Amiga vs PC

[psxphill]

Yes, I expect Win 3.x to work on modern hardware. That's what compatbility means. I shouldn't have to buy some other emulation scheme (assuming it exists).
 
It's the OSes fault that it's incompatible with previous windows API. I won't even mention I/O ports yet, but suffice to say that up to windows 98SE, they were backward compatible on API level as well as I/O port level. Windows 98SE was the LAST good OS by Microsoft. It allowed direct port I/O and APi access just like Amiga OS.

I think you're in a very small minority. Not being able to access I/O ports from every program is a good thing, I don't want everything to be able to access my hard drive directly. You can access I/O ports on x64 versions of windows, but you have to have a signed driver installed to do it.
 
Also, not everyone wants to pay extra so their hardware will be compatible with windows 3.1.
 
Before Windows 7, every graphics card had to support 256 colour mode X. Which was a clever hack back in 1995, but these days it just adds cost.
 
To run Windows 3.1 you'd need your VGA card to support planar graphics modes, which I have no idea if mine supports. 99.9% of people in the world have no use for them. So if they are sitting there on my graphics card, then I've had to pay for them.
 
If you really want to run 16 bit software, then a 32 bit Windows 7 would be your best bet. I wouldn't use it, because 32bit has more security risks but if you'd rather use Windows 98 then it's going to be better than that.
 
Well written 32 bit software should run without any problems. What you're trying to use is probably just buggy. You can't blame Microsoft for that (although they do go out of their way to make sure big name software works, no matter how badly written it is).

[Arkhan]

He's just grasping for reasons to complain.  I wonder what Win 3.1 software is really crucial in 2010.


I busted out the russian 6 pack of games yesterday.

Installed off a floppy on Win7, ran in Win 3.1 w/ dosbox, and laughed at amigaski the whole time I was playing crete.

[B00tDisk]

Windows 98SE was the LAST good OS by Microsoft.  It allowed direct port I/O and APi access just like Amiga OS.

you understand zero about OS design if that's what you think.

Compatibility is NOT achieved for Win 3.x through selecting compatibility mode.  And even for many Win98 stuff, it doesn't work.  Windows 3.x will beat Windows 98SE given the same hardware setup since you can do 32-bit stuff in Windows 3.x.  So editing an image of 30MB using 16MB machine and a more bloated OS will degrade performance.

So what?  Who uses 3.1 stuff aside from you?

Besides you've been told time and again: DOSBOX + 3.1 works.  Run it in that environment; it won't break into your house and kill you and your family, you know.

[Arkhan]

you understand zero about OS design if that's what you think.



So what?  Who uses 3.1 stuff aside from you?

Besides you've been told time and again: DOSBOX + 3.1 works.  Run it in that environment; it won't break into your house and kill you and your family, you know.

This++

[the_leander]

 Windows 98SE was the LAST good OS by Microsoft.  

 Windows 98SE was the LAST good OS by Microsoft.  

 Windows 98SE was the LAST good OS by Microsoft.  

 Windows 98SE was the LAST good OS by Microsoft.  

 Windows 98SE was the LAST good OS by Microsoft.  

Here we see Amigaski out-do his previous record for burning stupid.

Now tell us again about the Amiga's joystick port. We could do with a good laugh.

[Thorham]

Okay, I guess I can't get my point across, but it doesn't really matter, because people can always agree to disagree

[Franko]

Originally Posted by Iggy
@Franko
 Re: Amiga vs PC

Franko!
You have got to retain internet service! You've set off such a brilliant sh*t storm.
It's been damned interesting interacting with you.
Besides, after viewing the internet and the useful information you can dig up on it, do you want to give it up?

Glad to know at least someone gets my sense of humor... (Iggy have you nicked my happy pills...) :lol:

You'll be glad to know I'll be around for at least another 10 months (others may not be so glad !!!), being a stereotypical Scotsman I have to get my moneys worth, I mean after all it cost me 30 quid for a years 20Mb unlimited Broadband from SKY, one of my best haggles ever I reckon...

Think I should start a new Thread & Poll, something along these lines

Franko... Should he stay or should he go now...
Or
Franko... Amusing or Annoying...
Or
Franko... Pain In the Ass or A Wee Touch O Class

Or maybe a poll on a poll about what to call my poll... :biglaugh:

(Reckon I've asked for it now... oh well it's no skin of my nose... you should see the size of the ruddy thing...)

Now where did I leave me medication... :roflmao:

[Karlos]

Surprised at you Karlos coming out with a crazy statement like that, I mean comparing a Cray 1 to the Amiga...

