Quote:

An 800x600x8bit desktop, which was very common, required 480KB, saturating the very low-end SVGA with 512KB, and that's just for the screen: then you had to handle windows and images.

That wasn't a problem: only the amiga needed memory for images/windows.. On PC/windows you only needed enough memory for the screen/depth and could open windows/images without worrying.. I guess it was because graphic cards basically served as a framebuffer.

On the Amiga, opening a few windows/screens and bam, you ran out of graphics memory...

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Do you think that have sense to report the prices of a 386, just because... it existed? What do you think most people buyed in mid 1994? No it was not Pentium...

Absolutely: it was very expensive. But 486s were cheap and affordable.
Quote:

I know history is not your expertise, but some of your comments are simply amusing.

Then, since it's your work, please show your sources.

I only used the one which you mentioned and from which you reported data in your past posts. Here is the April 1994 issue. And it looks like what I already reported: 486s are the lowest-end machine, with 512KB graphic cards.

But, as I said, if you have other sources, let report them.
Quote:

Quote: Even the productivity was crippled, because people used Windows 3.1 (and 3.11) and related applications. In 1994, DOS was still most used (and installed) OS for PCs.

Of course. DOS was also needed to boot Windows 3, and the vast majority of games ran under the DOS.

But for productivity Windows 3 took the place of the DOS. Again, you can take a look at InfoWorld and see yourself how many applications than run on DOS or Windows, which were reviews and publicized.
Quote:

Quote: An 800x600x8bit desktop, which was very common In 1994? Wow!

Well, in the same source I found only 512KB as the minimum size for graphic cards. Low-end systems had 512K or 1MB option, whereas the others reached 2MB. And I haven't read any reference to 800x600, but several to 1280x1024 instead...
Quote:

I see, you think 486/VLB GFX card/SoundBlaster/15" monitor/Windows 3.11 was affordable configuration in mid 1994. For 1500 USD - why not. However, forget about price under 1000 USD (eg. class of RAM expanded A1200 with monitor - if we stay with our original comparison). Remember, we compared A1200 with available PC competition - and that was 386DX/SVGA in mid 1994.

In the same source I found an HP Vetra 1.2 starting at $1099. I think that looking at other sources might be possible to find cheaper solutions, under $1000. However I hadn't the time, sorry. But with your work, I think you have a better chance.

@Hillbillylitre

Quote:

Hillbillylitre wrote: Anyways, games are meant to be played on the big TV screen in a good pleasant relaxing chair and not have the face smeared into a computer screen on a shitty office chair. Therefore is my AmigaTwox connected to a large TV screen just like the Amiga is meant to be.

Lucky you.
Quote:

PlayStation came out in 1994 BTW and PC became crap for many more years.

Playstation was the cheap toy for gaming.

PC was used for high-end gaming.

Quote:

Hillbillylitre wrote: @cdimauro Quote: cdimauro wrote: @Hillbillylitre Well, the 060 was a monster. Yes it's a nice CPU on the Amiga. I've never overclocked it and will probably never do it, its not necessary in any way so the real Amiga is perfect and complete.

Well, it was not perfect neither complete, since Motorola removed some instructions from it, even on user-space (read: it affected compatibility with existing applications).

@Leo

Quote:

Leo wrote: Quote: An 800x600x8bit desktop, which was very common, required 480KB, saturating the very low-end SVGA with 512KB, and that's just for the screen: then you had to handle windows and images. That wasn't a problem: only the amiga needed memory for images/windows.. On PC/windows you only needed enough memory for the screen/depth and could open windows/images without worrying.. I guess it was because graphic cards basically served as a framebuffer. On the Amiga, opening a few windows/screens and bam, you ran out of graphics memory...

It depends on the refresh method that you've chosen for your application. The easy way was to let o.s. handle all window updates, but then it swallowed your graphics memory, as you stated. But you had the option to received signals from the o.s., that inform you that something on your window frame has changed and should be repainted; this way you didn't consumed graphic memory.

