am trying to be fair here, since each and every one of us answering this thread are in love with our OS of choice. And then we tend to give poor advice to newcommers.

I am not saying AROS is buggy crap, only that it's beta. Which it is. That it's resonably stable on the right hardware or the right VM settings is great, but there are still things to fix and features to add. And I have two AROS machines that runs it natively. So I don't say it to flame here.

[ppcamiga1]

I bought Amiga 1200 in 1993.

Amiga 1200 was worth nothing underpowered overpriced crap.

Because AGA had no chunky pixel, AGA was 24 times slower than SVGA card for 386 PC.

In 1993, for the price of Amiga 1200 I could buy 386 which was many times faster than Amiga 4000.

Amiga 1200 was waste of time and money.

I really regret money spent on crap made by Commodore.

Today Amigas are not as good as the amiga 500 of course.

They are not even as good as those produced in 2003.

Even so, today Amigas  are far better than the Amiga 1200.

[ppcamiga1]

The biggest problem with 68k is obviously very slow graphics.

AGA is pathetically slow, Zorro II with bandwidth 3.5 MB / s barely keep up with the 386 SVGA, and Zorro III with a bandwidth of 13.5 MB / s barely keep up with the 486 VLB cards.

If you want to use productivity software, Amiga 68k is really a waste of time and money.

If someone really wants to have great compatibility and feeling of Amiga 500 games, can buy Amiga 500 with Gotek.

[Jeff]

It sounds a lot to me like you are in the WRONG forum. This forum is (or at least used to be) all about people that like things Amiga related.

I hope you have a better day once you move on.

[wawrzon]

I bought Amiga 1200 in 1993.

Amiga 1200 was worth nothing underpowered overpriced crap.

Because AGA had no chunky pixel, AGA was 24 times slower than SVGA card for 386 PC.

In 1993, for the price of Amiga 1200 I could buy 386 which was many times faster than Amiga 4000.

Amiga 1200 was waste of time and money.

I really regret money spent on crap made by Commodore.

Today Amigas are not as good as the amiga 500 of course.

They are not even as good as those produced in 2003.

Even so, today Amigas  are far better than the Amiga 1200.

im not really sure if an a1200 was that much worse than a regular pc of 1993, while being portable and afair not being in comparison so much more expensive. it also still had its choice of software, expansions, dealers and support.

if someone says that this is worse than the contemporary situation of os4, where one needs to invest multiple amount of cash for a fraction of what a budget pc can deliver in every respect, where there is no unique software that would justify such an investment, and where there is no prospect that it might change, must be seriously misguided.

[paul1981]

I bought Amiga 1200 in 1993.

Amiga 1200 was worth nothing underpowered overpriced crap.

Because AGA had no chunky pixel, AGA was 24 times slower than SVGA card for 386 PC.

In 1993, for the price of Amiga 1200 I could buy 386 which was many times faster than Amiga 4000.

Amiga 1200 was waste of time and money.

I really regret money spent on crap made by Commodore.

Today Amigas are not as good as the amiga 500 of course.

They are not even as good as those produced in 2003.

Even so, today Amigas  are far better than the Amiga 1200.

Computing doesn't begin and end with chunky pixels. I couldn't give a rats arse about chunky pixels personally. I'd like to see this 386 you refer to running broadcast quality super smooth 50/60Hz animations in Scala and the like...
Maybe all you wanted to do is play Wolfenstein or Doom back in the day, if so then yes you'd be better off with your 386/486.
Do you actually have any creative experience with 68K Amiga's?

[QuikSanz]

Absolutely right Paul. My A2000 with 060, before it died, and P4 was every bit as good as a 486 and way more fun!