...

>>It was interesting how with the built 486 systems we were able to achieve only 50% of the IDE bandwidth I got with my A4000, same HDD used. And I thought A4000 IDE was bad.
>Never heard of it. Any third-party/neutral source for it?

I found out when I got HDD for my A4k. (2,3+Mb/s)
Then asked from our main x86 builder of what speeds he got from our x86 builds, he confirmed 1Mb/s.
(I believe those build did not have VLB IDE controllers etc)

Already CBM A590 transferred 2,5Mb/sec with A500. (my A2000 managed 300kb/s)

>>Dator Magazin Mar1995
>OK. So what?

Just digging out material of what was sold as standard at that time.
(had swedish magazines at hand)

>>typo corrected: SVGA games truly started to take off in 1994...1995
>The typo is still wrong: see my above comment.

It seems most DOS games (released per year) were always VGA.
So it seems DOS gaming mainstream never went truly above VGA.

(according the source that you presented, but perhaps wikis would be more accurate)

>For sure, with the fast mem you had better performance, but absolutely NOT doubling the performance.

For A1200 Fast RAM almost exactly doubled the CPU performance.

>It was common, but NOT the only one. As I reported, SVGA was used well before 1993.

From the material you pointed out:
32 games of all games released for MS-DOS computers in 1992 were SVGA capable.
The rest were still EGA or VGA.

In the end, it seems VGA was always the main target for DOS games.

>you missed my previous comments regarding the benefits of packed/chunky pixels even for 2D graphics (games included)

To me it seems you are the only person who thinks AGA was weaker than VGA for 2D games.

So, still, I simply disagree.

I do not remember ever seeing 2D VGA games that were better than AGA version
(with roughly egual CPU).

>>It enabled some special tricks
>Please, report them.

24bit palette, HAM8 imagery, Smooth scrolling, sound, with very little CPU overhead.
(too bad amiga game target was OCS untill the death of CBM)
For some reason also multiplayer splitscreen games were rare/nonexisting on PC/DOS.

>>(+24bit palette),
>It was already common of PCs well before AGA introduction.

VGA uses 262144 color palette.
DOS games used VGA.

Neither high color modes have 24bit palette.
Was there any PC system in 199x that enabled 256 colors from 24bit palette?

>>Not because AGA or 68020.
>Both were obsolete, unfortunately.

Wrong again.
Neither were obsolete.
When A1200 was released, 286 and 386sx computers were sold as low end and VGA was pretty much in mainstream.
(even though some PCs and Macs were still sold with monochrome displays)

So AGA+020 was spot on at the low end of the computer market.

(without the grazy management, AA would have been released earlier etc. according to CBM R&D)

>>No. 1994-1995 was the start of SVGA gaming momentum. Check your facts.
>False. See above.

VGA games were dominant target for DOS games releases according to your source.

>2D games already used SVGA since the 1990.

In 1992 only 32 of the released games used SVGA, the rest used EGA or VGA.

>>I think in 1993 a lot of Amiga games came wit Atari or EGA GFX ported to Amiga.
>False again. Only when the Amiga (1000!) was introduced, games were developed primarily for the Atari ST, and then converted (with only 16 colors) to it.

False.
I'm pretty sure SpaceQuest and Leisure suit larry etc. games came from DOS & EGA.
And Atari ST ports to Amiga was common procedure at least until 1990.

>>64color OCS modes not used at all.
>See the other comment: it was too much expensive in terms of memory space and bandwidth.

I personally never experienced speed difference between 32color and 64color.
Have you tried to develop games for EHB64 mode?

Neither have I.

Some 2D games on Amiga have used also HAM6 and HAM8 modes and I doubt EHB is slower.


>>AGA amigas were superior especially for productivity at 1993, especially vs price.
>Because of the good software which was developed.

SW did not enable HAM8, video output, multiple simultaneous resolutions and color depths etc. HW did.

>>And Amigas were not locked to any screenmode or resolution. I could change resolution and color depth hunders of times per seconds.
>?!? What are you talking about?

I could change from high res and word processing display to HAM8 display faster than windows changed from window to another. Handy.

