kuan@iris.ucdavis.edu (Frank [Who me?] Kuan) (11/09/90)
Saw this hilarious article in rec.games: [stuff deleted] >World of Ultima: Savage Empire is a new game in the Ultima series from >Origin, but it's not Ultima VII.. Origin is designing all of their new games >for the PC and then ports them over to other platforms. All of their new >stuff supports 256 colors and various sound boards; they are one of the >[now many] companies who are finally showing that the PC makes an excellent >gaming machine. [name deleted to protect identity of innocent comedian] Guess I'll sell my Amiga and Genesis and get me one of those excellent IBM game machines. I've played my share of video games. I have played new games on the IBM. VGA or no VGA, the bottom line is that games on the IBM are inferior. With some insane assembly programming, it's possible to do a good job, but in general games on the IBM are slower, uglier, and sound like farts. If things like fast smooth scrolling graphics and stero sound don't appeal to you, then IBM's do make find game machines. I used to own a pc clone, now it sits at home by itself in the corner. Poor thing.
ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug) (11/09/90)
kuan@iris.ucdavis.edu (Frank [Who me?] Kuan) writes: >Saw this hilarious article in rec.games: >[stuff deleted] >>World of Ultima: Savage Empire is a new game in the Ultima series from >>Origin, but it's not Ultima VII.. Origin is designing all of their new games >>for the PC and then ports them over to other platforms. All of their new >>stuff supports 256 colors and various sound boards; they are one of the >>[now many] companies who are finally showing that the PC makes an excellent >>gaming machine. I owned an IBM and ULTIMA IV for it. It was OK because it was harddrive installable. The sound was similar to the apple version, but I was dissapointed that the c=64 was better! The graphics were ok. That 256 color res. is MCGA (or a digital equivalent on the VGA) which is 320*200 or something like that -- with the CPU worrying about all that AND sound. It paused a lot, obviously, for a good "fart" as you put it, because sound was such a CPU intensive thing. I thank GOD I changed platforms to AMIGA, I just wish I could continue my ULTIMA series (which is IMHO the best game :) ) Chow -- ---------------------------------//------------------------------------- Doug Dyer Clemson University // "Splunge!" - MP ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu \\ // -----------------------------\X/----------------------------------------
smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) (11/09/90)
In article <9240@aggie.ucdavis.edu> kuan@iris.ucdavis.edu (Frank Kuan) writes: > >I've played my share of video games. I have played new games >on the IBM. VGA or no VGA, the bottom line is that games on the >IBM are inferior. With some insane assembly programming, it's >possible to do a good job, but in general games on the IBM >are slower, uglier, and sound like farts. Well, well...another series in "Bash The Other Guy's System." I am an IBM guy (IBM *compatible* to be exact--there is a difference :-) ). But since I like to play games like all you people out there I have come to know the difference between an IBM and an Amiga system: Amiga beats the socks off an IBM in terms of graphics and sound. Surprised you, huh? Yes, I'll be the first to admit that. IBM machines were orginally designed for *business* (the "B" in the name) and now they are being stretched to do everything under the sun. As far as I know the IBM will never catch up with the Amiga in those respects. But I also want to do other things with my computer. And since I don't have enough money for both (yet!) I choose the IBM. I want to program, write a thesis that needs a word processor with a foreign character set (WYSIWYG), display fractals, print quality reports, and anything else I can find to do that is either fun or profitable. Why do I read this newsgroup? Because I like games. S. "Stevie" Smith \ + / <smsmith@hpuxa. \+++++/ " #*&<-[89s]*(k#$@-_=//a2$]'+=.(2_&*%>,,@ ircc.ohio-state. \ + / {7%*@,..":27g)-=,#*:.#,/6&1*.4-,l@#9:-) " edu> \ + / BTW, WYSInaWYG \ + / --witty.saying.ARC
jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu (James Treworgy) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov8.215641.16149@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes: > In article <9240@aggie.ucdavis.edu> kuan@iris.ucdavis.edu > (Frank Kuan) writes: > I am an IBM guy (IBM *compatible* to be exact--there is a > difference :-) ). But since I like to play games like all you > people out there I have come to know the difference between an > IBM and an Amiga system: Amiga beats the socks off an IBM in > terms of graphics and sound. Surprised you, huh? Yes, I'll > be the first to admit that. IBM machines were orginally designed > for *business* (the "B" in the name) and now they are being > stretched to do everything under the sun. As far as I know the > IBM will never catch up with the Amiga in those respects. I hope I don't start a full blown war here, but if you look at the architechture of the 8086/88 microprocessor you will wonder what the IBM was really designed for, if anything. It's not meant to support more than 640K, and can only access memory 64k at a time. Today's IBMs running in PC XT/AT mode are still the same. The 80x86 processors suffer from similar poor organization; the 80386 and 80486 (when it is debugged completely) are decent processors but sadly they will probably be used only rarely except as a fast 808x. The 68000, on the other hand, was designed with expansion in mind from the beginning, has a clean, well organized architecture, and suffers from no such problems. The only reason you will find better business programs on the IBM (I'll be the first to admit it :-)) is that it has been around for much longer than Amiga and has a base of tens of millions of machines. It's more profitable so people develop there. But any programmer will tell you it is much easier to program an Amiga than a clone... > But I also want to do other things with my computer. And since > I don't have enough money for both (yet!) I choose the IBM. > I want to program, write a thesis that needs a word processor with > a foreign character set (WYSIWYG), display fractals, print quality > reports, and anything else I can find to do that is either fun > or profitable. I'ts definitely a personal thing... if you must use particular software packages that exist for IBM's but not for Amiga (i.e. DBASE), then there's no point in fudging about with "work-alikes" on the Amiga. However there are some applications, like video production, for which IBM's are not adequate. Myself, I word process, do some desktop publishing, do a little graphics stuff... and the Amiga meets my needs very well. I also play great games! :-) > S. "Stevie" Smith \ + / -- James A. Treworgy -- No quote here for insurance reasons -- jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu jtreworgy%eagle@WESLEYAN.BITNET
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov8.215641.16149@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes: >In article <9240@aggie.ucdavis.edu> kuan@iris.ucdavis.edu >But I also want to do other things with my computer. And since >I don't have enough money for both (yet!) I choose the IBM. >I want to program, write a thesis that needs a word processor with >a foreign character set (WYSIWYG), display fractals, print quality >reports, and anything else I can find to do that is either fun >or profitable. Uh, Steve, no offense, but once reason I bought an Amiga that *I* wanted to program. I'd worked x86 machines before all the way down to the system level, and I have to say I never enountered anything to make me believe that a PeeCee was a programmer's paradise. Anyway: 1) The compilers for the Amiga now rival Borland's for completeness and ease of use. 2) I don't know about the word pro stuff... 3) WHY would you use a PeeCee with SGA (slow graphics adapters) for fractals? 4) If your reports are desktop, why go PeeCee there either? This is not really intended to be a flame (yeah, I know it sounds like one.) but it doesn't sound like you picked the right machine except _maybe_ for word pro. stuff. (And I say that because I haven't looked into it...) Oh well... Greg -- ---------------Greg-Harp---------------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu---------------- AMIGA! // // Don't you just hate those long signature files? I mean, there oughta \X/ be a law. If I were in control, .sigs would get cut off if they were
tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) (11/09/90)