It was in response to somebody else that brought it up. However, let's be realistic here, it's a far less silly comparison than a classic 680x0 machine versus a modern 64-bit x86 one. Cost aside, the performance gap between the latter pair is far greater than the performance gap between the first.

[pyrre]

No, I don't want to install 98SE and VMWare on an already bloated Windows 7 64-bit and hope it works.  The more compact the OS, the better for my stuff.  And I am talking Windows 3.x not Windows 98SE.  



Yes, I expect Win 3.x to work on modern hardware.  That's what compatbility means.  I shouldn't have to buy some other emulation scheme (assuming it exists).


It's the OSes fault that it's incompatible with previous windows API.  I won't even mention I/O ports yet, but suffice to say that up to windows 98SE, they were backward compatible on API level as well as I/O port level.  Windows 98SE was the LAST good OS by Microsoft.  It allowed direct port I/O and APi access just like Amiga OS.

Compatibility is NOT achieved for Win 3.x through selecting compatibility mode.  And even for many Win98 stuff, it doesn't work.  Windows 3.x will beat Windows 98SE given the same hardware setup since you can do 32-bit stuff in Windows 3.x.  So editing an image of 30MB using 16MB machine and a more bloated OS will degrade performance.

OMG...
To all of us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnhF1QAEZjU

[minator]

I guess this whole Amiga vs PC debate is over now the Amiga is a PC.

[Arkhan]

Oh but i thought amiga was best why does it need to be pc and stuff.

[Karlos]

Think I should start a new Thread & Poll, something along these lines

Franko... Should he stay or should he go now...
Or
Franko... Amusing or Annoying...
Or
Franko... Pain In the Ass or A Wee Touch O Class

Or maybe a poll on a poll about what to call my poll... :biglaugh:

You forgot "attention seeking" :lol:

[odin]

Wait, what?
He's calling Win3.x and Win98 OS'es?

[smerf]

Hi,

@Arkhan

[I can. Solid state drive, 8gb ram, Phenom II X6 w/ Windows 7.

boots up faster than I can say "Franko's on meth"]

I am sorry but I do believe that you misunderstood me.

What I am saying is that if I lose a PC or a (ugh) MAC it is really no big deal, the are such worthless pieces of junk, I just go online and buy another one for just about $300. OK MACS do cost a little more by about $2700 (if you buy one that is worth something).

Now if I lost my Amiga, it would be like losing a good friend or maybe my pet dog.

smerf

[amigaksi]

you understand zero about OS design if that's what you think.

It's actually the opposite.  You understand ZERO about OSes period.  You don't even understand the simple point that Windows 64-bit does not run Windows 3.x stuff.  You keep repeating the same point-- "oh, there's some dosbox where you can install Windows 3.x on top of it."  I already know that, but it's an emulator that has problems with even DOS stuff what to speak of an OS running on top it.  This I already told you before in this thread and gave you a simple DOS program that doesn't run but you keep repeating the samething as if you are blind or maybe a PC fanatic who can't accept the deficiencies when they are factually pointed out.  This is my last reply to you regarding this DOSBOX crap-- if you have the ears read on.  And I'm already done with two PC fanatics who keep just spewing out their insulting venom without any sense of reasoning.  I only reply to those who I feel know something about PCs and Amigas.  Don't have much time to waste on name-calling.  I can get a few kindergarten kids to do that.

So what?  Who uses 3.1 stuff aside from you?

Just admit you don't know here and are just speculating.  

Besides you've been told time and again: DOSBOX + 3.1 works.  Run it in that environment; it won't break into your house and kill you and your family, you know.

It doesn't work for distribution even if it ran perfectly.  Next point, if I were going to run an emulator for things that use only DOS calls and ask people to install Windows 3.x, I mine as well tell them to install a 32-bit version of Windows instead which does run Windows 3.x stuff.  Next point, let's say I have a license for windows 3.x, why in the world would I want customers to screw around with installing Windows 3.x when I can just make a boot-CD that boots to Windows 3.x using REAL DOS.

[amigaksi]

OMG...
To all of us: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnhF1QAEZjU

You need some brains to reply to what I wrote.  I was close to 100% PC programmer in 1990s and know the Windows 3.x/95/98se stuff enough to know how many cycles it takes for I/O instruction in protected mode and non-protected mode, how much memory each OS hogs up, and how to flip/flop 16-bit/32-bit with simple 66h or 67h prefix opcodes.  You have ZERO understanding like some other PC sidekicks and fanatics here-- just caught up in the frenzy of the modern OS.  I guess you also own Beta Videos and Laserdiscs as well since those were also supposedly "new" and "modern" when they came out but turned out to be a passing fad.
Heck, I haven't even spoken against PCs yet; I joined this topic to support some of the points being raised by others and my current issues with compatibility.