On Windows you had the same (last method). But if some applications needed a smooth handling of the graphic, they needed to handle themselves the graphic buffer on a "bitmap" and immediately draw the damaged content. Similar to the third Amiga method, the superbitmap, but contrary to the Amiga it was responsibility of the applications to handle everything. But it consumed memory; A LOT of memory due to the more common higher-resolutions and/or screen depth.

@history&scandoubler&flixer fixer

I briefly used A3000 with flixer fixer.
It was nice, except when there was a lot of movement on screen.
With fast movement on screen screen became blurred a little,
so, flixer fixer was not optimal for things like multimedia presentations.
For video titling it did not matter as video was anyway recorded with flixer fixer off.

...
the rest with a few questions I put to another thread:
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=40367&start=0&post_id=763627&order=0&viewmode=thread&pid=0&forum=2#763627


@pavlor
>Remember, we compared A1200 with available PC competition - and that was 386DX/SVGA in mid 1994.

People had very little need for higher specs, because even with 286 one could do the word processing on 800x600x4 resolution. (killer feature of a PC?)



@leading OS, on niches

One of the niche market that would have been possible to capture was all those tiny ARM devices, but perhaps also for that we lack the resources.

And another would have been IoT boom, but I think we should have memory protection (for security) and ipv6 first... too late now?

Last edited by KimmoK on 26-Jun-2015 at 07:31 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 26-Jun-2015 at 07:01 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 26-Jun-2015 at 06:47 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 26-Jun-2015 at 06:44 AM.

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

@cdimauro

Quote:

I only used the one which you mentioned and from which you reported data in your past posts. Here is the April 1994 issue. And it looks like what I already reported: 486s are the lowest-end machine, with 512KB graphic cards.

Quote:

But for productivity Windows 3 took the place of the DOS. Again, you can take a look at InfoWorld and see yourself how many applications than run on DOS or Windows, which were reviews and publicized.

Again and again... InfoWorld adverts don´t reflect lowest segment of market - the very competition of A1200.

Quote:

Well, in the same source I found only 512KB as the minimum size for graphic cards

Sure, that would be sufficient, but 800x600 is not much comfortable on 14" screen, so you would need 15" or revert back to 640x480. But yes, many people tortured themselves this way.

Quote:

But with your work, I think you have a better chance.

I strongly expect it will be waste of my time (again and again...). However, I like computer history and hope you may somewhat learn yourself:

Mid 1994 (Summer), in original CZK, all taxes included (exchange rate July 1994):
386SX 40 MHz, 2 MB RAM, 130 MB HDD, 1.44 MB FDD, VGA 512 kB, 14" monitor: 1096 USD
386DX 40 MHz (128 kB cache), 4 MB RAM, 130 MB HDD, 1.44 MB FDD, VGA 512 kB, 14" monitor: 1238 USD
486DLC+FPU 40 MHz (128 kB cache), 4 MB RAM, 130 MB HDD, 1.44 MB FDD, VGA 512 kB, 14" monitor: 1380 USD
486SX 33 MHz (VLB, 256 kB cache), 4 MB RAM, 130 MB HDD, 1.44 MB FDD, VGA 512 kB, 14" monitor: 1402 USD

SIMM 1MB 70ns: 62 USD

VGA 512 kB ISA: 58 USD
CLGD5422 1 MB ISA: 97 USD
CLGD5428 1 MB VLB: 132 USD

Sound Blaster Pro 8bit: 166 USD
Sound Blaster 16MultiCDASP: 276 USD

MSDOS 6.2 OEM: 52 USD
MSDOS 6.2+Windows 3.1 OEM: 95 USD
Windows for Workgroups 3.11: 117 USD
Windows NT 3.1: 370 USD

A1200: 461 USD
C1085S: 336 USD

Enjoy!

@pavlor

Here in Finland Amiga was much cheaper than PC in early/mid 90s but people preferred to buy PC instead. It had better software and hardware support and proper reseller network. Especially after C= bankruptcy Amiga stores were going away at alarming rate...

Last edited by itix on 26-Jun-2015 at 05:05 PM.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

I'm just throwing down a marker so I know where I am.