I'll probably make an electrical suicide, but... I own both Amiga and PC (386/20Mhz). In article <11479@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug) writes: >kuan@iris.ucdavis.edu (Frank [Who me?] Kuan) writes: >>Saw this hilarious article in rec.games: >>[stuff deleted] >>>stuff supports 256 colors and various sound boards; they are one of the >>>[now many] companies who are finally showing that the PC makes an excellent >>>gaming machine. >I owned an IBM and ULTIMA IV for it. It was OK because it was harddrive >installable. The sound was similar to the apple version, but I was dissapointed >that the c=64 was better! Ultima IV is old game, have you seen Ultima VI (not the cracked versions, but the final versions) ? >The graphics were ok. That 256 color res. is MCGA (or a digital equivalent >on the VGA) which is 320*200 or something like that -- with the CPU worrying >about all that AND sound. It paused a lot, obviously, for a good "fart" >as you put it, because sound was such a CPU intensive thing. >Chow If the CPU is 20Mhz 80386 it is about 3 to 6 times faster than 8Mhz 68000 it has more time to do all things. Of course Amiga special hardware can do things faster, for example blitter can move data more quickly than 386. If PC has some sound card, it can handle music through it (and if one plays with PC he HAS a sound card). The games available for PC are also diffrent from those available for Amiga. For PC is more RGB or simulator -style games, for Amiga more arcade style games. PC is better for playing such games, because almost all PC:s have hard disk, so multiload games are more fun to play (or do anyone play Ultima VI with 7 DD disks?), and almost any game can be installed to hard disk. Simulators are also faster (of course if one has a fast PC). Another problem in Amiga is pirates (it's not Amigas fault, but still), which are now slowing Amiga games production. Amiga has it's special hardware what it comes to music and graphics, so it is _MUCH_ better in games that uses them (fortunately most games aren't anymore translated directly from ST). Amiga is superior to all other computers in this area (for example Shadow of the Beast is impossible to translate to any other machine, without loosing it's 'spirit'). So:PC (a fast one) is better in some games, and Amiga is better in other games. All of these are *only* my opinions. (And I still play Flood in Amiga, and MechWarrior in PC). -- Timo Jantunen : Every time you try to operate one of these weird Kilonkallio 10 h 82 : black controls that are labelled in black on a 02610 ESPOO : black background, a little black light lights Email: : up black to let you know you've done it. What tjantune@niksula.hut.fi : is this? Some kind of galactic hyperhearse? -Z.B.
xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (11/10/90)
In article <1990Nov8.215641.16149@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes... ^ ^Well, well...another series in "Bash The Other Guy's System." ^ ^I am an IBM guy (IBM *compatible* to be exact--there is a ^difference :-) ). But since I like to play games like all you ^people out there I have come to know the difference between an ^IBM and an Amiga system: Amiga beats the socks off an IBM in ^terms of graphics and sound. Surprised you, huh? Yes, I'll ^be the first to admit that. IBM machines were orginally designed ^for *business* (the "B" in the name) and now they are being ^stretched to do everything under the sun. As far as I know the ^IBM will never catch up with the Amiga in those respects. This may be get me flamed on an Ami group but a full blown IBM is a quite a bit nicer than my Ami. Then again I can have a half blown IBM in my Ami if I wanted to or could afford it (386SX upgrade to BB, Targa, etc). ^ ^But I also want to do other things with my computer. And since ^I don't have enough money for both (yet!) I choose the IBM. ^I want to program, write a thesis that needs a word processor with ^a foreign character set (WYSIWYG), display fractals, print quality ^reports, and anything else I can find to do that is either fun ^or profitable. Not a flame but just a comment. Currently my Ami runs as an Ami, a Mac and an occational IBM (when I can snarf my friend's bridgeboard to play Red Storm Rising...now out for the Ami so I never bother anymore). I'm hoping to buy the used BB at $200. So for $1800 (A2000HD), $300 (Amax I) and hopefully $200 (BB) I'll have all three. Not bad for a game machine ;-). ^ ^Why do I read this newsgroup? Because I like games. ^ ^S. "Stevie" Smith \ + / NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.
ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug) (11/10/90)
tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) writes: >>I owned an IBM and ULTIMA IV for it. It was OK because it was harddrive >>installable. The sound was similar to the apple version, but I was dissapointed >>that the c=64 was better! >Ultima IV is old game, have you seen Ultima VI (not the cracked versions, >but the final versions) ? Your missing the point. Wait till its out on Amiga and then we'll see. >The games available for PC are also diffrent from those available for Amiga. >For PC is more RGB or simulator -style games, for Amiga more arcade style >games. Like populus? The amiga is capable of doing more than the PC. The rest is up to the programmer. I really enjoyed FALCON AT on my IBM, and I know what you mean, but I feel if someone took advantage of the ECS and a 68030, the 15ms access harddrive, a simmulator game would be wonderful. >PC is better for playing such games, because almost all PC:s have hard disk, >so multiload games are more fun to play (or do anyone play Ultima VI >with 7 DD disks?), and almost any game can be installed to hard disk. >Simulators are also faster (of course if one has a fast PC). More and more software is HD installable (sp?), although I agree with you. that was mentioned in my comment. You can also get a screaming Amiga, although there are not many (if at all) games that will take advantage of that power...YET! >So:PC (a fast one) is better in some games, and > Amiga is better in other games. >-- >Timo Jantunen : Every time you try to operate one of these weird >Kilonkallio 10 h 82 : black controls that are labelled in black on a >02610 ESPOO : black background, a little black light lights >Email: : up black to let you know you've done it. What >tjantune@niksula.hut.fi : is this? Some kind of galactic hyperhearse? -Z.B. -- ---------------------------------//------------------------------------- Doug Dyer Clemson University // "Splunge!" - MP ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu \\ // -----------------------------\X/----------------------------------------
smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) (11/11/90)
Once upon a time in the near past I wrote: >But I also want to do other things with my computer. And since >I don't have enough money for both (yet!) I choose the IBM. >I want to program, write a thesis that needs a word processor with >a foreign character set (WYSIWYG), display fractals, print quality >reports, and anything else I can find to do that is either fun >or profitable. I've had 3 or 4 letters from people since I posted this. They pointed out--quite cordially to my surprise--that this software is not only been available for the Amiga but has been for some time. Well, I guess my presuppositions come from being one of those brain dead IBM guys. :-) See now? It really pays to read unfamiliar newsgroups--you learn a lot! Thanks to all those who responded.... Steve
tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) (11/12/90)
In article <11500@hubcap.clemson.edu> ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu (Doug) writes: >tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) writes: >>Ultima IV is old game, have you seen Ultima VI (not the cracked versions, >>but the final versions) ? >Your missing the point. Wait till its out on Amiga and then we'll see. I'm almost sure that Amiga version will be better (do they translate 256 colors to 32 or 64, is it HD instalable?) but also I'm sure that Ultima VII is out for PC at same time (I don't know why it takes so long to translate them to Amiga). >>The games available for PC are also diffrent from those available for Amiga. >>For PC is more RGB or simulator -style games, for Amiga more arcade style >>games. >Like populus? The amiga is capable of doing more than the PC. The rest VGA graphics is a direct translation from Amiga. Sounds aren't so good: the music uses only four of eleven channels of Adlib card (again, direct translation, but Adlib doesn't support digitized instruments), and no sound effects. The game itself is same (before I got my PC I used to play it with my friend (I on Amiga, he on PC), the wire worked fine). But, is populous a simulator? :-) >is up to the programmer. I really enjoyed FALCON AT on my IBM, and I >know what you mean, but I feel if someone took advantage of the ECS and >a 68030, the 15ms access harddrive, a simmulator game would be wonderful. I'm afraid that it will take time. After installed 68010, most of my games which used vector graphics stopped working (FOFT, Retaliator, etc.). Most games are still made incompatible for future Amigas. But I agree that the game you are dreaming would be great. (But how about game which uses 50Mhz 80486, SuperVGA (1024x1024, 256 colors from 262144), Roland music card and fast HD ? I think it will take time, too). The problem with faster Amigas are currently, that not so long ago there was only three types of Amigas, which were all based on 68000. Now there are many Amigas, up to 68040 (?), but games are still made for 68000. Of course if new Amigas are sold enough, there will be games to support them, but not yet. >although there are not many (if at all) games that will take advantage >of that power...YET I agree, hope some will be relased soon. still: >>So:PC (a fast one) is better in some games, and >> Amiga is better in other games. My first article probably took a too black&white view to game types: if you count populous a simulator, I like to play it with Amiga. >---------------------------------//------------------------------------- >Doug Dyer Clemson University // "Splunge!" - MP >ddyer@hubcap.clemson.edu \\ // >-----------------------------\X/---------------------------------------- -- Timo Jantunen : Every time you try to operate one of these weird Kilonkallio 10 h 82 : black controls that are labelled in black on a 02610 ESPOO : black background, a little black light lights Email: : up black to let you know you've done it. What tjantune@niksula.hut.fi : is this? Some kind of galactic hyperhearse? -Z.B.
