Why can't a windows machine do it.

[clockmstr]

Tripitaka wrote:

TheMagicM wrote:
please, the PC has way more firepower the the Amiga will ever have.  

Now come on....NEVER!! I hope one day to quote you on that.

  :lol:

That day will never come.

[clockmstr]

I haven't seen anything on an A500 that is anything like as good as Wolf3D was on a 286.

And Wolf3D was coded so badly that it could have been optimised to run very well on even the slowest PC's of that day.

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

B00tDisk wrote:
Why can't a 12mhz amiga run a simple little raycasting/texturemapping engine like Wolf3d?  A PC can.  Golly, I guess the Amiga sucks.

It can.
But Wolf3d has never been properly ported to the A500.
Just look at Legend of Valour

[Wain]

Most PC users may burn a cd/dvd in the background , write word process, and browse or email at the same time.  Why do i need two or more cpu's running at 3000 mhz to do this? Its because the hardware architecture and the OS are crap.

You don't need 2 or more cpus running at 3ghz to do this.  As a matter of fact, I remember doing things like this quite effectively with a pentium 2 running around 300 mhz.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

clockmstr wrote:
It ran very well on my 12mhz 286 with EGA graphics, thank you very much.

AFAIK, VGA was required for running Wolf3D
And my experience is you needed to run Wolf3d on a 386 in a poststamp screen.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Wain wrote:

Most PC users may burn a cd/dvd in the background , write word process, and browse or email at the same time.  Why do i need two or more cpu's running at 3000 mhz to do this? Its because the hardware architecture and the OS are crap.

You don't need 2 or more cpus running at 3ghz to do this.  As a matter of fact, I remember doing things like this quite effectively with a pentium 2 running around 300 mhz.

It could already on a pentium 75mhz with 16mb memory.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

clockmstr wrote:
I can answer that since I've pretty much had PC's running concurrently with an Amiga of some sort.

The problem was with your IBM PC's which were specced ultra conservatively to be uber-reliable office machines but that also made them lousy gaming systems.

My EGA AMD 12Mhz 286 ran wolf3D as smooth as silk.

I got Quake playable on a overclocked 50Mhz 386DX40 with a very overclocked Cyrix FPU and decent SVGA graphics card.

Doom, ROTT and Duke Nuke'm 3D were smooth as silk on that system and better then the 486DX33 I had after until I installed a VLBUS graphics card and a DX2/66 CPU.

It just got better from there on... so many options, so many games.

It's what you call smooth as silk. My experience is that it barely ran. Unless you think a poststamp-size dia show runs smooth.

[Tomas]

clockmstr wrote:
It ran very well on my 12mhz 286 with EGA graphics, thank you very much.

And i have seen fps style shooters that run acceptable even on a a500. Wolf3d was optimized for pc and graphic cards and the amiga port is afaik not the most efficient one.

[TheMagicM]

"One major Linux kernal developer CK has gone on record saying just how snappy and smooth his Amiga was 15 years ago, and with all of the hardware advancements since, we still can't replicate that user experience."

Certainly this "developer" doesnt really understand why the Amiga boots up as quick as it does compared to a real OS.  A "few things" burned to rom chips ring any bells?  The GUI isnt being loaded from disk, mayhaps its umm...in...ROM?  just MAYBE that will speed it up a teensy tiny bit.. maybe.. I'm just guessing.  I mean, I dont have a Amiga or a Linux box so .....

[Speelgoedmannetje]

TheMagicM wrote:
"One major Linux kernal developer CK has gone on record saying just how snappy and smooth his Amiga was 15 years ago, and with all of the hardware advancements since, we still can't replicate that user experience."

Certainly this "developer" doesnt really understand why the Amiga boots up as quick as it does compared to a real OS.  A "few things" burned to rom chips ring any bells?  The GUI isnt being loaded from disk, mayhaps its umm...in...ROM?  just MAYBE that will speed it up a teensy tiny bit.. maybe.. I'm just guessing.  I mean, I dont have a Amiga or a Linux box so .....

Why can't nowadays OS'es being installed on ROM?
Plus, AmigaOS actually FITS on a very small ROM.

It's all about choices being made while building hardware+software
And I think, and lots of peecee guys with me, that Amiga made the right choices.

Just face it. The first IBM was a very complete (considering technical functionality) computer, but with a very lousy design.
The business market wants complete computers, from a -back then- widely known monopolist that is IBM.
Lousy design which is expanded by 3rd party designs, and upgraded until easter and pentecost are falling on the same day... I mean, that's SUCH a classical source of design errors... :roll:
Commodore was very brave and wise not to expand the commodore 128 any further, and to switch over to the Amiga, technically beseen.