The title of this thread should be changed (or a new one started) since it is no longer about making AmigaOS a leading OS. How about 'Those were the days', or 'Back in the day', or even 'The good old days'.

I'm not making fun (or not much, anyway) -- I was there too, and still have copies of this and this and this somewhere in the basement. Good days, but they're gone.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@Kicko
@ all

/start quote 1
The question is: How can Amiga OS become a leading operating system?
Well, I'd like to hear your recommendations but how about this:
1. Amiga OS4 must become Open Source ...
/end quote 1

/start opinion 1
If your arguments are valid, then this is the way AmigaOS is gotta go.
On the other hand, Petro already tried to make this happen years ago,
but due to complicated trademark rights, it was not possible to make this happen.

So, trusting Petro, this won't happen.
/end opinion 1

/start quote 2
2. How can Hyperion Entertainment get enough money?
/end quote 2

/start opinion 2
Continue working. Making themselves a market. Being realistic, wise,
have the will to carry on, keeping the faith of future success, walking the path
that they starting walking years ago, keep the vision and last, but the least:
the love for the Amiga community.
/end opinion 2

/start quote 3
3. Stop kidding with Amiga OS as a hobby OS - that's bullshit! Amiga OS could become a leading operating system - that must be the goal and nothing less!
/end quote 3

/start opinon 3
In terms of hardware and software base:
AmigaOS4.x can be sandboxed on another hardware platform.
This future platform would in this case include memory protection without any problems.
In this case I guess all of the software for "AMiGAOS5" needs to be rewrited.
My guess is that ARM would be the best future platform for this, as Hyperion has
already stated that AmigaOS never will go x86 or x64
/end opinion 3

I won't say this is the only way, but this is possible.
You know, if we keep the faith, our fantasy can be our destiny.

Only AMiGA makes IT possible!

_________________
Amiga is the One...

@alef

AmigaOS is sort of "open source" - probably every developer willing to contribute is welcomed.

@KimmoK

Quote:

KimmoK wrote: @pavlor >Remember, we compared A1200 with available PC competition - and that was 386DX/SVGA in mid 1994. People had very little need for higher specs, because even with 286 one could do the word processing on 800x600x4 resolution. (killer feature of a PC?)

I'll show you in my next comment that it wasn't the case.
Quote:

@leading OS, on niches One of the niche market that would have been possible to capture was all those tiny ARM devices, but perhaps also for that we lack the resources.

AmigaOS4 is strictly bound to PowerPCs, not ARMs.
Quote:

And another would have been IoT boom, but I think we should have memory protection (for security) and ipv6 first... too late now?

Considering that the IoT market is already exploding, and the chronic loooong development times of the post-Amiga era, even starting now to introduce some modern features, the this new market is lost for sure.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: I only used the one which you mentioned and from which you reported data in your past posts. Here is the April 1994 issue. And it looks like what I already reported: 486s are the lowest-end machine, with 512KB graphic cards. Quote: But for productivity Windows 3 took the place of the DOS. Again, you can take a look at InfoWorld and see yourself how many applications than run on DOS or Windows, which were reviews and publicized. Again and again... InfoWorld adverts don´t reflect lowest segment of market - the very competition of A1200.

Infoworld reflected the trend of the PC market: what PC customers bought and used.

Sure, the Amiga 1200 was a low-end machine, and should be compared to a low-end PC, but a comparison is difficult, because the market is very different, and configurations too. Even the cheapest PC offered a better hardware, in fact.

Regarding the software, I talk at the end.
Quote:

Quote: Well, in the same source I found only 512KB as the minimum size for graphic cards Sure, that would be sufficient, but 800x600 is not much comfortable on 14" screen, so you would need 15" or revert back to 640x480. But yes, many people tortured themselves this way.

800x600 wasn't much different from a PAL signal with overscan (704x576). It was with the XGA (1024x768) that a 15" was need to avoid becoming blind.

And looking at the configurations sold, it seems that many PCs had a 15" monitor...
Quote:

Quote: But with your work, I think you have a better chance. I strongly expect it will be waste of my time (again and again...).

