@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @Hillbillylitre Quote: And cost twice as much... It was cheaper to buy an Amiga1200 with a GVP030/50MHz with 16 or 32MB RAM instead of Atari Falcon030/16Mhz with 14MB RAM. I don´t think anybody installed 16 or 32 MB RAM in GVP030/50MHz in 1993... Well, yes Falcon was more expensive (basic price for 1 MB model was 30 % higher than for A1200, but from available configurations - 1/4/14 MB - only 4 MB was sane in 1993 and so even more costly).

Yes you are right, My memory is a bit rusty after all these years. It was 68030 max 40MHz in 1993 and 50MHz in 1994 on the A1230 Turbo II.

_________________
Using: One Commodore C64 - One Commodore Amiga 500 - One Commodore Amiga 1200 with BVision and Blizzard 68060 with PPC coprocessor running Amiga DOS - One Hellbillylitre Amigatwox86x64x6000x running Windows7

@Massi

Quote:

Massi wrote: @cdimauro Don' t forget about the Atari Falcon030, competitor of the Amiga 1200, which had very interesting specs ... http://www.atarimusic.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=263:the-falcon030-vs-the-amiga1200&catid=60:atari-hardware&Itemid=214

I agree with other people: it was more expensive. And also crippled.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: I don't think so. You have to see on what market it acted. Take a look at magazines of April 1994 (Commodore's bankrupt), and you'll see what was the bare minimum configuration. 12 MB RAM - that certainly is not common desktop configuration in 1993...

I took a look at Infoworld of April 1994, and there were configurations with 4, 8, or 16MB. The latters cost was from $2000, which was affordable (and had also other more advanced hardware: bigger hard driver, bigger monitor).
Quote:

Quote: Then we can take a look at Solaris, IRIX, etc., and I don't know how well compared Commodore's Unix. That would be fair comparison.

Do you think that it's also interesting for us?
Quote:

Windows NT 3.1

12 MB RAM...

Quote:

NeXTSTEP 3.2

Same as NT...[/quote]
Postscript display... too much advanced... and resources needed.
Quote:

BeOS 1.0

Released in 1995 (!) for exotic dual CPU PowerPC hardware...[/quote]
OK, leave it.
Quote:

Quote: OS/2 3.0 At least something comparable (released in 1994, but still much better than your other "examples").

Good. Can we compare it with the Amiga o.s. 3.0?
Quote:

Quote: consumer hardware of the time It seems our definitions of "consumer hardware of the time" differ.

Well, PCs were A BIT different than Amigas in terms of available hardware.

Again, looking at Infoworld of April 1994, the low-end configurations (with 4MB) were around $1200.

How much cost an Amiga 1200 just the same hard drive and monitor? And with 4MB?

How much cost an Amiga 4000? With same hard drive and monitor? And with 4MB also?

You want to compare the different o.ses, but they were an abstract entity: it ran on concrete hardware, and we have to take a look at what was available at that time, with similar hardware configurations.

Yes, I know that the Amiga 1200 was a very low-end and didn't required hard drive, monitor, and even memory. If you don't want to use, it's fine, but the Amiga o.s. 3.0 run also on an Amiga 4000...

@Jupp3

Quote:

Jupp3 wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Example, please, because you're reporting fantasies. I guess he's referring to playing Super Skidmarks with 2 serial linked Amigas (yes, the info on that page is wrong, max. players is 8, but 4 is the "per-computer" maximum) Of course you can also see it in action

Finally something. Thanks!

But I don't see the "large display" (I mean: that game didn't used high resolution). Other than the video being outputted to a projector.
Quote:

Quote: The Amiga had only 2 joystick ports, and the keyboard had problems at handling simultaneous key presses. Yes, the "standard" configuration is 2 ports. Of course nothing prevents users from adding more. the most common way to do this was to use parallel port adapter. Also, in anticipation of "Well, do any games support it anyway?" - here's a list. Not that many games really, but most games back then weren't aimed at 2+ players anyway (or if they were, they might also be turn-based). Still, I'd say it's a worthy investment, if you have that many players often, as there are many nice multiplayer games there (Skidmarks, Hired Guns, Dynablaster, Gauntlet 2, Knockout 2, Bratwurst, Smash TV (I assume this enables dual stick controls for 2 players?), Xtreme Racing...)

