Will 2016 be the year of the Amiga?
>>55530432
No.
>>55530432
Every year is the year of the all mighty Amiga
>>55530523
>tfw forgot to read that comic since 2009
welp, 7 years to catch up on.
there wasn't even a year of the amiga when it was relevant
>sidecar expansion
>ever
year of the amiga desktop 2016
>>55530432
If the Vampire would be out for all the main machines and you could freely order it, then yeah, it would. But not jet.
>>55530567
Only the 500 and 500+ use Sidecar's, pretty much has a 1200 with a 060 with 32MB's back in 94', Pentium was a pussy next to it.
>>55530618
had a*
wtf auto correct
>>55530432
This >>55530523
You guys have to see it that way.
The Amiga brand died and is together with Commodore still kind of legendary.
If they had succeeded they'd probably be as hated as Applel and normies would have ruined it, too.
This way we can safely nostalgiajizz over it.
>>55530686
Waiting for my Indivision ECS to arrive.
Still on the Vampire 2 waiting list.
No
But it is the year of the Linux Desktop
>>55530432
>>55530849
>>55530849
>>55530719
>>55530686
>>55530523
>posting Sabrina and not Amy
>>55530930
Sabrina is actually pure, unlike that slut
>>55530969
So? Slut != Bad
>>55530618
The '060 would have been pretty nice, too bad the rest of it shit.
>>55531019
For example the '020 stock in the Amiga 1200's was as fast as a 486SX at the same frequency what came out at the same time.
Both where value machines and needed upgrades to perform better.
1991 was the year of the Amiga. That was pretty much its peak. Soon after that, AGA chipset was a letdown, and in a few short years Commodore went belly-up.
I had an Amiga 500 those days, and it was really sweet compared to PC, and much cheaper too.
Now I regret not staying with Amiga all these years, because computers now are pretty boring and tedious for me, and I'm not even interested in the new games.
>>55530969
>Sabrina is actually pure
>pure
She's been shaggin that raccoon dude for like a decade now.
>>55531086
Maybe it could go head to head with a 386SX-16 that was already 4 years old at the time, but no, it won't match the fully 32-bit 486SX-25s and SX-33s by a long shot, the 68EC020 was fucking ancient in '92, and Commodore was the last big-name 68k vendor to ship one, even low-end Macs were shipping with full '030s at a minimum by 1992.
>Both where value machines and needed upgrades to perform better.
Yeah, maybe some extra RAM if you got one with 4MB, not the entire system. The only thing a 486SX lacked compared to the DX was the NPU, which was of barely any consequence for a consumer use case, I can count the number of times I've seen that overdrive socket actually utilized on.... zero hands, I've never seen a chipped SX box once.
>>55531403
AGA was not a letdown if you used it, 256 color Workbench (and games) VS 16/32 is a big difference, with a twice as fast memory bandwidth to chipmem. Also, interlace modes where actually usable with tweaks.
Just that AGA wasn't enough, they were actually developing two new chipsets what would have come out soon after but never did, chipsets that could do 3D in hardware, that would have been a huge step from OCS/ECS and AGA.
>>55531524
I don't know about the A1200 vs. 486, but even a lowly stock A500 could hang with fast 386 machine, when it came to 2D games. Here's an example:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=KR8kgpv-85Y
It really just depends on the application. A 25 MHz 386DX would really do much better for flight sims and related (Wing Commander, etc.)
Pic is another good example of 2D game that ran perfect on little A500.
>>55531524
The "big boy" Amigas had 040's and 060's, the 1200 with 500 and 600 are value machines, much cheaper than a '030 Mac was back then and could emulate/virtualize one at full speed (full speed CPU), a '060 Amiga is still the fastest 68k Mac available.
The 486SX lacked a FPU, same with the EC020 and 020. CPU upgrades for a 1200 at the time were pretty cheap, giving you a full blown 32bit chip.
Also don't forget the custom chipset, only matched by high end dedicated graphics at the time, where's the 486 in a usual system had to do most of the work, even with a VGA card.
>>55531666
The EC chip being hated in the value models is often overlooked, it made them great gaming computers on the budget, people who needed more just bought desktop Amigas or accelerators, don't hate the EC chips.
>>55531086
>>55531524
Actually the 040 was more the equivalent of the 486.
>>55530432
bumping for interests
>>55531616
If you ask me, the 500 (the 2000 and maybe even the 600 too) is a different story. The 68000 was still quite competitive in 1987, as was the chipset. I don't know if it could really beat out a 386DX head-to-head, but it would have been very capable nonetheless.