Also one could drag screen halfway down to see the another resolution and color depth behind. For example to monitor some process on HAM8 screen.

>>My workbench was rocketing at 16 colors at 640x900 flixer free virtual desktop, graduation thesis on it's own flixer free virtual screen, web browser on a screen with more colors etc.
>Why a virtual desktop? Wasn't your powerful Amiga able do directly display such resolution?

My AGA amiga was from VGA GFX era.
(as we know by now, basic Amiga had AGA 2mb, basic PC had VGA 512k)

I did not have that kind of monitor either (I had 800x600 capable monitor on Amiga).

If I could I would use the same setup on PCs even today, because so much screen space is wasted on things that do not need to be visible all the time.

>>My brand new PC in y1995 could do 1024x768x4 etc. But it was totally unusefull computer for graphics I had to do my videos + photo stuff on vanilla AGA amiga.
>Because of the lack of PC software for this

What kind of PC SW can output 1440x580 to video output on a basic PC?

>, or because you were unable to do it?

The P1/75 had the CPU for it, not the RAM (win95 needed the 8Mb to say tada).
And I really could not figure out how to decently edit highres 24bit images on low end PC GFX card. etc etc...
The HW managed 1024x768*8 and low res 24bit, IIRC.

>>(vector graphics was faster on 2Mhz spectrum than on 1Mhz C64, still C64 was superior overall,
if a game is done by brute CPU force, the higher CPU spec wins.)
>Again, you don't know of what are you talking about.

Sure. What's new.

>Not only the Speccy specs are wrong, but clock isn't always a measure of speed. In fact, the 3.5Mhz Speccy's Z80 was comparable to the 1Mhz C64's 6510.

Then. What made vector games faster on Speccy when the CPU was not faster. Tell me.

>>dasboot...
>OK, but what's your opinion here? Was the Amiga version better than the PC one?

To evaluate that, one would need to compare on similar kind of setup of the time.
DOS version of dasboot ran faster but sounded little worse.
Most likely DOS version was better experience on similarly priced HW as Amiga.
Same for all other vector gfx games. (3D games you know...)

(Even if some game like dasboot is faster on dummy frame buffer + fast cpu, I prefer real GPU systems.)

>Does it apply also for the opposite (Amiga games ported to PC)?

I think I have never tried that. Too pervert to my taste.

Usually games become worse in porting unless extra effort is used (easy & fast money is more important usually).

...to be continued or not...

Last edited by KimmoK on 23-Jun-2015 at 04:03 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 23-Jun-2015 at 03:55 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 23-Jun-2015 at 03:53 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 23-Jun-2015 at 03:52 PM.

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@KimmoK

Quote:

KimmoK wrote: Sh*t moved from http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=39917&forum=14&start=880&viewmode=flat&order=0#763362

So, since when FACTS are classified as "sh*t"?
Quote:

It seems there are people think Amiga was inferior to PC since beginning.

It seems that you missed the point: we were discussing about FACTS. Nobody stated what you reported: only you did it, because you like mystification to get some compassion from some other fanatic.
Quote:

That idiocy does not need to be on the front page.

And this is a personal attack, as I reported on the other thread. That's something which the people does when the discussion became not sustainable.
Quote:

@cdimauro ... >>@CBM management insanity >>My A4k came with 1Mb chip + 0Mb fast + 0Mb HDD. >You don't even know the base specs of your Amiga 4000. My A4k was shipped to me with that spec. With some heavy reclamation calls I managed to get 2Mb chip RAM for it without extra cost.

I answered on the other thread.
Quote:

Does not change the fact that you are wrong as usual.

Idem. But we can discuss about the part that you carefully selected from the other thread, and reported here.
Quote:

+++++++++++ Something to previous... >you also report completely insane data about it. Publicly available data from wikipedia.

It doesn't mean that they aren't insane: they still are, as I've already explained several times, included in the other thread.

The problem here is the usual: you like to play with numbers having no knowledge about their meaning (if they have, of course).
Quote:

>The chip mem effect depends by the screen resolution, depth, how many sprites you used, how many audio channels and their frequency, and if you're using the floppy or not. Wtf? So?