It' perfectly fine, thanks, and despite the custom adapter, the list of supported games is huge.
Quote:

Also note (from Vesalia page, f.ex.) that this is in no way "Amiga-specific", the exact same adaptor can be used in f.ex. X86 systems aswell (as long as they have parallel port, of course), but I'd assume it being WAY less supported than on Amiga.

Absolutely. What was missed by PCs is clearly the support by games.

@Jupp3

Quote:

Jupp3 wrote: @cdimauro Quote: BTW, the 68000 was a 32 bit processor Well, the external bus is still 16 bit.

Nevertheless, it was only the external data bus. Internally the processor had a 32-bit architecture.

The 386SX didn't switched from being a 32-bit processor, to be 16-bit, only because the external data bus was 16-bit.
Quote:

I always wondered why Sega went Blast Processing route with their advertising, while they could have said that the "Megadrive is 32bit" (instead of 16bit, it was clearly advertised as). While some might argue that it's not technically true, at least it isn't as big lie as "Blast Processing" was (which, afaik, wasn't used on any released game, ever)

Because the marketing wasn't aware that the 68000 processor had a 32-bit architecture. I think they didn't even know what a processor architecture was.

@cdimauro

>Again, looking at Infoworld of April 1994, the low-end configurations (with 4MB) were ...

Example of Skandinavian prices for low end productivity systems:

i486sx/25Mhz/4Mb/210Mb/ISAGFX512kb/monitor 12498skr (no audio...)
(I do not have audio+OS etc. prices for swedish y1992 x86 yet)
A1200+60Mb+28Mhz+4MB 9295skr (incl AOS+WordWorth+DPaint4, etc etc...)

>How much cost an Amiga 1200 just the same hard drive and monitor?

Stock A1200 had to have 2.5" drive and it was a lot more expensive than 3.5".
VGA monitor was usable with A1200 but then it needed to have also TV or composite video monitor connected to enable all screenmodes. Multisync was more expensive.

>How much cost an Amiga 4000?

It seems A4000 was not in stock in sweden in august of 1994 as their price was not shown on swedish magazines.

In finland A4000/040(no fast, no HDD) cost about 14500FIM (and became shipped with only 1Mb Chip RAM and no SW bundle, only OS)
(normal SIMMs and HDDs could be used, though)
IIRC, 14500fim was roughly 25000skr.

((very roughly 1SKR = 0,1EUR))

So, I think in 1994 a well equipped A4000 cost signifficantly more than fast 486 with same amount of RAM. Also in some 1024x768x24 + 16bit audio configuration A4000 was most likely 2* the price of a similar spec Pentium.

IMO, A4000 should not have been released at all, as it did provide less than a high end A3000 setup for the same price.

(For fair comparisson one should also look at what was the situation when a product came to market, rather than year or two later. So far I do not yet have y1992-1993 prices etc.)




*****************************************************************************************************************
JUST TO CLARIFY, the rest is not aimed as comment to cdimaurio, but as general info addition, without pumping up the thread
*****************************************************************************************************************



In Finland, high end Amiga models were priced insanely high for hobbyist to use.
I'm a bit surpriced if more than 10 A4000s were sold in finland for hobby users as the company I worked for was pretty big in finland and it never sold any A3000 or A4000 (except a4k for myself).

When I got my A2000 (1989), it cost half of the finnish price when I got it from Belgium.
(I still use the Nec3D from y1989, for A600 display, btw.)


''''''''''''''''''''''''''
A little bit related...
Would be interesting to see games like "Shadow Of The Third Moon" running on 060 + AGA vs running on RTG. Does anyone have link to such video?
(I imagine there might be difference in palette being used, beside RTG being faster.)

