Printable View
"These iss Exceriza, I vall deploy now................LAJA! GOOD LACK!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
I tried out the X6800 version about a year ago..............MAN is it difficult. Many times more difficult than the already moderately difficult Genesis version. So much that the Engrish pilot says "shit!" when my last life was up.
That would rule.
Ha ha! I wish Technosoft would write a script for a "Hollywood" movie, with all of the lines read exactly as written by Hollywood actors.
Macintosh for me, it has Glider, Crystal Quest, and Shufflepuck Cafe.
I find it interesting that there is no love for the Atari ST, was Atari a has been even then?
ST was a great machine, but it's very similar to the Amiga, except not quite as good. It would be kind of hard to say that the ST was better, simply because the two are so similar and the Amiga has several advantages. Even people who were ST fans tend to admit now that Amiga was a better machine, although usually with a "however...". The ST was always a bit cheaper than the equivalent model of Amiga. And I guess it was easier to code for. It was definitely a strong #2, way better than Mac and IBM at the time.
I think instead of pulling out of the computer market to focus on consoles, they should've canceled the Jaguar to focus on computers.
Looking at this guy's videos, there are a lot more Amiga games than I was previous aware of. The US really did get the short end of the stick for the Amiga back in the day. (I had an a500 and couldn't find a lot of software for it compared to PC's which I also had)
Yeah, retailers were always kind of limited with their Amiga sections. It got a lot worse during the AGA era. The dedicated Amiga stores always had a good selection, but they all closed up shop as the 90s went on. A lot of Amiga fans had to buy their stuff through mail-order.
The primary difference between the two was Amiga had custom chips made in-house as Commodore had Commodore Semiconductor Group (MOS Technologies) while the Atari ST/TT was made with off the shelf components. Of course Commodore didn't act like a semiconductor company and underfunded chip devlopment thus the huge delays in the AGA chipset and AAA never being released. Commodore also entered the console market way to late to save itself, even though Commodore sold all the CD32s they manufactured they still went under (the CD32 being a far better system the Atari's Jaguar).Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
Yet I think you are right about Atari and computers, their Falcon seems like a solid system by why did Atari use a 16-bit bus with Motorola 68030? It seems like a huge bottleneck.
And yet, Atari custom designed the Jaguar in-house. The Jaguar chipset could have been used to make a computer. I mean, the components were pretty cheap. Just swap out the 68000 with an '030 and you have a powerful, unique computer design for the time. Would have been interesting anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psy
From everything I've read, the main problem that the CD32 had was component supply issues. Commodore wasn't able to manufacture enough of them. That's why when they were meant to launch the system in North America, they instead released the system only in Canada on a limited basis. And then they went bankrupt soon after.Quote:
Of course Commodore didn't act like a semiconductor company and underfunded chip devlopment thus the huge delays in the AGA chipset and AAA never being released. Commodore also entered the console market way to late to save itself, even though Commodore sold all the CD32s they manufactured they still went under (the CD32 being a far better system the Atari's Jaguar).
The Falcon was pretty much an afterthought; it was only around for a year, and Atari's tepid support of it made everyone already aware that they were going to exit the computer market. But Atari's market share had been going downhill for years as they stagnated a bit and the TT underperformed (and had its share of problems). The 16-bit bus on the Falcon was to maintain backwards compatibility; the TT also had some compromises for the same reason. One of the biggest problems Atari had was the lack of a multi-tasking OS until Multi-TOS came out in 1993 (Amiga OS was multi-tasking since 1985), which was just a few months before they pulled out of the computer market entirely.. The TT had hardware multi-tasking support built-in from the beginning, but didn't have an OS that could take advantage of it. It didn't even have UNIX for two years.Quote:
Yet I think you are right about Atari and computers, their Falcon seems like a solid system by why did Atari use a 16-bit bus with Motorola 68030? It seems like a huge bottleneck.
I think support of retailers is what really hurt the Atari ST and Amiga as when the first time buyer walked into a computer store there just wasn't the software library in the stores even though the Amiga had a sizable software library at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
I though Atari acquired the chipset incomplete from a small company then finished the work on the chipset.Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
My understanding is that Atari took the guys that had designed the Konix Multisystem, and founded a new company for them (so, strictly speaking, not technically "in house", but at a satellite company, same thing effectively), with the Jaguar and Panther chipsets both being designed at the new company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psy
Okay, but in the end didn't Atari have problems with ironing out bugs in their chipset?Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
In the end, Atari was sold to Hasbro. ;)
Jaguar did have a couple of bugs in the hardware, but I'm not sure if they were simple mistakes that would've been easily remedied had they been caught, or problems that would have cost a lot to fix.