Worst Amiga's EVER!

[CU_AMiGA]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
What is this for a crap thread? :-x

there is no such a thing as a bad Amiga
Every singel model released by Commodore (and pre-Commodore)
[color=FF0000]ROCKED BIG TIME[/color]

:-D Correct Speel. But the worst model of Amiga is the 500+. But rumor has it that this was not built by "Commodore" :sealed:

[alexwolf]

A500+

[Holley]

My A500+'s were made in Britain, but have no marks for anything other than Commodore.

I think their advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, you get the classic good looks of the original A500, but RTC, 2Mb of Chip mem (with the obligatory ram board), ECS, KS2 as standard, and it takes almost all the hardware add-ons that were designed for the A500 (even the A501 for 1.5Mb chip mem ;-)).

I've only found a couple of games that don't work, and an upgrade with chip mem can sort that (though I'm not that bothered by it).

The A600 has a plus point in that it's the smallest Amiga, so easier to lug 'round to friends houses for all night gaming sessions!

[Brian]

Model and how I value them (0-5, greater = better)

Bad:
CDTV (0), Probe the market before you spend money on it and don't hide what it is.
A500+ (1), Why? New OS and slightly improved graphic vs alot of incompatability... again why?
A600 (1.5), Slowes Amiga and expandability is virutally none existing. Even so, these days it have it's fans.

Medium:
A1000 (2), Lucky for it, it was the first Amiga and therefor I won't cut it by it's ancles.
CD32 (2.5), pointing at CDTV comment and adds that it was little to late.

Good:
A3000T (3), Great... a tower, more space but not much news over the A3000.
A2000 (3.5), fixed alot of issues with the A1000 and great design.

Great:
A4000D (4), except for the change form old SCSI standard for IDE it was great.
A3000(4.5), Slim design can be both a positive and negative factor, love the built in SCSI & SD.
A1200 (5), A more flexible and value for money Amiga doesn't exist.
A4000T (5), Best of them all when it came but not as flexible nowadays as the A4000D.

[mikey2001]

For me its a toss up between the A500+ and the A600 as they didnt offer anything different to the existing Amiga models. Im not sure about the CDTV or even the CD32 ( :-o ), but the CD32 was definately better than the CDTV.

[Dan]

iamaboringperson wrote:
Here is my official list of the worst Amiga's - and why they're so bad.


3. A500 - Better expansion than the A600, but still not good enough.

 :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:  :roflmao:
The A500 was THE Amiga!(at least in european countries)
And it had all kinds of expansion. 040-card? You got it. Internal graphics card? Yep External ZII-adapter? Sure
I can only think of three things that can´t be used on the A500: Prometheus PCI-card(Z3), VlabMotion(Z3) and PPC but those doesn´t work on a A2000 either.
If the Coldfire-project ever gets completed I will put one in a A500.

The A2000: The Amiga in US and Germany, a reliable old workhorse.

The A1000,A1200 and A4000: We need to have something on the market and we need it yesterday.

The A500+:Hey I´m here, the updated A500 with greater graphics and more chipmem. What do you mean canceled? I was just getting started.

The A600:The troubled kid, not only starved by its evil stepparents, but also bullied for its odd look.(it´s a 8-bit! No it´s a broken pc-laptop!)
Comment from A500+:You really canceled me for that one, you can´t be serious???!!

The A3000:Technially superior but not a great seller.

CDTV:A philosophical challenge. Why do I exist? Is there any meaning in my life? Why did Philips cloned me, and called it CD-I?

CD32: A great machine but bad timing.

So the A500+/A600-thing was the only real mistake.

[Dan]

We have all forgotten the Access, Draco, Casablanca and WonderTV!
Any  opinions on those??? Maybe someone even owns one??

[toRus]

I didn't like A1200 and A4000. Too little and too late. Mac/PC world was catching up and people were begging for more (AAA ?) after years of Commodore's inactivity and design flops (A3000 was a good machine).
But many people bought them so I have to go with the A600. It was a cut down (but overpriced) version of the original, coming years after the A500 - it just didn't make any sense. Things would look better if it had an internal PSU instead of the external brick.

