Worst Amiga?
- Thread starter mjnurney
- Start date
- Replies 195
- Views 2427
ChrisUnionNJ
We Will Never Forget..
I just can't pick one there all great!!!
---------- Post added at 01:47 ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 ----------
This was my first Amiga and at first it was very limited till I put 2meg internal I think it was made by spirit technologies,then a kickstart eliminator,and a clt mini megs I think it was 4meg I waited all day at a
Amiga show in NY I got real cheap prices no one wants to bring stuff back to the shop at the end of the show..
---------- Post added at 01:50 ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 ----------
Sorry I did that already but it is true!!
---------- Post added at 02:07 ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 ----------
Well you really can't include the 1000 since it was the very first Amiga
with out it there would have been no Amiga's!!
---------- Post added at 01:47 ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 ----------
This was my first Amiga and at first it was very limited till I put 2meg internal I think it was made by spirit technologies,then a kickstart eliminator,and a clt mini megs I think it was 4meg I waited all day at a
Amiga show in NY I got real cheap prices no one wants to bring stuff back to the shop at the end of the show..
---------- Post added at 01:50 ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 ----------
Sorry I did that already but it is true!!
---------- Post added at 02:07 ---------- Previous post was at 01:50 ----------
Well you really can't include the 1000 since it was the very first Amiga
with out it there would have been no Amiga's!!
Worst computer? The 2000, hands down. Hugely, hugely, hugely expensive for what you got above and beyond the 500: a simple 'buster' chip, a beefier PSU, and some slots. Plus no compatible slot with the 1000 or 500 slot...
Yes, I had one. Yes, I traded my 500 and a load of accessories for it. Yes, it was a waste of money for what I gained!
The 500+ I actually quite like: it took the chip ram features of the 3000 and refreshed them into the 500. The 600 similarly isn't bad, apart from the lack of numeric keys but that was a decision CBM made that wasn't that heinous. Perhaps they were too little too late, but when the mass market and competition was not moving (ST) then someone thought it was enough. Of course, the competition really was becoming the PC by that point...
Like Paul_S, I have a soft spot for OCS and particularly for the 1000: it's simply a groundbreaking machine that started all of this and really did 'think different'! AndyLandy will now find a '1000 hater surcharge' applied if he ever buys anything from me
Yes, I had one. Yes, I traded my 500 and a load of accessories for it. Yes, it was a waste of money for what I gained!
The 500+ I actually quite like: it took the chip ram features of the 3000 and refreshed them into the 500. The 600 similarly isn't bad, apart from the lack of numeric keys but that was a decision CBM made that wasn't that heinous. Perhaps they were too little too late, but when the mass market and competition was not moving (ST) then someone thought it was enough. Of course, the competition really was becoming the PC by that point...
Like Paul_S, I have a soft spot for OCS and particularly for the 1000: it's simply a groundbreaking machine that started all of this and really did 'think different'! AndyLandy will now find a '1000 hater surcharge' applied if he ever buys anything from me
The A600 had the same problem too! (people seem to forget this when they bash the A500+).
I guess the later A2000 had a similar fate as that had the full ECS chipset embedded. The same can be said for the AGA Amiga's! It's not the hardware's fault though... I seem to remember at the time that software houses were going to release fixes to sort these problems out? I don't know if this ever happened or was it just too expensive to do? /need to dig out Amiga Format issue when the 500+ was released!
:Troll:
OK, there's no real A1000 hate here, but the temptation for trollery was too great.
I love the A1000 for what it is, it's an iconic piece of Amiga history and it's beautifully designed. It's not nearly as powerful as my 32bit miggies, but it's still powerful enough and was streets ahead when it came out in 1985. If I owned one, it'd sit there doing Boing Ball and Robo City all day.
Just from a historical perspective, I would actually love to own an A1000, it's just that I don't have anywhere to put one. One day though...
. o O (Hmm, it has the same edge connector as the A500, plug in the right adapter and hang a DKB Wildfire off the end of it... :drool
OK, there's no real A1000 hate here, but the temptation for trollery was too great.
I love the A1000 for what it is, it's an iconic piece of Amiga history and it's beautifully designed. It's not nearly as powerful as my 32bit miggies, but it's still powerful enough and was streets ahead when it came out in 1985. If I owned one, it'd sit there doing Boing Ball and Robo City all day.
Just from a historical perspective, I would actually love to own an A1000, it's just that I don't have anywhere to put one. One day though...