>>55531666
> much cheaper than a '030 Mac
The ~$3700 for an '040 Amiga 4000 was more double the price of mid-range '030 Performa, but at least a better value than other '040 systems for a few months until the Centris rollout.
>and could emulate/virtualize one at full speed
No, not really. The vast hardware differences between the two platforms makes virtualization impossible, and those differences will also add to the overhead that comes with emulation, meaning even an accelerated 68060 system would definitely not come anywhere near to Quadra 8xx performance in an emulator, probably not even Mac II-level. Compatibility is much, much more than CPU architecture alone.
>Also don't forget the custom chipset, only matched by high end dedicated graphics at the time,
Many (maybe not all) of those capabilities were well within the grasp of the mid range and even lower by then, high-end PC and Mac cards were handling 24-bit color at the same resolutions the Amiga was pushing 256, the actual high-end of graphics from the likes of Sun, HP and SGI were handling real-time 3D with more power in a single ASIC than the entire 1200 could muster.
And let's not even get started on that ancient sound hardware.
>>55531702
The thing about the use of the EC020 is it's simply nonsensical, and the prevalence of accelerators is a testament to it.
>people who needed more just bought desktop Amigas or accelerators
And as Commodore's financial record shows, the reality is that they cut the bullshit and bought something else that wasn't gimped by design instead.
>>55531779
Exactly what it was, but better.
>>55532327
>much cheaper than a '030 Mac
I was talking about the value machines, I probably should have phrased it better
>and could emulate/virtualize one at full speed
Have you tried it? A 1200 with a '040 can easily outperform (by a small margin, I did have a OC'd accelerator) a Quadra 800, several benchmarks and games (Doom, Wolf3D) agree, talking from experience, have owned both machines at the same time.
>Also don't forget the custom chipset, only matched by high end dedicated graphics at the time
That's exactly what I'm saying, it was top notch for low-mid, nobody was saying about replacing SGI workstations with them.
Still a better alternative than VGA at the time, what had a hard time with the same resolutions at 256 colors. Nowhere near as a value 486 system did.
Else I agree with you.
>>55532327
Also about
>And let's not even get started on that ancient sound hardware.
Paula could do DMA driven audio and several samples in hardware, even CPU driven audio with AHI, can easily play back an MP3 at even higher sample rate if the CPU is doing the work, just like my 486 with a SB AWE32.
Interesting thread
>>55532327
>high-end PC and Mac cards were handling 24-bit color at the same resolutions the Amiga was pushing 256
High end systems had dedicated graphics cards, same like high end Amigas, you know, RTG, CGX, could easily do 24bit's at higher rates.
There's a shitload of Amiga only graphics cards and even drivers for PC PCI card's like (later) Voodoo series.
None of those systems still beats a SGI workstation in the early 90's but the Amiga was used a lot for graphics and video, being cheaper then a full blown workstation.
>>55530862
Nice
>>55530693
You are right.
Also, Amiga Corporation was under Commodore, Amiga and the hardware was a handful of guys, nothing to do with Commodore except using their wallet.
Commodore didn't fail because of shitty hardware, they failed because stupid business decisions.
Amiga is related to Commodore as much as it is related to the C64, aka only by name.
>>55531428
Fucking speciesist
>>55532515
I'm too trigger happy this evening, excuse the shit flinging. Looked a little more into the emulation/virtualization aspect, there actually is some pretty neat stuff in there (though to save face, I don't know if I would prefer an '060 accelerated 4K over the "real hardware", there are so many nice things about a platform that go beyond the software alone)
Really, I'm with you though, I actually don't even hate the wedges all that much in context, as gaming systems for the entry level they were great, they had impressive capabilities, and the desktop models were quite reasonable even if they didn't have the fastest chip at the time. I just can't stand some of the hype surrounding the platform, it can be quite obnoxious at times.
>>55532597
I guess it feels like they could have done better by that time.
>>55532703
Not going to argue with that, if there was a professional niche for them, it was definitely as an excellent entry-level editing platform.
Much of my criticisms of the platform in general don't really apply to the big boxes as much though, they were plenty expandable, and generally had quite decent hardware options relative to their release dates (kind of weird they stuck a vanilla 68000 in the 2000 though)
>>55532747
I don't really know if I agree with that on its own, though the reasoning is probably still shitty business decisions anyway. Looking on it and with all of its greatest strengths, the platform still just felt just too niche, and not "serious" enough in a market very much dominated by big business and other deep-pocketed individuals.