v092mgp5@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott K Wood) (11/13/90)
In article <TJANTUNE.90Nov9122112@robocop.hut.fi>, tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) writes... [stuff deleted] >If the CPU is 20Mhz 80386 it is about 3 to 6 times faster than 8Mhz 68000 >it has more time to do all things. Of course Amiga special hardware can >do things faster, for example blitter can move data more quickly than 386. >If PC has some sound card, it can handle music through it (and if one >plays with PC he HAS a sound card). > > >The games available for PC are also diffrent from those available for Amiga. >For PC is more RGB or simulator -style games, for Amiga more arcade style >games. > >PC is better for playing such games, because almost all PC:s have hard disk, >so multiload games are more fun to play (or do anyone play Ultima VI >with 7 DD disks?), and almost any game can be installed to hard disk. >Simulators are also faster (of course if one has a fast PC). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sure, a simulator on a 20Mhz IBM might be a bit faster than the Amiga, but it had better be! The a machine that fast is running almost 3 times faster. I still find it humorous that it takes such a fast IBM to even compete with the 8Mhz Amiga. NOTHING compares to the Amiga for games. After all, the Amiga INITIAL purpose was to be a blow-'em all away game system. >Another problem in Amiga is pirates (it's not Amigas fault, but still), >which are now slowing Amiga games production. As if piracy isn't a problem in the IBM community...! Piracy of IBM games is AS rampant as piracy of Amiga games in Europe. It's a fact. It's not that amiga games production is slowing, it's just that developers are producing more games for the PC's than the Amiga. What their logic is behind that is beyond me! > >Amiga has it's special hardware what it comes to music and graphics, so >it is _MUCH_ better in games that uses them (fortunately most games aren't >anymore translated directly from ST). Amiga is superior to all other computers >in this area (for example Shadow of the Beast is impossible to translate to >any other machine, without loosing it's 'spirit'). > What game DOESN'T use music and graphics? The Amiga is superior in the area of games! True, there are a lot of PC games that are not out for the Amiga, but this doesn't mean that the PC is better for games! Scott BITNET : v092mgp5@ubvms.bitnet INTERNET : v092mgp5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) (11/13/90)
In article <45803@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> v092mgp5@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott K Wood) writes: >In article <TJANTUNE.90Nov9122112@robocop.hut.fi>, tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) writes... >[stuff deleted] >>Simulators are also faster (of course if one has a fast PC). > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Sure, a simulator on a 20Mhz IBM might be a bit faster than the Amiga, >but it had better be! The a machine that fast is running almost 3 times >faster. I still find it humorous that it takes such a fast IBM to even >compete with the 8Mhz Amiga. NOTHING compares to the Amiga for games. >After all, the Amiga INITIAL purpose was to be a blow-'em all away game >system. I compared Amiga to 20Mhz 386 because I have them both. I wouldn't have enough experience about 10 to 12 Mhz AT (roughtly as fast as Amiga) to do the comparation. NOTHING compares to Amiga for games THAT NEEDS superior sounds and FAST graphics. There are also games, which needs a fast mass memory (HD) and much computing power (solid vector graphics). In these areas PC is better (very few amiga multiload games can be run from harddisk). >>Another problem in Amiga is pirates (it's not Amigas fault, but still), >>which are now slowing Amiga games production. > As if piracy isn't a problem in the IBM community...! Piracy of IBM >games is AS rampant as piracy of Amiga games in Europe. It's a fact. It's not >that amiga games production is slowing, it's just that developers are producing >more games for the PC's than the Amiga. What their logic is behind that >is beyond me! Here in Finland (northern Europe) are _MUCH_ Amiga pirates, but very few on PC. I think the situation is same in England (where majority of PC games are produced here in Europe). > What game DOESN'T use music and graphics? The Amiga is superior in the area >of games! True, there