So, I reported all situations where the Amiga chipset created problems to the processor.
Quote:

Sysinfo did not use many sprites when running the test.

A 68000 is NOT affected by sprites, as I already reported on the other thread. So, either you haven't read what I've written, or simply you didn't understood. Whatever is the case, it's as usual...
Quote:

Therefore the FAST ram was even more needed!

Not if the screen was low-res and up to 4 bitplanes, or high-res and up to 2 biplanes, (or super hi-res and with only 1 bitplane).

But you're an Amiga guru, so you should know it, right?
Quote:

... >>gfx offload >Please, can you report how you estimated those 2 MIPS, whatever you mean with it? Try doing some multimedia and multitasking with 3MIPS x86.

Easy task. I did multitasking even with a simple and slow 8086: it's not rocket science. It's "simply" a question of knowing how the things work and how to implement that is needed.

Do you know that there were also a special internal DOS flag which helped for doing that, without writing a new o.s.? A guru like you should have know it, right?

Regarding the multimedia, a game is one of the immediate examples of multimedia, and guess what: PC had games...

So, what's the point with your statement?

And, BTW, do you remember the context of the discussion? YOU claimed that is was about games. Then you started talking of everything, mixing stuff to get only confusion. But maybe this your real purpose: confuse all things, trying to hide facts that you don't like...
Quote:

Then do the same with 1MIPS Amiga.

1MIPS Amiga? Can you tell me that Amiga reached 1 MIPS? Thanks.
Quote:

Easy! You might learn something.

Sorry, but I can learn nothing by words that anyone can write. You've to prove your claims, or they rest fantasies. As usual, with you.

So, if it's "Easy", as you stated, then you are perfectly able to show me how you got this fantastic result.

As you should know, the burden of proof is of the one which made the claim. And, guess what, it's you that reported such fantasies.
Quote:

... >>untill in 1995 first windows accelerator GFX cards started to reach normal PC >>users, after that AOS was not ahead of Windows any more in HW acceleration. >Again you report completely wrong information. >"S3 Graphics introduced S3 911A in June 1990 with a Windows accelerator delivering 256 colours" >1990: NOT 1995! READ AGAIN.

I did it. I've also replied on the other thread, to what pavlor has written regarding this part of the discussion.
Quote:

There was plenty of 24bit offerings for Amiga GFX already in 1992. But I do not insist 24bit cards were available for normal Amiga users.

Simply because the were no games that used them, because games were developed for the normal Amiga hardware, which mostly was the OCS.

So, it's pointless to talk about such cards.
Quote:

Same way. For example SB audio was invented in 1987, IIRC, but still in 1994.1995 a lot of PCs were sold without any audio but the BEEP.

So what? Games supported sound cards, and if a user wanted more than the speaker's buzzes, he had the option to buy a sound card and fill the gap.

Even Amiga had some additional sound cards. How many games supported them?

Did you finally see the differences between Amigas and PCs?
Quote:

etc etc. ... >>(040/25Mhz was 2x faster than 486DX33 in rendering, just as an example of Real3D) >Unbelievable. So, even in Finland it's possible to find very "good stuff Petri Meskanen (the Real3D) personally reported and demonstrated. But the 486 might have been 50Mhx DX2 not 33Mhz.

I've no problem accepting that some software specifically compiled for the 040 shown superior performance of compared to a 486. But the numbers that you reported are too high. Can you give some reliable source for it?

Apart this, you carefully removed the fantasies that you reported on the other thread, and left only the last sentence. That's because you like to clarify things, and prove that I was wrong, eh?
Quote:

>CD? On an Amiga? Yes. >How much it cost? Exactly the same as for PC.

Same as above: you "strangely" cut the rest of the discussion. Please, can you report how many NOT CDTV/CD32 games supported the CD?
Quote:

>What kind of "large screens"? 2*320x256+overscan on a 3m*2m white screen via projector, just as an example.

So, had you two Amigas that generated such bigger picture? Because it isn't normally possible to have a regular game which outputted two screens.

