Am I the only one who doesn't hate AGA?

[Iggy]

@ Iggy

Read the Post... I don't like silly eye candy...

To seen a hideous desktop like the one you posted I just switch on a MAC and say boak...

Ambient -truecolour !!! more like awe gawd my miggie now looks like any other crappy PC or MAC might as well gouge me eyes out...

I LOVE eye candy! I want a display that doesn't make me long for a crappy PC or Mac (yes I know I'm using a Mac, but NOT OSX).
BTW Franko, you're still using a Mac for internet access aren't you? Do you turn you displays down to 256 color when browsing (God that would look awful).

As NG hardware becomes more powerful and our emulation of your hardware is perfected you're not going to have much of an excuse to claim you want to keep those crappy workbench screens. Soon it should be possible to emulate all hardware (even that crappy AGA stuff).
Hell, if I was using an Amiga, I wouldn't be relying on AGA , I'd have an RTG card. And I wouldn't boot into one of those ugly Workbench screens. Even without a PPC you can run Scalos,. Workbench, AGA? F'ing ugly man.

[Franko]

@ Iggy

OK so you love eye candy, you have my sympathies...

Dunno what you mean by "As NG hardware becomes more powerful and our emulation of your hardware" !!!

Do you actually make the hardware & write the emulators

I don't need an excuse, I wouldn't run an Amiga emulator if it were the last option left to me, simple as...

AGA may be crappy to to and your entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to my opinion that you don't have gibber some keech...

And as your not using an Amiga, your opinion doesn't count with me...

[Iggy]

@ Iggy

OK so you love eye candy, you have my sympathies...

Dunno what you mean by "As NG hardware becomes more powerful and our emulation of your hardware" !!!

Do you actually make the hardware & write the emulators

I don't need an excuse, I wouldn't run an Amiga emulator if it were the last option left to me, simple as...

AGA may be crappy to to and your entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to my opinion that you don't have gibber some keech...

And as your not using an Amiga, your opinion doesn't count with me...

You wound me more deeply than you realize Franko. In my time here interacting with you all I've found your posts valid, provacative and often damned amusing.
And I would never dismiss your approach to Amiga computing. But When I use a MAC, it isn't under OSX. And I believe we could broaden the narrow concepts of what so many of you think an Amiga is.
Even at this late date, I believe we have a chance of not just retaining our legacy systems, but introducing newer improved system decended/imspired by our favorite computer.

I don't care if you don't think my approach is valid. AROS, AOS4, and MorphOS supporter are the last line of defense in keeping the Amiga community under user control. Do I create emulators, dude up until a few months ago I was designing a new PPC motherboard (my area has always been hardware).

You all can cling to your misperception that only your aged legacy hardware is a valid base for an Amigan. But if your side wins, one day most people may associate Amiga with something sold by Barry Altman.

I can run most of your software now, I believe I will be able to run all of it soon, and I can run software your legacy hardware is incapable of running.

Why would you dismiss my approach to Amiga computing when you rely on a Mac running OSX to access the internet? At least when I access the internet I'm using OWB like any other self respecting Amigan.

And don't patronise me our attempt to diminsh my technical experience. My company was selling multi-user 68K based systems (that started with four users on the BASE system) for only $9999 when then Amiga4000s (supporting only one user) were selling for 3 times as much. And our systems could be equipped with standard vga cards, PC keyboards, and mice to support a additional user with a GUI ported to our hardware by Steve Adams (who had originally created it for Gespac).

I turn 50 at the end of this months. I owned all the original issues of Creative Computing (you know, back when they were advertising the Apple I). And my first system was a SWTPC computer. My expereience predates PCs and Amigas. I was one of the truly devoted Motorola processor fanatics and I am as disappointed as ANYONE on this site that we did not win that battle.

You guys keep playing with your toys.

I want something that continues to evolve (and yes I CAN help create it).

Take care,Jim.

[Franko]

Whether I wound you or not is not my fault, sorry but when someone disses the Amiga like you have being doing here the I shall certainly voice my opinion as to how I feel about such views.

OK so you developed or have developed hardware, you miss the point entirely here, the original question asked by the thread starter was "Am I the only one who doesn't hate AGA" it was not asking about what your opinion was of everything that is wrong with AGA, that's in the other thread someone started.

I don't dismiss your approach to things, I do dismiss however your opinions on Amiga hardware and what has me using a Mac to be on the internet anything to do with my use of an Amiga. I've lived perfectly happily since 1982 using Commodore computers and until June of this year never being on the internet. Soon enough I shall be going back to living that way, so that should cheer you up at least.

I wasn't patronising you, I know next to nothing about you I was simply asking you a question which you have now answered, thank you.

What has being 3 years older than me go to do with things !. I'll keep using my Amigas which are far from being just toys but again it begs the question if you hate so much about the Amiga and all it's shortcomings and now consider it as nothing more than a mere toy then why the hell do you bother with it so much.

