Amiga 1200 versus Atari Falcon?

[Xanxi]

Have you been visited by the Ghost of Christmas Past to bring up those more than 15 years old question?

My advice is the Falcon is better than the plain A1200, but the OS is crap, it has no software, it was too expensive, and it is beated by any expended A1200 except for the sound.

[Iggy]

You guy can think of some dumb things to get so worked up over. The Falcon was a nice computer with a few dumb design decisions (then again remember our recent AGA dicussions). But if I was picking one to program on it would be the falcon. And 800x 600 in truecolor is better than an overscanned HAM display.

Besides, what's the point of all this? You're all stilll arguing the merits of 256 color (or less) displays while I'm using 32 bit color (as are many RTG users). In comparison both systems can't compete.

[tone007]

Besides, what's the point of all this?

Comparing system A to system B.

In comparison both systems can't compete.

Sure they can, either one is worth more than yours.

[Hattig]

They both had advantages and disadvantages, they both had poor design decisions, and they were both the final products in the 'all-in-keyboard' style of computers popular since the late 70s.

The Falcon was crippled by the memory bus. The A1200 was crippled by the lack of Fast RAM. One of these was fixable for little cost (£100 for a 2MB RAM expansion in 1993) - and hence the A1200 was better at the time considering it cost a lot less than the Falcon when purchased).

The Falcon might have had better vertical resolution than the video-optimised Amiga chipset, but you would need a dedicated monitor to make use of that. But if you had that, it was better than the poor interlaced modes the A1200 offered - how many people ended up using 800x300 Super72 mode on their Multisync monitors? Productivity mode didn't seem to fill the screen - not for me anyway. Let's not talk about higher colour depths either...

Let's face it, at launch the A1200 needed an A1400 for £599 as the 'sell-up' option, with a 28MHz 68020, 4MB RAM (2+2) and a HD floppy.

[pyrre]

Now the Jaguar chipset inside a home computer....that would be something special. Just look at Doom on a Jaguar, using a 14mhz 68000 and custom chips, it runs as fast as a Pentium 66/75mhz PC in true colour.

You must also specify the fact that the 68000 is only a system controller, and that the jaguar is a 64bit console.
Atari Jaguar wiki

[Iggy]

Comparing system A to system B.



Sure they can, either one is worth more than yours.

That's what I love about this forum, so many objective opinions. Personally, I'd love to have a Falcon to play around with. Its graphics modes don't require some of the intensely bizzarre and convoluted programing coding required by the Amiga.

As far as any comparison between NG and retro machines, thetre isn't any. Even a SAM run circles around any Amiga. And if you think a 256 color display can compare to a 16,777,216 color display you're deluded.

I worked with companies designing and sell 68K based computer in the late 80's and 90's. Great times, fantastic hardware - FOR THAT TIME.

But get over it dude. Those systems can't compare (to something new) and your comments are not only ludicrious but they make it easy to completely dismiss you.

[tone007]

But get over it dude. Those systems can't compare (to something new) and your comments are not only ludicrious but they make it easy to completely dismiss you.

Apparently you didn't understand me.  The A1200 and the Falcon are both worth more, monetarily, than your common Apple hardware I find discarded (and have discarded) regularly.

[Iggy]

Apparently you didn't understand me.  The A1200 and the Falcon are both worth more, monetarily, than your common Apple hardware I find discarded (and have discarded) regularly.

Sorry, I appologize  for the offensive comments. I definately misread the intent of your post.

And you are right. If you want to run OSX, a G4 is not the hardware you want to use (of course I don't even have OSX installed). And the nearly free equipment capable of running an NG OS makes the idea of buying an X1000 impracticle.

YES, if only I'd had a clue in the past when Amiga hardware was at a low point that this stuff would be selling for the outrageous prices that they are going for now I would have invested in a stockpile of it.

As I indicated in my last post, I was a devoted supporter of anything 68K based. The design was so much more elegant than X86. At one time, I really did believe we had a chance of staking a larger place in the market. I think it kind of fell apart when CD-i failed, Tandy did not move its Color Computers to 68K, and high end Amigas like the 4000 cost about twice what a PC cost.



And I do understand why people are willing to pay these high prices for this hardware. I myself was recently talking to someone who was selling a functional SWTPC computer (the first personal computer I had any experience with) and I was seriously considering paying over $1000 for a 2 Mhz computer. I also wish I could find a functional Peripheral Technologies PT68K. And the Amiga? Why hell, it SHOULD have suceeded. When introduced, it was so far ahead of its time that it can only be due to incredibly poor corporate mismanagement that it did not win ovewver the market.
Blame Commodore bean counters. They never has a clue what they had or how to sell it.

[Jakodemus]

My advice is the Falcon is better than the plain A1200, but the OS is crap

Hopefully the OS part will some day be fixed with a 68k port of AROS to the Atari STs and Falcon.