*****************
Trying to figure out if DOOm would have been payable on 68020+fastRAM around 1992..1993

A1200+RAM level performance but OCS chipset on A2000: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GidMvDThdU
(non playable)

This shows how 28Mhz system run DOOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhI60ahCvDc
(semi playable in a tiny window)

060/100Mhz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHZmU-9bPqU
(games run OK with AGA (15-20fps) and smoothly with RTG (30fps))


Doom on y1992 (low end) PCs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fcPxAO1FeU
(386DX/40 8,73fps 486sx/25 12,88fps and some benchmarks)


(so, A1200 + 28 Mhz + AGA setup could deliver as jerky DOOM as 386DX or 486sx, but 486 could use much larger display area, thanks to higher bandwidth to display RAM / chunky gfx mode.)

+++++
1993 basic PC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt-0lqkJUKE
(also the leading OS shown)

Hehe, these ones were selling like hot cakes in 1992 (this is almost exactly the most sold configuration of late 1992 in Finland): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaoxh57UVcE

yet another silly memory....
the rattling sound of HDD... after using long period win3.x and coming back to amiga, it was silly that when you started Amiga application, it was on & running without further rattle, so one got a feeling that something was wrong. With PC the rattling went on and on as a sign of computer working, later application started and the rattle usually continued.
+++++

These do not seem to be recorded on real HW of the time, but anyway.
DOS Games 1992: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6E4FZdY-pM
DOS Games 1993: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUnKBRkPvGg
DOS Games 1994: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdObXjDdiO0 (not many above VGA 320x200x8 ?)

Last edited by KimmoK on 26-Jun-2015 at 06:24 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 25-Jun-2015 at 11:57 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 25-Jun-2015 at 10:20 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 25-Jun-2015 at 10:00 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 25-Jun-2015 at 09:41 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 25-Jun-2015 at 09:40 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 25-Jun-2015 at 09:31 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 25-Jun-2015 at 09:28 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 25-Jun-2015 at 09:22 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 25-Jun-2015 at 09:16 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 25-Jun-2015 at 08:55 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 25-Jun-2015 at 07:09 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 25-Jun-2015 at 07:03 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 25-Jun-2015 at 07:02 AM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 25-Jun-2015 at 06:59 AM.

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

@pavlor

A plain Falcon030 has performances comparable to a plain A1200.

On the audio side the Atari machine was far superior, not all people know that a stock Falcon030 was able to play MP3 music (!), thanks to its onboard DSP.

It also had interesting specs for graphics and not only.

Overall it was an underrated system in my opinion.

_________________
SAM440EP-FLEX @ 733 Mhz, AmigaOS 4.1 Update 1

@Massi

Even if a bit dull, but this was perhaps it's best/most important feature (if Atari had stayed afloat longer): "Chunky 16-bit truecolor mode"

It would have helped Falcon to survive better than AGA Amigas in 3D gaming arena.

(Otherwise it seems it had VGA kind of graphics capability etc.)

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

@KimmoK

Quote:

(Otherwise it seems it had VGA kind of graphics capability etc.)

It says "Video (Different monitor ports available with adapters, eg VGA)" on the Atari.

You could connect a VGA monitor to the RGB port with a simple very cheap VGA adapter on the Amiga 1200 too.

And if you wanted to use the PAL/NTSC modes in addition on the RGB output instead of using the video output in addition, you could just get an expensive multisync monitor or an not so expensive scan doubler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fixer

I used a regular Panasonic VGA monitor on my Amiga 1200 for a very long time.

_________________
Using: One Commodore C64 - One Commodore Amiga 500 - One Commodore Amiga 1200 with BVision and Blizzard 68060 with PPC coprocessor running Amiga DOS - One Hellbillylitre Amigatwox86x64x6000x running Windows7

@Hillbillylitre

IIRC Falcon could display most ST games on a standard VGA monitor, which is not the case of the A1200 which requires an expensive Flicker fixer to display most games, and to display the early startup.

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@KimmoK

Quote:

It would have helped Falcon to survive better than AGA Amigas in 3D gaming arena.

Just a little bit, it lacked dedicated hardware for 3D anyway.
Moreover the internal DSP was designed for audio processing not graphics.