are a lot of PC games that are not out for the Amiga, >but this doesn't mean that the PC is better for games! Have you ever played HACK, NETHACK, MORIA, LARN, OMEGA, etc. ???? This are really Games (if you don't think so, look at rec.games.hack, rec.games.moria etc). In every game the graphics or sounds aren't the most important thing. Some games require much memory and/or fast hard disk (my nethack on PC is currently over 800k). I also think that PSI-5 is still one of the best games on PC (4-color 320x200 graphics, uses only internal speaker and it is so old that it never appeared on Amiga). You didn't understand me right. I didn't say that PC is better for games in ALL areas. I only said that PC is more suitable for some games (usually RPG or solid vector graphics) than Amiga. I also think that it makes no sense to purchase PC _only_ for games (I didn't), but if one has both PC and Amiga that doesn't mean that he plays only with Amiga. If one has to purchase ONE machine only for games, I would suggest him to buy Amiga (except if he wants mainly play RPGs or simulators). -- Timo Jantunen : Every time you try to operate one of these weird Kilonkallio 10 h 82 : black controls that are labelled in black on a 02610 ESPOO : black background, a little black light lights Email: : up black to let you know you've done it. What tjantune@niksula.hut.fi : is this? Some kind of galactic hyperhearse? -Z.B.
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (11/14/90)
In article <TJANTUNE.90Nov13015733@punisher.hut.fi> tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) writes: > There are also games, which needs a fast mass memory (HD) >and much computing power (solid vector graphics). In these areas PC is better ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Uh, oh, can't believ that, because I myself tried to create some area filling stuff on a PC. I was accustomned to the great Blitter support for area filling on the Amiga and found that I would have been forced to reengineer all this in assembly on a PC to get comparable results. And as I real HATE 80xxx assemblers, I drew back. There was said that you can get faster area filling on an Amiga without the Blitter when you have a faster processor and and a good algorithm that doesn't need to care for every worst case, but i don't know whether this is the same for a PC. So, regarding our Blitter lets ma hesitate to believe a PC being better for solid vector graphics. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) (11/14/90)
In article <TJANTUNE.90Nov13015733@punisher.hut.fi>, tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) writes... ^In article <45803@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> v092mgp5@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott K Wood) writes: ^>In article <TJANTUNE.90Nov9122112@robocop.hut.fi>, tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) writes... ^ ^>[stuff deleted] ^ ^>>Simulators are also faster (of course if one has a fast PC). ^> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^> Sure, a simulator on a 20Mhz IBM might be a bit faster than the Amiga, ^>but it had better be! The a machine that fast is running almost 3 times ^>faster. I still find it humorous that it takes such a fast IBM to even ^>compete with the 8Mhz Amiga. NOTHING compares to the Amiga for games. ^>After all, the Amiga INITIAL purpose was to be a blow-'em all away game ^>system. ^ ^I compared Amiga to 20Mhz 386 because I have them both. I wouldn't have enough ^experience about 10 to 12 Mhz AT (roughtly as fast as Amiga) to do the ^comparation. NOTHING compares to Amiga for games THAT NEEDS superior sounds ^and FAST graphics. There are also games, which needs a fast mass memory (HD) ^and much computing power (solid vector graphics). In these areas PC is better ^(very few amiga multiload games can be run from harddisk). ^ Hmmm...I thought SCSI was faster than the IBM equivalent. Anyway DMA SCSI isn't a slouch and physical disk SCSI drive speed are quicky approaching the point were animations from the HD is possible. These are programming issues and not hardware ones. I'd also take a 68030 Ami over a 386 IBM for solid vector graphics. Not exactly a hardware issue either but a programming one (at least at the OS level) in terms of accessable computing power. The reason that some Ami games aren't HD installable is because some game companies live in the stone age or just don't give enough of a damn to