. o O (Hmm, it has the same edge connector as the A500, plug in the right adapter and hang a DKB Wildfire off the end of it... :drool
You're just not trying hard enough with your 1000s, Andy... I've got 3, two of which are full 030 machines with 32 bit fast RAM...
The poll suggests worst amiga at time of release to me. Hell, the 4000 gives the 2000 a close run for its money on the disappointment stakes: a step backwards from the professional approach of the 3000!
The poll suggests worst amiga at time of release to me. Hell, the 4000 gives the 2000 a close run for its money on the disappointment stakes: a step backwards from the professional approach of the 3000!
You make a very good point about the A4000. The only thing is has over the A3000 is AGA. I really do love the A3000, it's a beautiful machine.
In my eyes the 500+ should have never been made they should have done the A600 to update the kickstarts and a new look then the a1200 should have come out although the a1200 should have been a much higher spec kind of like a high grade amiga.
I still can`t vote
this fence is starting to hurt I demand more options or at least a loud ribbit or 2
this fence is starting to hurt I demand more options or at least a loud ribbit or 2
I still maintain, the worst Amiga model is a broken one
But what about people who wanted a full ECS machine WITH a numeric keypad without forking out for an A2000 or A3000? I personally think the A500+ is often overlooked and deserves a bit more respect and attention :smile:
The A600 is 'cute' but thats about it really. It's ok for gamers with little space to spare, but i'd pick an A500+ over the A600 anyday
I used to think the same about the a600 until the a630 came out. Now I have a lovely, reasonably portable little machine that due to its "all in one" nature gets more use than my a500+ and a3000 put together.
It even goes on holiday with me.
It even goes on holiday with me
.
But what about people who wanted a full ECS machine WITH a numeric keypad without forking out for an A2000 or A3000? I personally think the A500+ is often overlooked and deserves a bit more respect and attention :smile:
The A600 is 'cute' but thats about it really. It's ok for gamers with little space to spare, but i'd pick an A500+ over the A600 anyday
don't worry, I reckon when Jens or whoever brings out the ACA-520 that will change things considerably.. Add on an integrated IDE controller to sweeten the deal!
I reckon folk should start buying 500+ now as they will go up in price 
The Amiga 1200 is my favourite Amiga, but I also think it was the worst Amiga upon release. It's main problem was that the specification did not meet what was required to compete in the market it was launched into in late 1992. The A600 queered the pitch somewhat. I like the A600 as a machine, but it fuzzed where the low range Amiga lied. In theory, having gone for the A600, the A1200 should have been a firm mid range machine, and probably in a desktop box format. However, Commodore decided that the A4000 would occupy the upper mid and top of the range with the 030 and 040 options, and other variants. The result of the A600 was a range of marketing which did nothing but dilute the Amiga brand, as it essentially presented something which was old as something new. When the A1200 did arrive it was met by a public that had two "new" machines presented to them in the A500+ and the A600 which were actually not really that new at all.
Having been labelled the mid-range machine by default, the A1200 should have been significantly better specced to take advantage of what the core hardware offered. I would put it down to these issues:
1, The price to performance cost of using a 030 was obvious. It should have been a socketed CPU. It should have been possible to upgrade by dropping in a new chip and a crystal. Commdore would have never done this as they were more worried about selling overpriced big box machines rather than securing the market with those that did not require the zorro slot options.
2, Two megs of memory was probably not enough, and even if they had stuck with it, they should have made at least half a meg of it fast ram to allow the CPU to run at its full potential. 4 megs would have made more sense and offered a good standardized platform which would have been attractive to coders and the public alike. The fact there was no ram sockets on the machine compounded this limitation.
3, The hard disk should have been a standard requirement. And I would also say that with a hard disk as standard, kickstart on ROM should have been dropped and an easy upgrade path created by allowing kickstart to be kicked from hard disk.
4, The AGA chipset probably did not quite cut it for late 1992. There was no real innovation, it was just increasing numbers on some of the specs. The AAA spec sounded much more appealing. The Amiga also needed support for cheap VGA monitors in all screen modes out of the box.
5, Not upgrading the Paula was a critical and completely crazy flaw. Not having 16 bit capabilities out of he box was utter madness, but Paula was incredible out of date by this time. This one act lost the opportunity to grab the music market from Atari, and let the PC in.