[CU_AMiGA]

The AGA chipset Amiga should have came out 2/3 years earlier than they should.

[patrik]

@leirbag28:

Check this news posting about wireless cards for the Amiga.


/Patrik

[minator]

Don't know if there was a "worst" Amiga but the A4000 was the most dissapointing, I had been expecting 16 bit sound at least but it didn't change at all.  Now we know what they were working on and what it really is (a glorified A3000) so it's even more dissapointing given what it could have been.

As for the A1000 I was using it last night, it doesn't make that much noise until you do something with the disc drives which are dog slow and can make quite a racket!

[x56h34]

Probably the worst Amiga of all was the A500+.
A500 were used by the majority of the market for games, so releasing something practically the SAME as it (the A500+) with incompatibilities to games (KS 2.0) was pretty crappy.

A600 was never intended to be released as the next best seller, but only as a slim-line update to the A500 line.
It was crippled of any serious upgrades, however small form factor, easy upgrade to 2MB chip / 4MB fast ram, built-in PCMCIA port, IDE port, and RF/Composite out ports were a step up from the A500, for sure. The only mistake about it was the fact that Commodore didn't include some sort of a kickstart switcher in order to provide 1.3 and 2.0 roms at the same time, as the included 2.0 roms took away compatibility with a lot of classic software. Since it was intended as a games machine, the A600 should have had a kickstart swithcer in it definitely!

The A600 was no different of an upgrade from A500, as PSOne was to the original Playstation. :-) Simply a cash cow to the already well established best seller, however A600 probably didn't succeed as well as PSOne.

[mrsad]

3. A500 - Better expansion than the A600, but still not good enough.
4. A1200 - Technically better than the A500 (but then, it did come later...), but still crap expansion, and a crap case.

what?! are you out of your mind! the A500 is a classic! A powerhouse at the time, you didn't need anymore then a memory expansion and the people who wanted to, could attach a hard disk. believe me, the expansion part was _no_ problem at the time. people who wanted to buy expansions and had the money simply bought an A2000. In fact it was plain stupied to buy a A2000 if you would not expand it!
same thing for the A1200, beauty in a small package, it was complete right from the start.

you have to remember that these things came out in the 80's and begin 90's. i don't know, but i think my 500 lasted for 5 years without the need for an expansion (except memory upgrade :-D ) and at the end i could still play all the latest greatest games.

[Waccoon]

A1000 was very good for the time.  You can expand it with practically anything but you have to plug a riser board into the 68K slot.  I wanted an external hard drive, but couldn't afford it.  Having to boot kickstart didn't bug me since Workbench came up so fast, anyway.  I had already used a Mac when I got my 1000, so I knew I was getting off easy.  The oldest Amiga was a rocket compared to a top-end Mac in '88.  :-)

I wasn't a big fan of the 3000.  Expandable, yes, but out of the box it was basicly a 500 in terms of graphics, and way too expensive.

The 4000 was also a real disappointment.  Same graphics as the 1200; actually slower since the faster CPU robbed some graphics cycles, or some stuff like that.  Good for number crunching but not much else.  I took one look at the screen refresh speed at 640x400x8, and knew Commodore was going down.

so releasing something practically the SAME as it (the A500+) with incompatibilities to games (KS 2.0) was pretty crappy.

Well, Commodore DID warn people not to hard-code the thing.  Couldn't delay 2.0 forever.

A standard '020 in the 500+ would've been nice.  It was certainly too little for the already underpowered 1200.  Moore's Law meant nothing to Amigas.

[adolescent]

@Wacoon

I disagree about the A3000 (probably because I have one that I bought new!).  It didn't have the same graphics as the A500, it was full ECS with 2M Agnus.  Combine that with the improved architecture, SD/FF, built in SCSI, HD floppies, etc. and it was great for it's time.  

Comparatively, the A4000 was a disappointment.  Removing SCSI and the SD/FF and not offering expected upgrades like DSP really hurt.  For it's time, the A4000 was much more overpriced than the A3000.

[PG]

A500 and A500+
A600 & A1200 is great computers!..:-)