>>55533018
True, also about the hype part, I generally love technology and old hardware in general, I still have a bunch of systems from different times and have used many of them as my daily computers in the past. The Amiga wasn't very popular, specially in the US, so it gets overlooked a lot of times and just thought of as a bad system, that's why I stood up so harshly to defend it, sorry.
>>55533018
>kind of weird they stuck a vanilla 68000 in the 2000
It was fast enough those days. Look at the other PCs of the time, they were typically 4.77 MHz XT or 8 MHz AT systems. Commodore even sold some like that.
On top of that, the M68000 chip was just better overall, and easier to program. No 64k memory segments for starters.
>>55533018
>the platform still just felt just too niche, and not "serious" enough in a market very much dominated by big business and other deep-pocketed individuals.
Yeah, it was known more as a console/gaming system, people didn't really consider it as a serious computer, same time it was too weird for people to buy as a console because it had a keyboard, etc.
Shitty marketing again.
>>55533122
Not shitting on you, more a perceived vocal minority that seems to think of them as some kind of peerless workstation-class piece of kit that failed due to some convoluted conspiracy. I collect old gear as well, partly why I tend to shill for the Mac side since they're easy and cheap to acquire, so I have a ton of experience with them, more so than the Amiga at least.
I still think there was plenty of bullshit misconception in its failure as well though, the Commodore name being associated with ultra low end 8-bits and >>55533337 likely didn't help it out very well.
>>55533161
Oh no, the decision to use a 68k chip doesn't feel weird all, x86 was absolutely awful, more why they didn't fit it with a 68010 or 68020, though the latter would have eaten into profit margins if they wanted to remain competitive on price.
>>55533161
>1MHz 64k machine on the market at the same time as a 10MHz 1MB one
Man...
>>55533718
It sounds crazy, but the C64 had its use as budget educational/gaming machine. There was a lot of software for it too.
If you wanted to do office stuff, the C128 was a better choice though. 80 column text and CP/M, for starters.
Apple II was stilll going strong in mid/late 80's too. It had some pretty good software and lots of expansion capabilities. It was easy to hack too. People with hardware labs loved that machine.
>>55531616
For game performance, the amiga had the massive advantage of having graphics hardware with native support for sprites and blitting with memory access, some scrolling support, lots of different colour manipulation modes, which on the PC all needed to be done in software, so the amiga could get away with a significantly weaker CPU and still play games just fine.
>>55533718
When you consider the kind of stuff you bought a computer for back then, it wasn't terribly retarded to go with an 8-bit, lots of games and entertainment software of generally better quality than the high-end workhorses, easy to program, still powerful enough that it did your taxes or whatever other small data set math you would want light years faster than by hand.
>>55534566
Yeah, that's one of the reason's the value models came with cheaper EC CPU's.
What's this, an interesting thread on /g/?
>>55531403
1991 was when I first got an Amiga. It had been my dream computer for a couple of years, since I was very little. We weren't a very rich family (but comfortable) and the envy I felt for friends who had one was unbearable.
I would agree 1991 was when it peaked. It's sad that my journey of Amiga ownership was basically from the best computer ever, to complete obsolescence within 3 years.
>>55532327
I used to use Shapeshifter a lot around the late 90s/2000 when my Amiga was becoming pretty useless. Benchmarks showed that the CPU speed was pretty much 1:1. It worked beautifully because it wasn't an emulator as such, it was more of a wrapper or compatibility layer like Wine. I remember seeing some documentation describing how Shapeshifter actually rewrote parts of the Mac ROM to talk to the Amiga directly.
Graphics were the biggest bottleneck due to the differences between chunky and planar graphics hardware, but eventually there were some very fast chunky to planar plugins released. I seem to recall 16-color modes running extremely fast and 256-color was also very usable (enough to run games like Doom and Duke 3D smoothly).
>>55535590
>it was more of a wrapper or compatibility layer like Wine
No, it was more like virtualization software, like VMware and yes, it pretty much ran Mac OS as much as close to metal as possible.
Say Commodore hadn't brainfarted themselves to death in the 90s... how much longer realistically do you think the Amiga could have gone, and what niche would they have exploited to survive? Because Amigas would have had no chance against PCs and Macs in the states unless there was some amazing marketing combined with some very strong new hardware and developer support, and the CD32 was a poor cousin to the Playstation and Saturn.
I think the best outcome we could have hoped for would have been some very low-cost machines based on the existing 68k architecture, maybe a higher priced PPC machine that could work as a licensed Mac clone, something like that. And if that failed, I would have liked to have seen the Amiga OS acquired by someone competent, or even just open sourced.
>>55530432
No, its the year of the IBM PC Compatible.