You go ahead and help create the next Amiga and best of luck to you, but from the new thread you've just started it won't be much of an Amiga if you have your way especially when you say "by eliminating some backward compatibility". The X1000 and the stuff Commodore USA are doing have that corner of the market covered allready.

Sorry you hold the Amiga in such low regard but to me it's been the best home computer I've had the honour and joy of using and always will be until the day I shuffle off this mortal coil, but then that's just me and the way I like things...

[Iggy]

Whether I wound you or not is not my fault, sorry but when someone disses the Amiga like you have being doing here the I shall certainly voice my opinion as to how I feel about such views.

OK so you developed or have developed hardware, you miss the point entirely here, the original question asked by the thread starter was "Am I the only one who doesn't hate AGA" it was not asking about what your opinion was of everything that is wrong with AGA, that's in the other thread someone started.

I don't dismiss your approach to things, I do dismiss however your opinions on Amiga hardware and what has me using a Mac to be on the internet anything to do with my use of an Amiga. I've lived perfectly happily since 1982 using Commodore computers and until June of this year never being on the internet. Soon enough I shall be going back to living that way, so that should cheer you up at least.

I wasn't patronising you, I know next to nothing about you I was simply asking you a question which you have now answered, thank you.

What has being 3 years older than me go to do with things !. I'll keep using my Amigas which are far from being just toys but again it begs the question if you hate so much about the Amiga and all it's shortcomings and now consider it as nothing more than a mere toy then why the hell do you bother with it so much.

You go ahead and help create the next Amiga and best of luck to you, but from the new thread you've just started it won't be much of an Amiga if you have your way especially when you say "by eliminating some backward compatibility". The X1000 and the stuff Commodore USA are doing have that corner of the market covered allready.

Sorry you hold the Amiga in such low regard but to me it's been the best home computer I've had the honour and joy of using and always will be until the day I shuffle off this mortal coil, but then that's just me and the way I like things...

One of the things I learned in college was an important principle in scientific analysis - never make a false assumption.
I in no way hold the Amiga in low regard. I think it was one of the most creative, groundbreaking systems ever introduced, I just think that the development/evolution of the system was clearly botched.
AGA looks better, but its horrifiying to program and wasn't nearly enough of an improvement.

And I've answered your question, I don't hate AGA, I just wish that the next evolution in Amiga hardware had made the kind of drastic improvement the original Lorraine made (over every other computer).
Nope, don't hate it, just disappointed by it.

And again, your use of a Mac? Didn't you refer to them as 'crappy'? At least my Mac is running an Amiga compatible OS.

[fishy_fiz]

Firstly, it seems some of you need to brush up on your amiga hardware. "Color" cycling was occasionally used, but it rarely had anything to do with why ocs/ecs games could look so colorful. They look colorful, because sometimes they are. It's entirely possible to have 200-ish colors on the amiga when using only 4 bitplanes, and I dont just mean copper gradients either. You can change register values multiple times duting frames if a person choses to. as for sprite hardware, you can also multiplex hardware sprites, making it effectively possible to have dozens of 64 pixel wide sprites simultaneously. The only restriction there that's not easy to over come is that per scanline youre limited to "sprite channels x pixel width" (ie, 64x4 for 16 color hardware sprites (256 pixels), or 8x64 for 4 color psrites). You can however have multiple sprites within that total width. This is just hardware sprites however, bobs of course are unlimited (memory aside).

Perhaps a little ironcally a week ago I mighnt have argued a megadrive vs aga point, but after getting a megadrive and 15 games for Christmas I found myself a little surprised at the lack of quality in a lot of the titles. Golden Axe for example is much better on the Amiga, both to look at, and in terms of movement.

At the end of the day I enjoy both machines, but Ive yet to see anything on the megadrive that AGA couldnt do, while the reverse isnt true.

[Franko]

And again, your use of a Mac? Didn't you refer to them as 'crappy'? At least my Mac is running an Amiga compatible OS.

Dunno what your fascination is with me using a MAC is (must be a fetish or something...) however yes I do consider them as "crappy" in fact I'd go as far to say they are almost as bad as a PC and that coming from me is as low as I can call something...

Ooooh, na na na na na says Iggy "At least my Macs is running an Amiga compatible OS"...

well my haggis could duff up your haggis with it's three legs tied behind its back... so there... :p

[coldfish]

LOL, Franko.

I'll set Horace the Cheese on the lot ov yer inaminit.

[fishy_fiz]

In regards to the whole Ambient using true color gfx vs aga,... jeez ppl, grow the heck up. Of course a machine running hardware literally hundreds of times faster and with a gfx bandwidth difference just as extreme is going to be capable of nicer results. And on the other side of the coin a mac or pc isnt crap,.... they both do the same thing as a classic amiga, and these days not in too dissimilar ways, only that modern gear is so much more powerful that its silly. Just because your mac is crap running mac os doesnt mean the machine itself is crap. AROS installed on an industry standard pc suddenly gains character when AROS is installed on it. In fact it feels *very* much like a more powerful amiga system.

There's something wrong in the world when Im marvling at immaturity/stupidity. Iggy, disguise it all you like, you instigated this with your comparison screenshot,... it wasn't "innocent" as you may like to pretend,... it was yet another episode in your unending need to tell people how great mos is and that you have a 1.8ghz sonnet card (which incidently I couldnt be bragging about,... if people wanted to they could laugh at that weak a system much in the same way you mock weaker systems (I mean really,... its what,... 1/4 of the power at best of a new $50 cpu?). Franko, youre no better here with you insults of things you dont like, or havent even used if what you proudly claim regularly is true.


Seriously, its conversations like you 2 are having that make me wonder why Im here..... sure, disagree about things, no problem, but this whole head in the sand/pretend innocence/etc. type thing is infuriating. Ever thought of just enjoying your systems rather than having a big dick contest that you'll both lose violently in the world of computing outside of "amiga"?

[tone007]

I'm digging those icons and fonts.

[paolone]

(By comparison, look at modern graphics cards. You can buy the super-duper latest card for £600, or the 'ultra cut down version, don't bother cos it'll be slower than what you already have' for £100 - the only problem with AGA is that we were only given a cost-saving version, not the super duper version.)

Oh, don't worry about this: when AGA came out, game publishers still targeted to 1 MB expanded A500 models, thinking this way they could reach the widest possible audience for the Amiga version of their games. So we may have gotten two version of the AGA chips, but games would have barely used them, throwing away any need for an upgrade.

Then, at the end of the 80s and beginning of 90s the "power of the GPU" was a total nonsense: it didn't exist, since you measured the power of a graphic chip by the widest available video mode. You could do 1600x1200? Well! You were more powerful than the one that did 1280x1024 only! And don't forget the Amiga architecture in general was years above the PC one, that started improving only when it found a way to keep backward compatibility with older software, virtualizing where virtualizable (and this process started with Windows 95, much more before than actual virtual machines existed). A faster AGA wuould have been just a faster blitter/copper thing, but nothing revolutionary as, for instance, the first 3dfx VooDoo chip was.

After all these years, I am quite disappointed by this AGA lovers/haters debate, since at the time we were all of the idea that hardware should have been used at 100% of their potential or even more, like some magic demo coders did on the C64 and the original Amiga models. It's good someone noticed we were wrong but please, stop this nonsense because it's ridiculous.

[Hammer]

yeah, our first PC was 1500 dollars, and was shite. A proper "gaming PC" was easily 2000 or more. This was very late 90's

I don't recall spending  $1500 for Intel Celeron-A (Mendocino) + LuckyTech P6ZX3 (Intel 440ZX) + NVIDIA TNT2 M64 in the late 90s.

[Hammer]

It always amazes me when people look at a 1200 with an 030 running Doom, and blame AGA for it being pokey, when the same game running on a PC needed a 486 to actually move at a decent clip.
 
Same deal for stuff like Wing Commander really. People ran it on their 486 with tons of RAM, and then complained that the amiga 500 ran it slow.
Really ?

Doom runs fine on 386DX33 with on-motherboard L2 cache and full 32bit bus.

Doom running on 386SX33 with 16bit bus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vETjEH0Vo9I

[Hammer]

Ruff 'n Tumble runs awesome here on my OCS Amiga
As well as Lionheart, Elfmania, Jim Power and Fighting Spirit.
That's why AGA feels a bit like a let-down, the best looking Amiga games are all OCS original.
There's one very valid pro-aga point however, Doom needed a lot of megaherzes and megabytes, also on the pc (or a 3d accellerated chipset like on the Playstation and Atari Jaguar).
I remember that Doom didn't run smoothly on a friends' 486 66mhz with 4mb memory. Neither did it run smooth on my 486 33mhz with 8mb. It was all choppy and I have tweaked alot in my bios and config.sys/autoexec.bat to enable it to run that tiny bit faster (to a point that the whole system seriously crashed). I don't know whether it even ran at all on a 386.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76Mq-CtYB3s
Doom 1 running full screen and smooth on 486 based laptop.

[Hammer]

One of the things I learned in college was an important principle in scientific analysis - never make a false assumption.
I in no way hold the Amiga in low regard. I think it was one of the most creative, groundbreaking systems ever introduced, I just think that the development/evolution of the system was clearly botched.
AGA looks better, but its horrifiying to program and wasn't nearly enough of an improvement.

And I've answered your question, I don't hate AGA, I just wish that the next evolution in Amiga hardware had made the kind of drastic improvement the original Lorraine made (over every other computer).
Nope, don't hate it, just disappointed by it.

And again, your use of a Mac? Didn't you refer to them as 'crappy'? At least my Mac is running an Amiga compatible OS.

http://emumiga.com/
A project that makes AROS X86 runs 68K Amiga programs transparently.

[motorollin]

I really don't understand why people are getting so angry about this.

--
moto