6, There was no 'standard platform'. Although PCs were made up of various different brands of components, they had one standard platform in MPC1 and MPC2 that set the benchmark for what useful machine should have. This gave coders something reasonable to work with. Amiga coders had to work to the assumption that the bulk of their customers would have unexpanded A1200s, which greatly limited what they could do with the machine. So much potential went to waste because of this. Very few games took advantage of expansions because of this, and the nature of Amiga applications and games became limited as a result. When PCs and consoles moved towards 3d shooters and simulations, the Amiga had the potential to keep up, but the expanded Amiga market was too small to make it worth while. The Amiga 1200 became anchored by the lowest common denominator spec.
I have other reasons, which I may elaborate on latter, but this is why I think the Amiga 1200 was the poor Amiga released when it came out.
Having been labelled the mid-range machine by default, the A1200 should have been significantly better specced to take advantage of what the core hardware offered. I would put it down to these issues:
1, The price to performance cost of using a 030 was obvious. It should have been a socketed CPU. It should have been possible to upgrade by dropping in a new chip and a crystal. Commdore would have never done this as they were more worried about selling overpriced big box machines rather than securing the market with those that did not require the zorro slot options.
2, Two megs of memory was probably not enough, and even if they had stuck with it, they should have made at least half a meg of it fast ram to allow the CPU to run at its full potential. 4 megs would have made more sense and offered a good standardized platform which would have been attractive to coders and the public alike. The fact there was no ram sockets on the machine compounded this limitation.
3, The hard disk should have been a standard requirement. And I would also say that with a hard disk as standard, kickstart on ROM should have been dropped and an easy upgrade path created by allowing kickstart to be kicked from hard disk.
4, The AGA chipset probably did not quite cut it for late 1992. There was no real innovation, it was just increasing numbers on some of the specs. The AAA spec sounded much more appealing. The Amiga also needed support for cheap VGA monitors in all screen modes out of the box.
5, Not upgrading the Paula was a critical and completely crazy flaw. Not having 16 bit capabilities out of he box was utter madness, but Paula was incredible out of date by this time. This one act lost the opportunity to grab the music market from Atari, and let the PC in.
6, There was no 'standard platform'. Although PCs were made up of various different brands of components, they had one standard platform in MPC1 and MPC2 that set the benchmark for what useful machine should have. This gave coders something reasonable to work with. Amiga coders had to work to the assumption that the bulk of their customers would have unexpanded A1200s, which greatly limited what they could do with the machine. So much potential went to waste because of this. Very few games took advantage of expansions because of this, and the nature of Amiga applications and games became limited as a result. When PCs and consoles moved towards 3d shooters and simulations, the Amiga had the potential to keep up, but the expanded Amiga market was too small to make it worth while. The Amiga 1200 became anchored by the lowest common denominator spec.
I have other reasons, which I may elaborate on latter, but this is why I think the Amiga 1200 was the poor Amiga released when it came out.
Looking back I would say the 600 & 1200 were huge disappointments, I had 1 Meg 500 at the time and the 600 offered (to me) nothing.
My pal bought the new 1200 from dixons , it was packaged as a hd model but had no hard drive - donut was sold cheap and I think dixons didn't want anything to do with the amiga anyway. No one knew how to work it.
Anyway he bought it and played Epic and frontier on it - the graphics were slow , jerky and I was not impressed one bit.
By this time th pc was playing doom and star wars rebel assault from cd. The 1200 didn't have cd then ..
So I bought a pc and did use an Amiga again untill 2010..
My pal bought the new 1200 from dixons , it was packaged as a hd model but had no hard drive - donut was sold cheap and I think dixons didn't want anything to do with the amiga anyway. No one knew how to work it.
Anyway he bought it and played Epic and frontier on it - the graphics were slow , jerky and I was not impressed one bit.
By this time th pc was playing doom and star wars rebel assault from cd. The 1200 didn't have cd then ..
So I bought a pc and did use an Amiga again untill 2010..
yep worst amiga is a dead one that needs adding or I can`t vote
the A1200 may have been floored heheheheh but it did`t stop me buying one after all what else was there
the A1200 may have been floored heheheheh but it did`t stop me buying one after all what else was there
Thats the sad thing ... That's all there was from commodore on the high street then.
My friend had been to California the year before ..92 or 93 and he visited the malls and some computer shops ... He never saw an amiga the whole time he was there, only pc and windows 3 stuff
My friend had been to California the year before ..92 or 93 and he visited the malls and some computer shops ... He never saw an amiga the whole time he was there, only pc and windows 3 stuff
And now we hit the real reason why C= failed so abysmally. Their marketing was utter crap! They were getting a bit better when it came to the CD32, but they were just too late.
It did happen to me when I was in USA for a trip in 1994. Amigas and Commodore nowhere (though after bankruptcy).