Last edited by Massi on 25-Jun-2015 at 02:22 PM.

_________________
SAM440EP-FLEX @ 733 Mhz, AmigaOS 4.1 Update 1

@Leo

Quote:

Leo wrote: @Hillbillylitre IIRC Falcon could display most ST games on a standard VGA monitor, which is not the case of the A1200 which requires an expensive Flicker fixer to display most games, and to display the early startup.

An external flickerfixer/scan doubler didn't cost much. Can not remember the price but probably not more than the RF modulator for the Amiga 500.


You could probably make it yourself too... I made a midi interface for my Amiga 500 some time when I was a kid, it works on the Amiga 1200 too.

_________________
Using: One Commodore C64 - One Commodore Amiga 500 - One Commodore Amiga 1200 with BVision and Blizzard 68060 with PPC coprocessor running Amiga DOS - One Hellbillylitre Amigatwox86x64x6000x running Windows7

@cdimauro

Quote:

Quote: I guess he's referring to playing Super Skidmarks with 2 serial linked Amigas (yes, the info on that page is wrong, max. players is 8, but 4 is the "per-computer" maximum) Of course you can also see it in action Finally something. Thanks! But I don't see the "large display" (I mean: that game didn't used high resolution). Other than the video being outputted to a projector.

Well, as usual, the "standard" resolution for that game is 320x240 (+ perhaps some overscan), with scrolling in X & Y axis. Of course it also supports split screen modes.

BUT in addition to that, it actually DOES support hires. And why wouldn't it? Just think about it. It's mostly static track (cars leave some track marks, but those don't move, and can be just drawn to bitmap, and left there). So there is hires support. That's enough to display full height of the track, but it still scrolls in X direction.

Screenshot:

(Looks a bit weird, which I assume is due to interlacing)

For that, there's a special link up mode: One system is set to display the left side of the track, while the other one displays right, no scrolling anywhere. In the middle, there's some overlap, so you have time to "change the monitor". But if instead of monitors you have 2 video projectors instead, you can set them to partially overlap (visible on the video as a brighter area) and display the complete track as one big image. I guess the developers didn't think of that!

Trust me, I know this. I was actually one of the drivers on the video

And while it's a very nice game with a very nicely done "gimmick", and very good multiplayer support, it's nothing that you probably couldn't do on a 486 aswell. Probably with significantly bigger system requirements (which "a 486" already is)

Last edited by Jupp3 on 25-Jun-2015 at 02:43 PM.

@cdimauro

Quote:

I took a look at Infoworld of April 1994, and there were configurations with 4, 8, or 16MB. The latters cost was from $2000, which was affordable

InfoWorld certainly is not aimed at home users...

USD 2000, affordable. I take it as bad joke.

Quote:

Do you think that it's also interesting for us?

I don´t think so. Our interest is in AmigaOS, not some weird historical Unix contest.

Quote:

Good. Can we compare it with the Amiga o.s. 3.0?

If you mean Amiga OS 3.0, then why not compare with OS/2 2.0?

Quote:

Again, looking at Infoworld of April 1994, the low-end configurations (with 4MB) were around $1200.

Important to note taxes are usualy excluded in InfoWorld adverts, so end user prices were higher. Mid 1994, you could buy 386DX with 4 MB RAM and SVGA 512 kB/monitor for around 1000 USD.

Again, what is our baseline? 1992 (AGA/3.0 release) or 1994 (Commodore bancruptcy)?

Quote:

If you don't want to use, it's fine, but the Amiga o.s. 3.0 run also on an Amiga 4000...

Nothing against that...

@Hillbillylitre: scandoubler + flickerfixer were very expensive back in 1993-1995: it was almost the price of a stock A1200 here in France.

If it was that cheap, everyone would have bought one... Not to mention quality of external ones was quite bad.

So having that as standard is a huge advantage for the Falcon.

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@Leo

Quote:

Leo wrote: @Hillbillylitre: scandoubler + flickerfixer were very expensive back in 1993-1995: it was almost the price of a stock A1200 here in France. If it was that cheap, everyone would have bought one... Not to mention quality of external ones was quite bad. So having that as standard is a huge advantage for the Falcon.