>>55535953
The new chipsets, not just one, they were developing were easily on the level of the Playstation, sadly they could never finish, just a few prototypes.
Don't forget, even Apple was doing bad in the mid/late 90's, they just survived thanks to a few helping hands.
Probably would have gone over to PPC completely later, they already could utilize a PPC and 68k CPU at the same time.
Amigas itself were officially still made till late 97, just that the companies producing them didn't really care about continuing development and support on them.
>>55531403
This game is badass
>>55535953
A little before Commodore brainfarted themselves to death, there was actually project and a meeting held by the Amiga representatives and top leading software companies, they made plans what the Amiga hardware should support and what could be done for it, sadly nothing from that became reality.
>>55536344
>>55536272
The new hardware sounded good. It would have meant breaking compatibility with the older machines, which would have been inevitable at some point.
Do you think it could have been enough for a comeback? I think it would have been a battle with no chance of winning in America. In Europe and elsewhere, quite possibly?
How long until YEAR OF THE CP/M DESKTOP?
>>55536514
>breaking compatibility with the older machines
No, the newer chipset machines would have still been backwards compatible, it's stated in the documentation too, also there was software like AHI and Picasso96, libraries supporting more then just the Amiga chipset, programs written from them where compatible with all hardware utilizing the library. That's how you can run cards like ATI Radeon 9800 even on an old Amiga 1200.
It's hard to tell, Commodore wasn't doing well for years already before they came to the end, they would have needed some big contracts to keep them afloat, because the marketing team in the early 90's was surely idiots, mid 80's was good tho.
>>55533161
I recently was gifted an Amiga 1000, Commodore 128D and a Commodore 128D slimline with a few copies of CP/M.
Are they worth anything?
>>55536581
As I understood it you would be able to run most stuff that ran on top of Workbench, but anything that was programmed to the metal, like 99% of games would be out.
I think even if they pulled it off, the hardware side of things probably would only have had a future as a niche platform, say for video editing.
The OS could maybe have taken Linux's place if it fell into the right hands, but alas.
>>55536731
Yeah, they probably are worth a reasonable amount, particularly the A1000.
>>55536731
Check eBay, what kind of stupid question is that?
>>55536753
It would have probably broken some OCS/ECS compatibility but still be compatible with AGA on the hardware level, they were just adding features to it, like real 3D acceleration native Amiga and library modes, like GLide on the PC did latter and OpenGL. More DMA channels, better sound chip, etc, etc.
Also don't forget WHDLoad, it came out in like 96, it's a full wrapper, adding lot of compatibility with older software and games, would have not been a problem to run the old classics.
One of the chipsets they planned is better documented and actually had working prototypes, the other one not so much.
>>55536753
>The OS could maybe have taken Linux's place if it fell into the right hands, but alas.
Check out AmigaOS 4
>>55532705
>>55530862
>>55530849
You're both attention seeking faggots.
>>55536824
Yeah, I've had a look at it. I mean, it's nice but I can't think of any reason to actually seriously use it today. I'm meaning more like if it had been ported to other platforms in the early 90s, it would have thrived more.
>>55536861
I didn't make the thread, but I'm not jealous to share.
It is a recent build over the past couple of weeks.
Why did you come to this thread when you don't give 5 fucks about the system?
>>55536862
Kind of the reason for the OS being faithful to it's platform is to market it or look at hackintoshes. Be it good or bad.
There's no reason to use it today except on older hardware it runs on, but that was the point we were talking about, what could have been of the OS if it continued.
>>55535510
>complete obsolescence within 3 years
I wouldn't say that just because Commodore went belly-up. There were still people making software and hardware for it well throughout the 90's (and to some extent even today).
Even a barebones A500 with a modem would have got you into the BBS and Internet world during the 90's. I mean dialup shell account Internet, of course. So no Mosaic, but anyway most sites could be browsed with Lynx those days.
Of course you wouldn't have all the new commercial games, but there were so many made for Amiga already you'll probably never play them all.
Typical Amiga BBS software:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lxx9UsopV9k
Random BBS ad (coded on a 1-meg A500 with just two floppy drives)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NYW8WR6OvIE
Some tunes!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=thnXzUFJnfQ
https://youtube.com/watch?v=E6y8vlKtjLg
https://youtube.com/watch?v=defG6nn_o5E
Pic was made in Deluxe Paint on an A500.
You could also make animations and 3D renderings.
The point is, Amiga 500 machine wasn't obsolete in 1994. It still had lots of life in it, and plenty of uses.
