Thanks Ravnos B)
Radek... That is not entirely correct, graphic capabilities of the Amiga were far superior to any PC of it's time, including video or 3D work... As
Let me say you are right and wrong at the same time.
(the VGA showed first in 1987, the first Amiga was in 1985 (A1000))
However VGA got much better popularity as better graphics standard and it wasn't so featureless (it has hardware scrolling capability, split screen mode, x-modes, latch registers to boost fill/copy type operations).
And it has 70Hz noninterlaced modes as standard,
Not bad, eh?
for conversion... I don't see why a simple refresh rate or resolution can't be converted, it's all simple code ?.
You mean emulators? The interlacing tricks (more common on the Amige than on the ST) will need temporal supersampling to display them well. The Amiga's horizontal fine scrolling will need spatial supersampling in horizontal resolution (4x) to do in a correct way.
No... they aren't simple if they have to be done efficiently.
No, I don't talk about games, back then I worked in a professional environment, all video work ( hence the Opalvision card and modules ).
I do agree about the home-line, gaming on the Amiga seemed to reach it's apex and simply die, it was sad, it was, and still is a great computer
... The Atari, ( well, and the Amiga ), suffered from stupid marketing plots... ( a bit like having to pay for the RKM [ ROM Kernel Manuals ] for the Amiga DOS or having to pay a load of cash for a game - at least in Europe.)...
Imho the worst problem what Amiga had was it its custom chipset. Most software were too depending on talking directly to "the metal" hence a problem with making a compatible newer models. A1200 wasn't so and all that was because the Amiga was really a console chipset at its core:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga
Can you deny this, can you? Anyway C64 and Atari800 (an Amiga predecessor) were all failed consoles what were redirected to be home computers.
Atari ST was a different kind of machine. It was a desperate attempt of Atari to has somehting on the market after losing the Amiga licence to the Commodore. Isn't that funny? We should have the Atari Amiga not Atari ST... :lol:
Looking at all this I think ST was really good design in sense of a personal computer. But Atari wasted it in very worst way. It needed only faster CPU and 256 color (like in a VGA) mode and it'd prosper. Nothing special really but Atari instead prefered to go into an ambitious Falcon project what was a basically a waste. Who would like to have its audio capabilities and built in DSP to play some VGA quality games anyway?
So it failed.
A1200 was much better market wise thought it was a dead end also.
Some are saying that Commodore screwed a big time. They are wrong - Atari made it at much higher scale:
- succesful ST line what wasn't improved properly
- TT line as same as in previous point
- DTP market and laser printers where Atari was the lider at the time - Calamus, vector fonts - they crapped it as they could!
- multiple console attempts - except 2600 all were ill fated
(even superior Lynx and better that Nintendo at the same time 7800)
- the Jaguar - nuff said
- audio/midi market - ST was at the time a lider - again Atari shitted it badly
- a failed transputer attempts
So Commodore's sins were bad. But Atari's... heh - there is still an Atari brand anyway to make thing funnier.
GP2X seems to have a nice clean open future so far
... And yes,sadly,it seems that Amiga was abandoned to it's luck... Even so, I'll keep my one alive lol B) .