I hope that my research (see below) wasn't a waste of time, too.
Quote:

However, I like computer history and hope you may somewhat learn yourself: Mid 1994 (Summer), in original CZK, all taxes included (exchange rate July 1994): 386SX 40 MHz, 2 MB RAM, 130 MB HDD, 1.44 MB FDD, VGA 512 kB, 14" monitor: 1096 USD 386DX 40 MHz (128 kB cache), 4 MB RAM, 130 MB HDD, 1.44 MB FDD, VGA 512 kB, 14" monitor: 1238 USD 486DLC+FPU 40 MHz (128 kB cache), 4 MB RAM, 130 MB HDD, 1.44 MB FDD, VGA 512 kB, 14" monitor: 1380 USD 486SX 33 MHz (VLB, 256 kB cache), 4 MB RAM, 130 MB HDD, 1.44 MB FDD, VGA 512 kB, 14" monitor: 1402 USD SIMM 1MB 70ns: 62 USD VGA 512 kB ISA: 58 USD CLGD5422 1 MB ISA: 97 USD CLGD5428 1 MB VLB: 132 USD Sound Blaster Pro 8bit: 166 USD Sound Blaster 16MultiCDASP: 276 USD MSDOS 6.2 OEM: 52 USD MSDOS 6.2+Windows 3.1 OEM: 95 USD Windows for Workgroups 3.11: 117 USD Windows NT 3.1: 370 USD A1200: 461 USD C1085S: 336 USD Enjoy!

So, in terms of the cheapest hardware, it's clear that the Amiga 1200 wins, because:
- you don't need to buy a monitor;
- you don't need to buy an hard disk;
- the hardware that you got was much more limited (more economic to produce).

Nothing to say: in such conditions, it's the more economic computer.

However, putting a configuration similar to a low-end PC (included a multisync monitor capable to hook the AGA supported resolutions), the cost increased a lot and I think that it became not convenient.

Anyway, a low-end configuration like a PC with a 386 didn't mean that it was also the more common one. Even considering the introduction of the Amiga 1200, the PC marked evolved a lot, and the mainstream (and more common) system was represented by a 486 platform. I report some sources for that:
http://www.mbdesign.net/mbinfo/1992.htm
http://www.mbdesign.net/mbinfo/1993.htm
http://www.mbdesign.net/mbinfo/1994.htm

The first link (1992) unfortunately only reports one interesting data:

486 DX2 at 66 MHz will become one of the best sellers systems configuration for PC market.

which is not significant now, but keep it in mind, because it'll become important looking at the last document which I present, after.

The second link (1993), instead, reports a nice table:

CPU Global Market (1993):
1. 486DX = 32.1%,
2. 486SX = 28.5%,
3. 386 = 25.9%,
Others = 13% (Pentium = 0.5%)

So, 486 + Pentium represented the 61.1% of the market, whereas the 386 only 25.9 (not even a third). The "others" item should be non-x86 processors, like PowerPCs, MIPS, Alpha, and I strongly doubt that there would have been some 286 systems.

From the third link (1994), we have:

CPU Global markets (1994):
1. 486DX = 36.7%,
2. 486SX = 36.1%,
3. 386 = 12.1%,
4. Pentium = 4%,
5. others = 11.1%.

Again, 486 + Pentium represented the 76.8% of the market, whereas the 386 only 12.1.

Another interesting data from this link: "Intel holds 74% of the microprocessor market."

And also: "There are 29 million CD-ROM drives installed worldwide." Which is a huge number.

You may argue that the source might be not reliable, but I report another which is for sure and is also official: Intel's 1994 annual report

Following I copy only the data which are interesting from our discussion, to see how was the PC market.

