jfe@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (03/04/91)
My friend also owns an Amiga, and I played quite a few games on his machine. In terms of game playing, yes, it's an awesome machine because it has separate processors for graphic and another for sound. But then again, if you want to play games, why not get a Nintendo or a Sega? I have been a Mac/apple user for six years, and I have to agree that Amiga just doesn't feel right. Mac seems to have "crispier" colours than Amiga. Amiga sort of looks like a souped-up C64. Also Amiga 500 is not made to be expanded. If you want to add anything decent, you probably want to get a more powerful power supply than the one they give you. Also, Amiga does have Mac- like operating system (workbench, as they call it), but so many programs are not icon-driven. Most of the programs use Amiga DOS which is no better than MS-DOS. Also my friend has about 100-150 games/productivity softwares in their original floppies because they don't come along with special HD install- ation programs. Now that sucks. In conclusion, if you want an awesome game machine, get a Nintendo or Sega. If you want to compute with that machine at the same time, get Amiga 2000 or 2500 or 3000. But then again, by that time, you'd be shelling about enough cash for an si or ci. One thing I would like to mention, before I go, is Amax. This is a Mac emulation program for Amiga, and it emulates a Mac Plus. It has trouble with digitized sounds, and works only in the interlace mode, so it will kill your eyes, but by golly, if you hook a Mac drive to an Amiga running Amax, you can run just about anything that runs on a Plus.
nguyent@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Thien Nguyen) (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar3.225636.3128@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> jfe@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >My friend also owns an Amiga, and I played quite a few games on his machine. >In terms of game playing, yes, it's an awesome machine because it has separate >processors for graphic and another for sound. But then again, if you want to >play games, why not get a Nintendo or a Sega? SEGA writes their games on acclearated Amigas. They were advertising it in Amiga World magazines!!! >I have been a Mac/apple user for six years, and I have to agree that Amiga just >doesn't feel right. Mac seems to have "crispier" colours than Amiga. Amiga Have you seen those new cheap macs from Apple??? Notice the way the arrow moves! It keeps on flashing. I use MAC IIs almost all the time at my work and at school! I wish I could use my Amiga instead. Look at it this way, Amiga needs nothing to emulate a MAC, while to emulate an Amiga, you need to add extra custom chips. By the way, you are comparing $2000 and up computers to $500 Amigas. A better comparison would be something like an A3000. I must admit that Amiga lacks some good productivity software, but it's not the problem with the hardware. I mean, I can run MAC softwares with a software emulator. There is a hardward only because MAC rom are illegal to copy onto disks!!! >sort of looks like a souped-up C64. Also Amiga 500 is not made to be >expanded. If you want to add anything decent, you probably want to get a more >powerful power supply than the one they give you. Also, Amiga does have Mac- >like operating system (workbench, as they call it), but so many programs are >not icon-driven. Most of the programs use Amiga DOS which is no better than >MS-DOS. Also my friend has about 100-150 games/productivity softwares in Infact the new OS 2.x that came with the A3000 in my opinion is a better O.S. What about multitasking???? Almost all the productivity programs are icon driven! >their original floppies because they don't come along with special HD install- >ation programs. Now that sucks. Hm...Most of my productivity programs are on my harddrive. Some of the games can't be put on the harddrives because they are copy protected. >In conclusion, if you want an awesome game machine, get a Nintendo or Sega. If >you want to compute with that machine at the same time, get Amiga 2000 or 2500 >or 3000. But then again, by that time, you'd be shelling about enough cash >for an si or ci. I would take my A3000 anytime over the si or ci. >One thing I would like to mention, before I go, is Amax. This is a Mac >emulation program for Amiga, and it emulates a Mac Plus. It has trouble with >digitized sounds, and works only in the interlace mode, so it will kill your >eyes, but by golly, if you hook a Mac drive to an Amiga running Amax, you can >run just about anything that runs on a Plus. AMAX II supports digitized sound, harddrives, etc... The only thing right now is that AMAX support only 128K ROMS. But this will probably change with the MAC ROM clones from NuTek. Right now, AMAX runs very fast on my A3000. I would say faster than a IIci. AMAX can be made to run in non interlaced modes also. I get no flicker on my A3000 since it has flicker fixer built in. The reason for flickering is because Amigas are NTSC compatible out of the box. To fix the flicker, you can buy a card for about $250. How much does it take to make MAC NTSC compatible??? Multimedia = NTSC!!!
kbailey@reed.UUCP (Kelly Bailey) (03/04/91)
HEY Please. No more about Macs and Amigas. I hate the subject. I hate comparing things like this. It's stupid, it's juvenile, and there's a place for it, the Amiga Advocacy board, and I would like it ALL to go there, because Amigas are ALWAYS involved in this. Or, maybe there could be a Mac vs IBM sub, an Amiga vs Mac sub, and an IBM vs the World sub. But this silly comparison of computer/penis size has got to move away from the Mac Games sub.
klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (Steve Klingsporn) (03/07/91)
First of all, this discussion is out of hand. There is no need to start "flame wars" in the Mac areas. Stupid, pointless, and will lead to nothing but hard feelings. As for my personal views on the Amiga, send email. ;) Yes, it's a nice Nintendo replacement or dumb terminal. But, when you attack that Mac and say "It takes nothing (NOTHING!) to emulate a Mac on the Amiga," you are dead wrong. It takes Mac ROMs -- which you need to pull from a Macintosh and put in a dinky little box connected to your Amiga. Unfortunately, there are assholes out there that have the Mac ROMs dumped to disk and pirate (distribute over BBSs) along with A-MAX II. I doubt that things run faster than a Mac Plus. The Amiga just doesn't seem "up to snuff," and anti-Amiga flames are acceptable here, for it is COMP.SYS.MAC and nothing else. Please cut out the fighting, Steve Klingsporn
farren@sat.com (Michael J. Farren) (03/13/91)
klingspo@mozart.cs.colostate.edu writes: >As for my personal views on the Amiga, send email. ;) Yes, it's a nice >Nintendo replacement or dumb terminal. > >I doubt that things run faster than a Mac Plus. The Amiga just doesn't >seem "up to snuff," and anti-Amiga flames are acceptable here, Well, my first impluse was to flame unmercifully, but I decided against it. No offense, but you don't know your Amiga very well. A stock Amiga with AMAX installed runs at a CPU speed somewhat slower than a Mac Plus, but with a significantly higher I/O speed, writing to disks. Makes it about even. An A3000 with AMAX, on the other hand, outperforms everything but the IIfx (using Speedometer on the Mac end). As far as the "Nintendo replacement", I suggest that there's a lot more to the Amiga than you are aware of. I'm not saying it's _better_ than a Mac - it's _different_ than a Mac. Amiga does a number of things in a much better way than the Mac does, and vice versa. Downgrading it to the status of a Nintendo is just a display of bias on your part, not knowledge. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael J. Farren farren@sat.com | | He's moody, but he's cute. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+