>>55537049
I guess if you kept upgrading it, you could have done all that's needed with it still in 94, but that was not very reasonable if you ask me, it was already an 8 year old system by then. Something like a 1200 with a few upgrades would have been more ideal.
>>55537103
Just adding a hard disk and a little extra memory would been plenty enough.
CPU only matters if you really need it, otherwise it's not worth the extra big cost.
Connecting to BBS/Internet for chat/IRC, BBS door games and MUDs, email, Usenet and web/gopher (via Lynx) worked fine on my college roomate's 286 PC with just 1 MB memory and 20 MB hard disk. This was 1995, and I think he kept that machine until he finished school.
>>55537225
One of the videos you posted
>I coded this on an Amiga 500 with two floppy drives. That was a pain in the ass.
>That was a pain in the ass.
>pain in the ass
>CPU only matters if you really need it, otherwise it's not worth the extra big cost.
Oh you're gonna need it if you want to run any newer software
Just because it can do it does mean you should, why would people upgrade to an 1200 for example or even 500+ if their 500 was so fine and tandy.
>>55537281
The point is, you can actually code on a barebones A500. A lot of folks did exactly that in the 80's, because hard disks were prohibitely expensive back then. Even in the early 90's they costed a lot still. But come 1994, it would have been a logical upgrade, along with some extra memory (the GVP SCSI HD units even have slots for that).
And my roommate obviously wasn't using the latest software on his 286 in 1995-6 when he lived with me. But he managed just fine, even played a bunch of old games on it (not stuff like Doom, of course).
It really does come down to what your needs are. A lot of people, especially in eastern europe, were poor and would have been happy to have such an amazing computer those days. Of course someone like you who's addicted to the latest & greates wouldh't consider it, but don't make the mistake to believe everyone thinks that way.
>>55537531
>Of course someone like you who's addicted to the latest & greatest wouldn't consider it, but don't make the mistake to believe everyone thinks that way.
I'm from the Baltic and had my fair share of old computers when I was younger, yes, even an A500 way after 1994, only being able to use computers that were "outdated" and "obsolete" by the standards of the day.
Does not mean I don't want to upgrade if I have the change, you can't even watch youtube on a 10 year old computer anymore, doesn't mean I don't use my Amiga for old games or throw out my old 486 (or newer hardware) just because it's not ideal to use daily.
>>55537531
>you can actually code on a barebones A500
You can code on a barebones C64 too or ZX Spectrum, but even coding thing for those systems is easier and more convenient on a newer computer.
>>55537676
oh yes, CC65 for a C64 is a godsend
>>55530849
Nice!
>>55536861
Stay mad, pleb.
>>55537643
For someone who was poor, you don't sound very grateful to have Amiga. A lot of people had to make do with ZX Spectrum clone in russia. And not even really that compatible.
>>55537841
Because I actually put my skills to use and worked hard to buy a 1200 to replace my 500.
>>55537831
Thanks, isn't it just the cutest thing ever?!
>>55537875
There weren't that many such machines available in eastern block those days, unless you smuggled it in yourself. That's why the Spectrum clones were popular. The machine was easy to reverse-engineer (TTL components only) and easy to build from scratch.
>>55537935
They were widely available here already in the mid 90's.
Also, I nowadays have an beefy Spectrum clone and 8086 clone too. Russian clones are awesome.
>>55536965
The feeling I get from AmigaOS 4 is that it's just following rather than breaking new ground. It's still basically a very old OS with some modern conveniences inspired by the other OSes it's trying to catch up to. It perhaps gives an idea as to what might have been, but I think if development and innovation had continued steadily through the 90s we'd be looking at something far different.
>>55538311
AmigaOS 4 is just trying to be more compatible with newer hardware and software while still being able to run old stuff and be an AmigaOS in it's core. Yeah, I agree with you, it would have been much different.
>>55530523
>>55530930
>>55531004
The fuck is all of this?
>>55538426
Eric W. Schwartz, a drawfag and furry, also an Amiga enthusiast. But it was different back then, don't judge him by today's furfags.
He has also made demos for the system and of art related shit, but hes not related to Amiga in any official way.
He also had a webcomic in the 90's called Sabrina Online, it's still ongoing.
>>55538484
He also made these on an amiga relatively recently. Quite impressive.
https://youtu.be/iNR5vxAR22A
https://youtu.be/9mg6wrYCT9Q
His character amy the squirrel was kind of an unofficial amiga mascot before furries became the cancer they are now.
He could have gone on to great things but decided to make furry porn on his amiga instead. Apparently turned down a job with macromedia due to his anti-PC principles.