Pag.2: "About 75 percent of the personal computers in use around the world today are based on Intel-architecture microprocessors."
Pag.4: "In 1994 [...] Intel shipped millions of Pentium processors to PC makers around the world. In the fourth quarter, Pentium processor units accounted for 23 percent of our desktop processor volume, and that proportion is growing rapidly."
Pag.4: "One year ago, the typical PC purchase was a computer featuring the Intel486"
Pag.4: "Today, the same amount of money can buy a Pentium processor-based machine"
Pag.9: "At year end, users could buy a fully loaded Pentium processor-based system with monitor, CD-ROM and software for under $2,000."
Pag.31: "The Pentium processor, introduced in 1993, ramped into high volume in 1994 and was the major factor in Intel's overall revenue growth from 1993 to 1994."
Pag.31: "Increased sales of newer members of the Intel486 microprocessor family, such as the IntelDX2 processor, drove the revenue growth from 1992 to 1993."
Pag.31: "Growing demand and production fro the Intel486 microprocessor family resulted in sharp decline in sales of the mature Intel386 CPU family from 1992 to 1993."
Pag.31: "Sales of the Intel486 microprocessor family comprised a majority of the Company's revenues and a substantial majority of its gross margin during 1992, 1993 and 1994."

So, from 1992 to 1994 the PC market was dominated by 486 systems, and 386 represented only a minor part. The Pentium also exploded at the end of the year (which is when the Amiga 1200 was introduced).

In extreme synthesis, it's quite clear that customers which bought a PC weren't interested to the lowest-end configurations, like the cited 386, but the primary choice was a 486. In short, PC users had a much better configurations in their hands, compared to the Amiga ones.

Basically, Amiga represented a choice made by poor people (like me: I never bought a monitor nor an expansion/accelerator for my Amiga 1200, and I got an hard disk only the following year). And this choice was made by a very little (the Amiga 1200 didn't sold a lot).

In fact, and like itix reported also, people were much more oriented to buy a PC, even if it was much more expensive.

Now, regarding the software.

From the first link (1992) you can see that DOS represented 52% of the PC o.s. market, and 30% was of Windows.

The second link is much more interesting, and shows how people changed their PC usage when talking about of personal productivity:

Top 5 Software Brands worldwide (1993):
1. Microsoft Office for Windows 18.3%,
2. Microsoft Word for Windows 15.1%,
3. Word Perfect for Windows 14.5 %,
4. Microsoft Excel for Windows 10.8%,
5. Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS 9.5%.

The first 4 positions were covered by Windows applications, which counted for 58.7%. The real percentage is higher, because the list is limited to the top 5 applications.

That's all. I hope that an historian like you appreciate the effort that I made, reporting sources also (no magazines this time!), to show how the PC hardware and software market were proceeding during the AGA machines period.

@cdimauro

Quote:

Even the cheapest PC offered a better hardware, in fact.

That was not disputed for 1994...

Quote:

And looking at the configurations sold, it seems that many PCs had a 15" monitor...

Again (!!!), A1200 price league.

Quote:

Nothing to say: in such conditions, it's the more economic computer.

However, A1200/accelerator/HDD/MultiSync monitor was more expensive than above mentioned 386SX design.

Quote:

I report some sources for that:

Not relevant/reliable source, I fear. It seems to be synthesis of different news items without proper references. I would be very careful to interpret these data the way you do (especialy CPUs in market).

Quote:

You may argue that the source might be not reliable, but I report another which is for sure and is also official:

Intel is relevant source (with some caution).
However, low-cost computers used CPUs from AMD (eg. Am386SX/DX based systems in my list) - such market segment is of course not mentioned.

Quote:

In extreme synthesis, it's quite clear that customers which bought a PC weren't interested to the lowest-end configurations, like the cited 386, but the primary choice was a 486.

Quote:

like me: I never bought a monitor nor an expansion/accelerator for my Amiga 1200, and I got an hard disk only the following year)

So, you did choose source ignoring low segment of market, decided to take it literally for entire market (even though your own experience differs) and based on it your conclusion. "Perfect" logic.

Quote:

And this choice was made by a very little (the Amiga 1200 didn't sold a lot).

Why not? Because people buyed cheap 386 systems!

By end of 1994, 486 based computers became cheap enough to fully replace 386 even in lowest configurations. Interesting to note, price of DX/2 models decreased so much that they supplanted plain DX in computers of 1995. Performance jump in 1000 USD configuration from early 1994 to mid 1995 was
immense.