[Terse]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Why can't nowadays OS'es being installed on ROM?
Plus, AmigaOS actually FITS on a very small ROM.

Have you used an Xbox 360 or a Wii? Or a Symbian Smartphone or a Windows Mobile PocketPC?  There's not probem putting an OS on ROM and it boots fast.  Are you looking for this level of functionality? I daresay I've seen Linix and even Window$ (or however the frak cool kidz spell it) stripped down so much it would fit on a ROM.  But unless you never intend to tweak things, you may want to wait before you buy an eprom burner.  invest in an SSD?

[Einstein]

clockmstr wrote:

My EGA AMD 12Mhz 286 ran wolf3D as smooth as silk.

I got Quake playable on a overclocked 50Mhz 386DX40 with a very overclocked Cyrix FPU and decent SVGA graphics card.

Doom, ROTT and Duke Nuke'm 3D were smooth as silk on that system and better then the 486DX33 I had after until I installed a VLBUS graphics card and a DX2/66 CPU.

It just got better from there on... so many options, so many games.

BS, We had 386 PCs in our highschool, we ran Wolf3d on them, and things went slow, "smooth as silk", in my dreams only  :lol:

[Einstein]

clockmstr wrote:

I haven't seen anything on an A500 that is anything like as good as Wolf3D was on a 286.

Who cares, although great engine, yet SLOW on a 386@25-33MHz, no depth whatsoever. In was not good, it was DIFFERENT, *3D*, that's it.

And Wolf3D was coded so badly that it could have been optimised to run very well on even the slowest PC's of that day.

You outta know better than Carmack! maybe you could optimize and let every one see ?

[Einstein]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

Why can't nowadays OS'es being installed on ROM?

Because it's primitive, and you cannot customize/update/upgrade a ROM-based OS, now if you mean eeprom/flash memory, this will happen, actually there are linuces, if I'm not hallucinating, that are installed this way.

[Roj]

Because it's primitive, and you cannot customize/update/upgrade a ROM-based OS

Old Amiga hardware does another one-up on modern hardware!

[smerf]

Hi,

Just reading some of your posts about PC's verse Amiga

First thing I have to say is you all should get up to date on your computers. The Amiga was fine in its day, it was a fantastic computer, and today it still is a very viable product to fool around with.

But

Face it the Amiga today compared to the modern computers using  the new Intel dual core chips with a modern graphics card like the nvidia series, or ATI series is just plain slowwwww. Today the Amiga couldn't even think of playing games like Far Cry, Doom3 or Fear.

Face it the Amiga hardware is out of date, slow by todays comparisons, and is better laid to rest.

I will agree that windows especially Vista sucks. I use Ubuntu linux for my main OS, and Windows Vista for my games. I wouldn't trust Windows with any of my important stuff, since I am always trying new things with my computer. Linux has really stood the tests so far. It has only crashed once since I tried to put some program on it that it pointed out that it could be malicious software. Vista which I installed at the same time has crashed 4 times since I installed it. (so much for a more stable OS huh Billy boy) Anyhow I still use my Amiga 4000 and my Amiga 3000 because they have not crashed since the day I bought them, oops the 4000 crashed once because of operator error formating one of the five hard disks, the operator sort of formatted the wrong one. This doesn't mean that the Amiga is better, it just means that as far as stability the Amiga in my opinion is still number one. Face it as far as speed, the Amiga lags behind, it cannot play the games being brought out today.

Main computer: Gateway GT5238E, E6600 dual core, Graphics card nvidia 7600GT, dual layer dvd cd rom drive, 2 gig memory, with 250 gig sata drive. Main OS Ubuntu Linux, secondary OS Windows Vista on 250 gig ide drive.

Play around computer: Dell, Pentium 4, 2.2 gighz, with 1.5 gig memory, DVD rom drive and 40 gig hard drive. Main OS Kubuntu.

Old trustworthy computer: Amiga 4000, 40mhz, GVP Video (can't think of name, but like toaster, with only dual camera switcher.) Picasso II, 18 gig memory, SCSI card with 1.2 gig harddrive. Great for storing data and pictures.

Amiga 3000 stock

Amiga 1200, with ppc processor, 030 processor, and home made power supply.

CD32 with expansion

5 CD32 cards all work but just cards nothing else. Fun to experiment with.

Amiga 500

So any of you clowns wanting to argue about which computer is better give me a call.

Today sorry to say PC rule, Amigas are still fun and MACS wouldn't own one if you gave it to me.

smerf

[Manu]

@smerf

What you wrote is as true now as it was 10 years ago.
Surely this can't be any news for any Amiga user here.