Can you report the list of games that did such magic?
Quote:

>output to form large two display playfield (8 player multiplay) Sorry, but we have that kind of multiplayer party at almost every Amiga event in finland. Come out of your fantacy, finally, please!

So, why didn't you reported such wonderful games? It should be an easy task to prove that I'm wrong, right?
Quote:

>The Amiga had only 2 joystick ports, With two serial connected + parallel port adapter you get 8 joystick.

Something that all Amiga games supported, right?

Can you report the list of games which made use of it?
Quote:

> and the keyboard had problems at handling simultaneous key presses. That was a feature of PC keyboards. Sorry.

That was a feature of keyboards. Again, you talk of things of which you have completely no clue.

From the Amiga Hardware Manual:

"LIMITATIONS OF THE KEYBOARD

The Amiga keyboard is a matrix of rows and columns with a key switch at each intersection (see Appendix H for a diagram of the matrix) . Because of this, the keyboard is subject to a phenomenon called "phantom keystrokes." While this is generally not a problem for typing, games may require several keys be independently held down at once . By examining the matrix, you can determine which keys may interfere with each other, and which ones are always safe .

Phantom keystrokes occur when certain combinations of keys pressed are pressed simultaneously. For example, hold the "A" and "S" keys down simultaneously. Notice that "A" and "S" are transmitted. While still holding them down, press "Z". On the original Amiga 1000 keyboard, both the "Z" and a ghost ' 'X" would be generated. Starting with the Amiga 500, the controller was upgraded to notice simple phantom situations like the one above; instead of generating a ghost, the controller will hold off sending any character until the matrix has cleared (releasing "A" or "S" would clear the matrix) . Some high-end Amiga keyboards may implement true "N-key rollover," where any combination of keys can be detected simultaneously . "

As usual, you report lies and fantasies because you have no technical background, as it's clearly proved. I think that you don't even have opened one time the Amiga Hardware Manual in your life...
Quote:

>list of so much o.s.-friendly games? There were too few. SimCity, RailroadTycoon, etc. etc. I believe there was tens of games.

Out of some thousands, right? So, why you talked about such rare birds? To show that the Amiga can multitask while gamer run? Nice try...
Quote:

Just like on PC.

Again, you are reporting lies. It might be strange, but NO: usually games did NOT killed the o.s.! And guess why: they NEEDED ITS SERVICES! At least for reading data from the filesystem (disks or hard disk).

But what can I expect from you? You don't know how Amiga worked, and obviously you know even less of how PCs worked...
Quote:

In 1994 you rarely got your "extra" HW utilized beyond the standard/basics.

In 1994 many games supported such extra hardware, as my links shown.
Quote:

(just like the x86 Quake released early 1996, only LO RES was available)

ROFL. I repeated several times why Quake supported low-resolution: processing power! So, let me know: if a SVGA supported 1280x1024, you pretended that Quake used it? Seriously?

And what you have to say about the Amiga 3D games which supported even less then 320x200?
Quote:

That's the real life. Sorry.

That's continuing your mystification, citing 3D games which is a different class of games. Like also happened on Amigas.

But it's clear that your purpose is just to generate confusion.
Quote:

... >-no 640k limit ;) >PC mounted also > 1MB of memory, and they are perfectly accessible by games. I already explained how they did, dear "guru"... Untill around 1996 I had to fight with 640k...1Mb settings on PC to get x86 game run. Just one of the many limits that I did not have on the other system.

That's YOUR limit, because many games supported, and also NEEDED, more than 1MB of memory.
Quote:

.... >No, thanks to Commodore: 512KB of chip ram was ridiculous, Later VGA was announced and it had 256k minimum.

And here you show again that you have no clue of how an Amiga worked. And PC too, of course.

The chip mem was the ONLY memory which the chipset (see: chipset -> chip mem) can access for all its things: screen to display, sprites, audio, disk, Copper, and Blitter (for BOBs).

Now look at the PC. Yes, he had only 256KB. Yes, it's only half of what a basic Amiga provided. But IT WAS ONLY NEEDED TO DISPLAY THE SCREEN! Guess where "sprites", "tiles", audio, and disk were located: IN THE MAIN MEMORY!