Quote:

From the first link

As I wrote I don´t consider this as relevant source.

Quote:

That's all. I hope that an historian like you appreciate the effort that I made

Great effort, wthout doubt - worth of praise. However, you did the very mistakes we learn to avoid in first semester of formal historic education - through proper review/critique of sources.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: And looking at the configurations sold, it seems that many PCs had a 15" monitor... Again (!!!), A1200 price league.

For this I already answered. It's clear that the Amiga 1200 fits on small niche market which is completely different in terms of equipment compared to the mainstream PCs.
Quote:

Quote: Nothing to say: in such conditions, it's the more economic computer. However, A1200/accelerator/HDD/MultiSync monitor was more expensive than above mentioned 386SX design.

Exactly.
Quote:

Quote: I report some sources for that: Not relevant/reliable source, I fear. It seems to be synthesis of different news items without proper references. I would be very careful to interpret these data the way you do (especialy CPUs in market).

I understand and accept the critic. Unfortunately it's hard to find some good source.
Quote:

Quote: You may argue that the source might be not reliable, but I report another which is for sure and is also official: Intel is relevant source (with some caution). However, low-cost computers used CPUs from AMD (eg. Am386SX/DX based systems in my list) - such market segment is of course not mentioned.

Sure, but the Intel's document reported that the company had about 75% of the market share. So, it means that the remaining 25% is split by Intel's competitor: AMD, Cyrix, etc. And such companies had also 486 clones.
Quote:

Quote: like me: I never bought a monitor nor an expansion/accelerator for my Amiga 1200, and I got an hard disk only the following year) So, you did choose source ignoring low segment of market, decided to take it literally for entire market (even though your own experience differs) and based on it your conclusion. "Perfect" logic.

Well, I only said that I was part of the people that bought a "crude" Amiga 1200 for a budget reason. And haven't ignored the low-end market: the Amiga 1200 was in the lowest and smallest part of it.

So, I don't see any logical fallacy in it.
Quote:

Quote: And this choice was made by a very little (the Amiga 1200 didn't sold a lot). Why not? Because people buyed cheap 386 systems!

Sure. You already said that a similar configured Amiga 1200 was more expensive than a 386 system, so it's logic that people preferred the latter, which also enable a vast software library. In fact, at that time PCs were dominating the software market also, for obvious reasons: software houses usually supported the more widespread systems).
Quote:

By end of 1994, 486 based computers became cheap enough to fully replace 386 even in lowest configurations. Interesting to note, price of DX/2 models decreased so much that they supplanted plain DX in computers of 1995. Performance jump in 1000 USD configuration from early 1994 to mid 1995 was immense.

I found another interesting document (I prefer to don't talk about "source": it's up to you to decide if it deserves or not. ) that just add some detail to the already exposed microprocessors trend: Empirical Studies in Applied Economics.

Please, take a look at page 76, and to the graph reported at page 79 which I personally find very interesting.
Quote:

Quote: From the first link As I wrote I don´t consider this as relevant source.

OK. Unfortunately for the software is even harder to find some reasonable source reporting good information about the marker share. I made some research without success. However I've found a "summary" on the Britannica, which can be interesting at least to understand the general trend of the industry (which, BTW, was part of our discussion ).

Information Processing and Information Systems: Year In Review 1994:
"Another PC industry veteran, DOS itself, seemed headed for the exit. Some evidence: WordPerfect introduced its magnum opus word processing application for DOS, WordPerfect 6.0, in 1993 but in 1994 said 6.0 was probably the end of the road. Microsoft also hinted there would be no improved versions of MS-DOS, which would be replaced by Windows 95 and the Windows NT network operating system. Quarterly sales of DOS-based applications plummeted by about $200 million from their $650 million level of the first quarter of 1992. The reason: computers running Windows were easier to use and apparently made their users more productive."
Quote:

Quote: That's all. I hope that an historian like you appreciate the effort that I made Great effort, wthout doubt - worth of praise. However, you did the very mistakes we learn to avoid in first semester of formal historic education - through proper review/critique of sources.