do it. ^ [piracy deleted] ^ ^ ^> What game DOESN'T use music and graphics? The Amiga is superior in the area ^>of games! True, there are a lot of PC games that are not out for the Amiga, ^>but this doesn't mean that the PC is better for games! ^ ^Have you ever played HACK, NETHACK, MORIA, LARN, OMEGA, etc. ???? ^This are really Games (if you don't think so, look at rec.games.hack, ^rec.games.moria etc). ^In every game the graphics or sounds aren't the most important thing. Some ^games require much memory and/or fast hard disk (my nethack on PC is currently ^over 800k). I also think that PSI-5 is still one of the best games on PC ^(4-color 320x200 graphics, uses only internal speaker and it is so old that ^it never appeared on Amiga). Hmmm...explain why my 3 meg Ami/2091/Quantum is inferior as a machine to your generic 386 clone in terms of memory or disk speed? BTW: Moria and NetHack runs fine off my HD. ^ ^You didn't understand me right. I didn't say that PC is better for games in ^ALL areas. I only said that PC is more suitable for some games (usually ^RPG or solid vector graphics) than Amiga. I also think that it makes no sense ^to purchase PC _only_ for games (I didn't), but if one has both PC and Amiga ^that doesn't mean that he plays only with Amiga. ^ ^If one has to purchase ONE machine only for games, I would suggest him to ^buy Amiga (except if he wants mainly play RPGs or simulators). Sorry. You can say (and I would agree) that the IBM has more simulation games (or perhaps games in general) but as a hardware platform the two are hardly comparable except at the ultra high end. And when was the last time you saw a game targeted at the 486/targa card combo? ;-) So please don't insult our intelligence over the wonders of IBM hd/memory advantages. If you must gloat do so about the number of titles you guys have...or that you tend to get them a few months before we do. With Harpoon, F19, Falcon, Gunship, 688, Red Storm Rising, and quite a few others there's more than enough simulation/strategy games to whet even my appetite to play general, admiral or Tom Cruise. Variants of hack and empire don't interest me much anymore (although I still burn hours on Moria...). ObGame: Is M1 Tank Platoon out for the Ami? I don't recall but the IBM version is too fun not to have... ^ ^-- ^Timo Jantunen : Every time you try to operate one of these weird Let's bury this thread. It's more than a little silly. NT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- // | Nigel Tzeng - STX Inc - NASA/GSFC COBE Project \X/ | xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov | Amiga | Standard Disclaimer Applies: The opinions expressed are my own.
cseaman@sequent.UUCP (Chris "The Bartman" Seaman) (11/14/90)
tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) writes: < v092mgp5@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott K Wood) writes: < >tjantune@niksula.hut.fi (Timo Jantunen) writes... < >>Simulators are also faster (of course if one has a fast PC). < > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ < > Sure, a simulator on a 20Mhz IBM might be a bit faster than the Amiga, < >but it had better be! The a machine that fast is running almost 3 times < >faster. I still find it humorous that it takes such a fast IBM to even < >compete with the 8Mhz Amiga. < < I compared Amiga to 20Mhz 386 because I have them both. I wouldn't have enough < experience about 10 to 12 Mhz AT (roughtly as fast as Amiga) to do the < comparation. NOTHING compares to Amiga for games THAT NEEDS superior sounds < and FAST graphics. There are also games, which needs a fast mass memory (HD) < and much computing power (solid vector graphics). In these areas PC is better < (very few amiga multiload games can be run from harddisk). Hmmmm... So if I understand this statement, the PC is a better 'simulation' and 'multi-load' game machine because few amiga 'multi-load' games can be installed on the hard disk? I find this very odd. I had (apparently mistakenly) thought that the fault of hard disk incompatibility was with bad game developers. I think you have missed the point of the previous articles. The fact that you have only a stock 68000 Amiga to compare to a 20MHz 80386 PC is irrelevant. I can assure you that my 2500/20 clearly and admirably outperforms my 16 MHz 80386 PC, INCLUDING 'simulators' and 'multi-load' games, of which, surprisingly enough, I currently have 5 or 6 installed on my hard disk (I would have