And guess how useful was the slow mem or the fast mem, for a game developer: A PAIN IN THE NECK (or back)! Because it wasn't accessible by the chipset, and you don't need 512KB for the code + data structures + mod.
Quote:

And still in 1994 512kb of graphics RAM was a basic conf of a PC.

It's more than what is needed. See above. As usual, you don't know of what you're talking about. You have ZERO technical knowledge of both platforms, can continue to report lies and mystifications.
Quote:

Then you say 512 was ridiculous on OCS Amigas...

Absolutely, and with very good reasons: the reasons of a game developer. One which knows very well how sucked having only 512KB of chip mem, and another 512KB of stupid memory.

But, hey, you're an Amiga guru: you should know it, right?
Quote:

1994 stuff...

Yes, and take a look at how much memory a PC had that time. pavlor already reported something.
Quote:

>So an Amiga 1200 with a 030@50Mhz + FPU was much more expensive compared to a 486SX, and even without a monitor, right? Oranges and apples.

Prove it!
Quote:

>>i486sx/25Mhz/4Mb/210Mb/ISAGFX512kb/monitor 12498skr (no audio, no CD...) >>A1200+60Mb+28Mhz+4MB 9295skr (incl AOS+WordWorth+DPaint4, etc etc...) A1200 is far more capable of those two. It had things like 2Mb for GFX, AUDIO + OS + SW.

See above: you don't know of what you're talking about. Games used only 2MB of chip mem, and if the 1200 had some fast mem, it was used for caching data to avoid reading from floppy. Only modern 3D games made use of the extra memory, but they were rare.

Compare it with the PC, which had more memory to store whatever it was needed by a game...
Quote:

++++ This lists 34 of all released DOS games (695) being SVGA: http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/dos/tic,2/ti,12/1992/ Two years (1994) later 115/825 games supported SVGA. (549 VGA games) http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/dos/tic,2/ti,2/1994/ In 1996 284/712 supported SVGA. 353 of the released DOS games of y1996 still were VGA games. So, when did PC/DOS gaming mainstream switch to better than VGA GFX??? IMO, when most games use SVGA or better, but is it that simple... If 70% of DOS games of y1996 use SVGA, then PC games would be in SVGA era, but it does not look like that. So, saying that DOS gaming mainstream was SVGA already in 1992 is wrong.

Who said that? Quote and report.

We (not only me) said that SVGA was used well before that the AGA was introduced. And that was true.
Quote:

Audio: 1992 695 games were released for MS-DOS: http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/dos/1992/ Only 431 of them supported other than BEEP sound. ????????????????????????

"Only"? It was the GREAT MAJORITY!!!
Quote:

331 games supported soundblaster. http://www.mobygames.com/browse/games/dos/1992/tic,1/ti,17/ So in 1992 38% of PC games were mute or BEEPing. Only 48% of PC games supported Paula caliber sound.

And so what? The biggest part of the cake was good.
Quote:

So, neither Paula does seem obsolete when AGA was released... IMHO.

Paula WAS obsolete when AGA was released, because it was exactly the same chip which was introduced with the Amiga 1000, and never changed.

Whereas PC sound evolved with cards providing TENS of voices, which higher frequencies and 16-bit samples...
Quote:

(And to me it seems DOS gaming never truly went beyond VGA. previously I thought it happened in 1994-1995.)

To you many thing seems... but the reality was different.
Quote:

...continued on separate post / next post... +++ footnote/quick summary: OCS was Amiga graphics and audio standard. (initially huge advantage) x86 did not have that kind of standards. (not until win95 was in mainstream)

PCs had standards. Several. Not only one. Customers were able to decide and chose, according to their needs. With Amiga it wasn't possible, or it was hard/expensive/non-standard... and with very little support (games? not even a doubt: NO support).
Quote:

Last CBM Amiga HW design was done in 91 or so. Management delayed it's release and removed features like (flixer fixer, DSP and DMA SCSI). Then it was out in late1992 + early 1993. (IIRC) CBM had no money to continue in business, Amiga development stopped.

Again, fantasies. Reality and history are the only things that count.
Quote:

AGA was released when MS-DOS gaming mainstream was 320x200x8 and decent audio cards were becoming more common (8bit and 16bit).

They already were very common, and SVGAs had some support.
Quote:

AGA could deliver better GFX than standard PC offerings. (not better than high end Amiga or PC cards)

It depends on the context and with the PC hardware that you want to compare.
Quote:

AGA audio was not (much) better than at OCS times,

As I said above, Paula WASN'T CHANGED AT ALL from the Amiga 1000. It's something which an "Amiga Guru" should have known...
Quote:

but x86 mainstream still did not have audio as standard,

As I said, there were several choices.
Quote:

therefore Amiga Game audio was often better than PC audio.

It was all about software houses support.
Quote:

Amiga OS+SW was not limited to any color depth & screen resolution unlike a x86 session, so it enabled totally different kind of user experience.

That's totally wrong. The Amiga o.s. was limited BY DESIGN to 8 bitplanes.
Quote:

AGA was video compatible.

Genlock?
Quote:

AGA had it's limitations: -especially in 256 color 3D speed vs mainstream VGA at 320x200. -no flixer fixer, so only some resolutions worked on cheap monitors and only some were flixer free -AGA could not match high res 256color gaming when it started to become mainstream 1994-1995

Because it was a dirty hack on top of ECS.
Quote:

Note: Audio was not standard part of a PC in 1992 (neither in 1994)

See above: there were several options. The support depended by the software houses.
Quote:

Note: 8 or 24bit high res gfx was not standard part of PC in 1992. (neither in 1994)

On the contrary, it was since the 1988, when VESA was defined. Only one year after that the VGA was released. That's because SVGA become popular just after the VGA (graphic vendors had to provide some added value against the IBM's VGA).
Quote:

When A1200 was released it was more powerfull than the very low end of x86 (286 was still sold at low end).

False. pavlor already reported the data on the other thread.
Quote:

But A1200 and CD32 should have had fast RAM to match 386DX performance.

Same as above: false.
Quote:

Major failure of CBM was not to set higher minimum specs for ECS and AGA Amigas. Even some high end systems were sold without fast RAM or hard disk untill the death of CBM. Because of that policy SW failed to use hard drives and extra RAM or extra CPU power.

That's the life...
Quote:

On x86, monochrome display was used while HDDs were added. It made HDD capable HW relatively affordable, even when it did not have sound or colors. This soon caused that SW started to use HDD as a standard on x86.

Primarily because the o.s. wasn't killed, so at least the disk subsystem survived and served well the purpose for any software.

P.S. As usual, not time to re-read.

@KimmoK @cdimauro

Concise posts from you both again.

@KimmoK

Odd....I believe that the Amiga is still superior to the PC for many reasons.....
When did the PC become usable anyway?

Who thinks that the PC was superior to the Amiga in 1987, let alone 1995 or 2001?

I think the PC, by sheer raw brute force power, surpassed a few capabilities of the Amiga around 2001 or so. Kind of like putting an 8.4 liter V10 into a Model - T...that's all the PC ever accomplished. Sure, it goes fast....but you need to hold on for dear life when you use it!
Iterations of Windows were (and are) for the purpose of introducing more bugs and getting users to pay repeatedly for the same bad product with a new face over and over again. That's how a company makes money and stays in business, by selling garbage and convincing people to buy it...not just once, but again and again!
I vividly recall many of the arguments of PC owners in 1987 or so when they saw my Amiga....

1) Computers with so many colors are just toys and will never be taken seriously!
2) Nobody needs 4 different channels of sound, that's for musical instruments not computers!
3) Multitasking is only a fad...nobody will ever really use it! A person can only do one thing at a time, so why should the computer need to do more?
4) Any computer that has so many games is just a game machine and not a real computer.
5) Nobody will ever want to use a mouse and that stupid graphical interface....its for little kids.
6) I can build a PC by getting parts from the garbage dump that would be a little bit cheaper than buying a new Amiga!

and so on......

...and these people were absolutely serious!

Scott

_________________
AmigaOne uA1-c 512M RAM - Only Amiga Makes It Possible!
Check my blog AmigaOne Computing