I fully understand. The problem for me is that it's really hard to find sources which can confirm my past experience (which also came by reading the magazines of the time). Making a serious research work isn't something which can be done spending some hours searching the web, and with search engines which reports millions and millions of pages.

I don't know if the documents which I found now can be of any interest, but if even those doesn't look good, well, I honestly put a stone because I've already spent a lot of time and I've also many other things to do in my real life.

@cdimauro

Quote:

So, I don't see any logical fallacy in it.

As I wrote, "perfect" logic.

Quote:

so it's logic that people preferred the latter, which also enable a vast software library.

Nothing against that.

Quote:

I found another interesting document (I prefer to don't talk about "source": it's up to you to decide if it deserves or not.

I will look for referenced documents and sources for data these used. I see great increase of 486SX share between 1992-1993 and much greater share of 486 than 386 in 1993 - I suspect their source data omit lower part of market (again).

Quote:

Quarterly sales of DOS-based applications plummeted by about $200 million from their $650 million level of the first quarter of 1992.

I agree it is hard to measure software market share. It is even harder in low-cost segment, where software piracy plays great role.

Quote:

The problem for me is that it's really hard to find sources which can confirm my past experience (which also came by reading the magazines of the time). Making a serious research work isn't something which can be done spending some hours searching the web, and with search engines which reports millions and millions of pages.

Exactly. I spent uncounted hours to collect various sources/magazines/books, my search is not done yet (far from that). However, as I did that work, I have considerable insight in this topic. That is why I found some of your conclusions implausible.

Quote:

I don't know if the documents which I found now can be of any interest, but if even those doesn't look good, well, I honestly put a stone because I've already spent a lot of time and I've also many other things to do in my real life.

Good work you did - for someone not skilled in history method. Remember, history research is not wasted time! (I must say this as It´s part of my payed daily work. ) I hope you enjoyed this information digging. It was not fruitless, as your material - whatewer weak it may be - provided good source for our discussion and reflections about history of Amiga and computing in general.

@cdimauro

Quote:

To me seems a 2x scaled image.

Yes, it definitely looks like it's a screenshot of a single frame, with "missing" lines shown equal to the ones that are actually drawn that frame... That's a common issue with interlacing. That's why especially text looks "weird".
Quote:

I also made a search, and I've found low-res screenshots for this game (also for the CD32 version), which is what I expect.

Yes, like I said before, in addition to hires mode, the game also supports lores (320x224-ish) mode, which shows roughly a quarter of a track at once (and scrolls in both X & Y). And the most screenshots of the game are indeed from this mode. It's also the "default" one, and I guess you might need AGA for that.

There's also Megadrive port, which I guess lacks the hires mode.

Also, one rather interesting feature in the game: You can create your own cars! The game comes with example project for Imagine, that will render the object from all directions used in the game.

@Jupp3: I never had the chance to see this game, but if it really supports the hires, well, I want to take a deeper look. I hope to find it on Back2Roots or something like that.

@pavlor: to be honest, I wouldn't ever stop reading such old magazines. I did it for several years, when I've built my background, and for me looking inside is like a drug. Unfortunately, time isn't my friend...

@cdimauro

Quote:

. I did it for several years, when I've built my background, and for me looking inside is like a drug.

Quote:

Unfortunately, time isn't my friend...

I share both of your feelings.

@cdimauro

Quote:

I never had the chance to see this game, but if it really supports the hires, well, I want to take a deeper look. I hope to find it on Back2Roots or something like that.

It's definitely available at "something like that"

Would be nice if it was possible to play in super hires with full track visible & squashed graphics - and play on widescreen display

If you're interested, Burnout also runs in hires.

@Jupp3

Oh not Vulcan Software! They positioned themselves as some sort of second dawn of commercial game development after C= died but they were very second rate IMHO. Jet Pilot was awful and Tiny Troopers was ridiculous. Thank goodness for Clickboom! as they were able to keep production values high all the way to the year 2000!


P.S. Napalm supported AGA high res and worked great on a 060.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios