Jump to content

Photo

Amiga 1200 vs Atari ST.


153 replies to this topic

#151 MrMaddog OFFLINE  

MrMaddog

    Dragonstomper

  • 755 posts
  • Not a 'gamer' but a video game player...
  • Location:Parts Unknown

Posted Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:27 AM

Going back to the original question... Are there any games where you prefer the ST version to the Amiga version? Which ones? Why?

(Op asked if he should get an ST for games if he already had an Amiga; decade old specs debates don't help; this may. :) )

 

I appologize for thinking this was yet another fanboi flame thread going by just the thread name and some of the posts here so I'm rectifing the situtation...

 

If OP already has an Amiga 1200 then there's a emulator called STonAmiga that'll play ST stuff on Amiga hardware.  It'll require an accelerator but with the Vampire you can also run FreeMiNT for running GEM applications in a modern multitasking OS.



#152 krisu13 OFFLINE  

krisu13

    Space Invader

  • 17 posts

Posted Fri May 25, 2018 12:01 PM

If you are looking for the best game computer it is Amiga 500 with Gotek & .512 mb ram expansion . IMO best value for the buck.


Edited by krisu13, Fri May 25, 2018 12:02 PM.


#153 Lynxpro OFFLINE  

Lynxpro

    River Patroller

  • 3,515 posts
  • Location:Sacramento, CA

Posted Sat Jun 16, 2018 10:55 AM

The IBM PC had a floating-point unit a full 4 years before the Amiga or ST or any 68000 based machine. In fact, the 8087 was the basis upon which the IEEE-754 standard was formed. Many future numeric processors would use that standard. Numeric Processors of today still use it even, just an updated version, naturally.

 

But why wasn't this standard was not developed on AtariST/Amiga in first place?

 

Why are you bringing up "math co-processors"? [FPUs]. Motorola made them as well, not just Intel. Ever heard of the 68881 and the 68882? Sure most STs and Amigas didn't have sockets standard for them but there were hardware upgrades available. The chips themselves cost a small fortune which is why the upgrades weren't popular and why Atari Corp and Commodore didn't really offer them standard in the stock lower-end models.

 

Some games may have offered some support for the FPUs. But as for gaming, FPUs on the PC side didn't get popular until the FPS genre took off, and then there was a demand for the 80387 and the later 80486DX as opposed to the SX version when Intel started incorporating FPU into the CPU. Motorola incorporated the 68882 design into the 68040.

 

Going back to 8-bits, I'm kinda surprised WDC didn't create a FPU for the 65xx series of CPUs. Maybe they did...



#154 Keatah OFFLINE  

Keatah

    Missile Commander

  • 21,035 posts

Posted Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:40 PM

I don't believe they did. But there were several numerical processors made by other manufacturers which were designed to be interfaced with any 8-bit bus. And have been. The AM9511/i8231 comes to mind because I have one for my Apple II.






0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users