more installed, but I need the disk space for all those multi-megabyte animations I create). < >>Another problem in Amiga is pirates (it's not Amigas fault, but still), < >>which are now slowing Amiga games production. < < > As if piracy isn't a problem in the IBM community...! Piracy of IBM < >games is AS rampant as piracy of Amiga games in Europe. It's a fact. It's not < >that amiga games production is slowing, it's just that developers are producing < >more games for the PC's than the Amiga. What their logic is behind that < >is beyond me! < < Here in Finland (northern Europe) are _MUCH_ Amiga pirates, but very few on PC. < I think the situation is same in England (where majority of PC games are < produced here in Europe). I don't know why so many people have such a problem understanding the piracy issue. The reason piracy is more of a problem for the Amiga is simple: There are are more MS-DOS machines in the world than there are Amigas. The 'percentages' are surprisingly similar for piracy between the two platforms, but when you consider the market size, there is a difference. If I produce a game for MS-DOS, and (hypothetically) 50% of the potential market pirates my title, I still have MILLIONS of potential sales. Possibly tens of millions. If 50% of the potential Amiga market pirates a title, the resulting market is in the THOUSANDS. This doesn't make it a very lucrative market. Of course, this does not mean that MS-DOS machines are better for games. They simply give a better return on the developers' investment. < > What game DOESN'T use music and graphics? The Amiga is superior in the area < >of games! True, there are a lot of PC games that are not out for the Amiga, < >but this doesn't mean that the PC is better for games! < < Have you ever played HACK, NETHACK, MORIA, LARN, OMEGA, etc. ???? < This are really Games (if you don't think so, look at rec.games.hack, < rec.games.moria etc). < In every game the graphics or sounds aren't the most important thing. Some < games require much memory and/or fast hard disk (my nethack on PC is currently < over 800k). [ Subjective rambling deleted... ] Again, I fail to see any point here. Nethack on my Amiga is around 800K, and it fairly well SCREAMS on my hard disk. Not to mention that it uses my mouse, multitasks, and has a custom font set for better 'graphics'. PC Nethack can't even begin to compare. < You didn't understand me right. I didn't say that PC is better for games in < ALL areas. I only said that PC is more suitable for some games (usually < RPG or solid vector graphics) than Amiga. I also think that it makes no sense < to purchase PC _only_ for games (I didn't), but if one has both PC and Amiga < that doesn't mean that he plays only with Amiga. And you don't apparently understand the Amiga very well. A comparably equipped Amiga will beat a PC in ALL gaming categories. There are no exceptions. < If one has to purchase ONE machine only for games, I would suggest him to < buy Amiga (except if he wants mainly play RPGs or simulators). Oops. You must mean ESPECIALLY if he wants mainly to play RPGs or simulators. :-) Regards, Chris -- Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman | o\ /o See cseaman@gateway.sequent.com <or> | || "Attack of the Killer Smiley"! ...!uunet!sequent!cseaman | \vvvvvv/ Coming Soon | \____/ to a newsgroup near you!
bjames@lehi3b15.csee.Lehigh.EDU (Binoy James [890904]) (11/14/90)
In article <1990Nov8.215641.16149@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu> smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) writes: > >But I also want to do other things with my computer. And since >I don't have enough money for both (yet!) I choose the IBM. >I want to program, write a thesis that needs a word processor with >a foreign character set (WYSIWYG), display fractals, print quality >reports, and anything else I can find to do that is either fun >or profitable. > FYI the Amiga can do all that and do it together too! You found your machine, I found mine! Well, let's nip this out in the bud folks! I'm guilty of adding to the fire I know, but let's stop! Bin Sorry. :-)
maupr@warwick.ac.uk (Mr. L.F. Warren) (11/14/90)
In article <3903@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov writes: >ObGame: Is M1 Tank Platoon out for the Ami? I don't recall but the IBM >version is too fun not to have... M1 Tank Platoon has been released and jolly good it is too.. Leigh Warren.. maupr@uk.ac.warwick.cu