That seems very overpriced, or very cheap Amiga 1200. I paid almost nothing for mine compared with the Amiga 1200 but of course it costed something.

I have the one in the Wiki picture and quality isn't to complain about compared with flickering PAL and NTSC on a 15 khz TV. I had another one too but gave it away to someone but it hadn't that bad quality either. Besides one must expect a bit unclear signals on old analog equipment, it is not DVI/HDMI

And maybe not everyone had a 31khz VGA monitor connected to the Amiga RGB output, maybe thats why not everyone bought one?

_________________
Using: One Commodore C64 - One Commodore Amiga 500 - One Commodore Amiga 1200 with BVision and Blizzard 68060 with PPC coprocessor running Amiga DOS - One Hellbillylitre Amigatwox86x64x6000x running Windows7

@Leo

Quote:

So having that as standard is a huge advantage for the Falcon.

It is more similar to mode promotion on Amiga, not real scan-doubler (I think). However, compatibility of Falcon with ST games was not ideal.

@Hillbillylitre

Quote:

That seems very overpriced, or very cheap Amiga 1200.

Leo said 1993-1995. I don't remember internal A1200 or external dongles appearing until sometime during the Escom era, maybe more towards the end. I know Micronik got license to sell a branded external unit.

I have the June 1995 issue of Amiga Format in front of me, the issue that announced Escom's aquisition of Commodore. Power Computing are adverising the new ScanDoubler II for the A4000 which also works as a flicker fixer, it costs £399.

Fast forward to May 1998 and flciking through CU Amiga. Blittersoft are advertising offical Amiga approved scandoublers.

Internal A1200 Scandoubler £64.95
Internal Scandoubler (Video slot) £69.95
External Scandoubler £74.95

Eyetech are also advertising external scandoublers, one with a flicker fixer for £119.95 and one without for £79.95.

@Rob

Quote:

Rob wrote: @Hillbillylitre Quote: That seems very overpriced, or very cheap Amiga 1200. Leo said 1993-1995. I don't remember internal A1200 or external dongles appearing until sometime during the Escom era, maybe more towards the end. I know Micronik got license to sell a branded external unit. I have the June 1995 issue of Amiga Format in front of me, the issue that announced Escom's aquisition of Commodore. Power Computing are adverising the new ScanDoubler II for the A4000 which also works as a flicker fixer, it costs £399. Fast forward to May 1998 and flciking through CU Amiga. Blittersoft are advertising offical Amiga approved scandoublers. Internal A1200 Scandoubler £64.95 Internal Scandoubler (Video slot) £69.95 External Scandoubler £74.95 Eyetech are also advertising external scandoublers, one with a flicker fixer for £119.95 and one without for £79.95.

Can't remember when I bought this one but it was long before the Bvision card i bought brand new,but I remember very well I didn't pay £399, that is an insane price for a scan doubler you nearly don't need unless you're forced to use both 15 and 31 kHz on the same screen and have no access to a multisync monitor or a screen with both video and VGA input.

£74.95 is more than I paid too I think. I used my Commodore monitor from my Amiga 500 briefly to start with and avoided interlace modes, then an ~£1 RGB to VGA adapter with VGA monitor and Video output to the TV, for an even shorter time.

I can also remember some people had some newer Commodore monitors that supported both 15 and 31khz and able to run VGA multiscan and double PAL.

Last edited by Hillbillylitre on 25-Jun-2015 at 06:29 PM.

_________________
Using: One Commodore C64 - One Commodore Amiga 500 - One Commodore Amiga 1200 with BVision and Blizzard 68060 with PPC coprocessor running Amiga DOS - One Hellbillylitre Amigatwox86x64x6000x running Windows7

BTW seems to me to remember that around the half 90s there was shortage of RAM due to some manufacturing problems or price cartel - not sure - therefore RAM was really expensive and added to the final price of the machine

_________________
Scarabocchi Binari - Italian AROS Blog
Binary Doodles - English language AROS Blog