[Iggy]

Hopefully the OS part will some day be fixed with a 68k port of AROS to the Atari STs and Falcon.

WOW, now that is an idea I had never considered. AROS 68K could be ported to non Amiga systems. Damn. What about the coldfire?

Hey, where can I get a Falcon and wasn't there a 100Mhz derivitive at the EOL of the Atari lifecycle?

[qwerty40001]

That's what I love about this forum, so many objective opinions. Personally, I'd love to have a Falcon to play around with. Its graphics modes don't require some of the intensely bizzarre and convoluted programing coding required by the Amiga.

The point is, that AGA was completely worthless crap.

Even in 1992 it was much less than they had PC / Mac / Atari.

Graphics card in the Amiga was strictly necessary to normal work.

Unfortunately, some morons gives an almost religious veneration for AGA.

[slaapliedje]

The sad thing about the Falcon was that Atari again did something stupid and tried to make it cheap and sell it for too much.

The TT030 had a faster CPU, was actually 32bit through and through, but was just missing the DSP and extra video modes of the Falcon.

The TT030 came out before it did as well.  

I would still like to own a Falcon, but other posters were correct, there really weren't that many pieces of software that were Falcon specific.  Whereas there were a LOT of AGA software made.

Actually there are probably a comparable amount of software that is RTG Only for the Amiga as there are Falcon Only software that used the higher color depth.  Even less software that actually took advantage of the TT030.

I personally love both, but was raised more of an Atari person.

I currently own an Atari 800XL, 130XE, 1040ST, Mega STe, TT030 and an Amiga 4000.  I used to have an Amiga 500, but I'm not 100% sure what happened to it.  I know it died long ago, just not sure where it is now though.

I was always rather jealous of the AmigaOS, Atari TOS/Gem sucked as stock.

slaapliedje

[Iggy]

The point is, that AGA was completely worthless crap.

Even in 1992 it was much less than they had PC / Mac / Atari.

Graphics card in the Amiga was strictly necessary to normal work.

Unfortunately, some morons gives an almost religious veneration for AGA.

Yes that was kind of my point when it came to the Falcons graphics system. AGA produces nice displays, but it is a programmers nightmare.

That why I understand the use of RTG and the advantages of graphics on NG systems. You'rev not going to see an OpenGL implementation on AGA.

[save2600]

And you are right. If you want to run OSX, a G4 is not the hardware you want to use (of course I don't even have OSX installed).

What, what WHAT?!?  lol

Is this a misprint? OSX (nearly ALL flavors) run perfectly fine on G3's, G4's AND G5's of course. I have a 1.1ghz G3 Powermac running 10.4.11 that runs great in millions of colors even. And both my G4 laptops (iBook and Powerbook) as well as a another Powermac G4, at 450mhz runs Tiger fine also.

What I didn't like was running Leopard on a PowerPC based Mac. Th Finder experience *did* suck, but was more than tolerable if I really cared to use it - which I don't. And thanks Apple for ditching us by NOT finishing support for Leopard in the form of that Intel only Snow update  :mad:

[pwermonger]

its a tough heat between Falcon and 1200. On one hand as released with just what is in the case as purchased the Falcon certainly has some advantages over the 1200
 
Faster CPU, DSP beats the anchient Paula for sound,no board needed to expand memory. Then only the video chip can access memmory at 32bit.
 
When you look at expansion capabilities, though, 1200 beats the Falcon easily. PCMCIA, Hard drive controller, CPU socket, Clock port (who expected them to use the clock port for so many addons?) which allow you to easily add Ethernet, CD-ROM, faster CPUs, RAM, SCSI, Audio and video cards.
 
This can easily be seen in the longevity of the 1200 (and 4000) which people have been able to use far into the Internet age meanwhile the Falcon is relegated mostly to music without even the ability to run much of the ST software base.

[Iggy]

What, what WHAT?!?  lol

Is this a misprint? OSX (specifically ALL flavors) run perfectly fine on G3's, G4's AND G5's of course. I have a 1.1ghz G3 Powermac running 10.4.11 that runs great in millions of colors even. And both my G4 laptops (iBook and Powerbook) as well as a another Powermac G4, at 450mhz runs Tiger fine also.

What I didn't like was running Leopard on a PowerPC based Mac. Th Finder experience *did* suck, but was more than tolerable if I really cared to use it - which I don't. And thanks Apple for ditching us by NOT finishing support for Leopard in the form of tha Snow update  :mad:

Personally, I find OSX kinda painful on anything other than a G5 (and then I'd say it might be BETTER than some of the lower end X86s).

While there is more software for OSX and better browers, still prefer MorphOS and Ubuntu on my Powermac. I have Tiger installed on a hard drive, but its not currently installed in the machine as the only use I've had for it recently was to install the Sonnett firmware patches.

BTW - Why are you taking offense to my dismisal  of OSX when tone's commeny's on Apple hardware were much harsher?