Mr.Amiga500

I definitely prefer the accelerated video. Wow - with the accelerator, browsing seems pretty snappy. That's like the equivalent of an A1200 or A4000 with 060 and graphics card though. No, it's not a stock A500. Some of those screenshots would be impossible because some software requires an 020 minimum and it would be way too slow otherwise. The graphics are stock (no graphics card). All the screenshots can be done on a stock 16Mhz A3000, of course... which I also have. I listed my specs on a few pages in those links, but here it is again: Amiga 500 with Viper 520 accelerator (33Mhz 020, 8Mb Fast RAM, 3.0 ROMs) and 2Mb Chip. Pages with lots of images are pretty darned slow, but the pages I used to visit regularly (like BBC news) were pretty reasonable.

No I didn't. Every screenshot was from an Amiga 500. I think you followed the wrong link in my signature - not the "Command Centre" link (showing my hardware), the "see Amiga 500 screenshots here!" link. Check those out and tell me if ST can do that without graphics card.

Well, it's not really fair to compare the stock graphics of the Amiga 500 with a Falcon with graphics card. My question was if it was possible for the ST equivalent of the A500 could do what I have in my screenshots - without graphics card. I used Amiga 16 colour interlaced for all my browsing at home from 2002-2008. You say I shouldn't have been browsing with it? Oh well, too late now. Actually, it was a bit insane to do it, but I had fun browsing with my Amiga. It's only when most websites went CSS and started using monstrously huge RAM-sucking javascripts and flash (after 2006/7) that things started to be a major pain. I only rarely browse with Amiga now. (now I use BeOS) If you haven't found it yet, take a look here.

That's a definite improvement. There are some good screenshots there... but how are they getting such high resolutions and colour depth?

What kind of adapter - IDE to CF? I think any cheapo Chinese IDE to CF adapter will do. I've bought two different ones (about $2 each) and they both worked. I forgot to mention I also used my A500 on TV using this S-video adapter. I highly recommend it - only $30 and nice clear output, quality construction. You can also use it with other computers - just plug appropriate wires in the 8-plug socket.

Yes, I can see how a non-flickering black and white mode would be very good for word processing. That's why I found the classic B&W Macs easier on the eyes than the Amiga for "Office-type" stuff. Using the Amiga in high-res interlace has always been a fight against flicker, but I've found certain colour combinations cause much less flicker than others. Unlike most Amiga users, I always used Workbench in interlace - so I put lots of effort into making configurations that minimise flicker. I use NTSC though, which doesn't flicker nearly as much as PAL. PAL users must be getting enough flicker to cause their eyeballs to implode. If you have an A4000 or A1200 with IDE, I wouldn't get a hard drive at all. I'd get compact flash. Who needs a hard drive these days? I use compact flash and SD in my A500, but I was lucky enough to get an accelerator with IDE on it. If you have an A2000 with SCSI card or A3000, any 50-pin SCSI drive will do. What monitor? On the A500, I'm using a Commodore 1080. I like it better than the 1084 because unlike the 1084, it has non-glare coating (...and the nice Amiga logo). The maximum viewable (NTSC) is only 696x482 though. On the A3000, I use a VGA monitor - same config, but a little more space - NTSC 720x480. That's the best I can do without graphics card. I could get slightly more space with PAL, but PAL flickers too much - even on VGA monitor.

Well that would be silly. No, I was Mr.Amiga500 (mr_a500, for short) long before I got any other Amiga. I suppose I could now be called Mr.Amiga1000500200030004000 (...then concatenate all the other computers I own on the end), but I haven't gotten around to changing it. Thanks. It has grown since then, adding the awesome SDrive NUXX, USB 2.0 on the A3000, NEW Atari 800XL, NEW TAC-2 joystick, NEW TRS-80 Model 100 with SD reader, a two drive Mac SE, non-yellow Apple Extended keyboards, Amiga S-video adapter, various other bits. (... but now I'll get killed by the wife if I add any more.) Yes, I've seen those screenshots before. That's what I mean by "primitive looking" GUI.

Well, I won't lie... it does affect performance slightly, but I'm willing to accept a slight slowdown for nice imagery. On my A500, I mostly use 696x482 NTSC high-res interlaced - maximum I can get on an NTSC Commodore 1080/1084 (on my A3000 with VGA, I use NTSC 720x480). My palette and config have been specifically selected to minimize flicker. Notice how I never have white and black horizontal lines on top of each other (standard config which flickers badly!), but instead have shades of light grey and blues. I hear you can get non-flickering high-res B&W on an ST, but if it's B&W then how good can browsing be? I'd rather have a slightly flickering 16-colour high-res Amiga.

From my username, you can probably tell I'm a bit biased, but... can the ST OS be made to look better than my Amiga 500 screenshots? (signature link) I'm just wondering because every ST screenshot I've ever seen looks primitive and old. I'm not trying to troll - just wondering. (I would be happy to see amazing ST screenshots - using ST equivalent of A500, without graphics card) Yeah, "eye candy" is overrated and not really necessary, but the ability to do this shows the flexibility of the OS. (...and I like "eye candy" better than "eye poison" )

Oh good - I'm still cool. (...or is that blind?) I didn't know about that 7500 bonus you're giving out. I got over 4000, but didn't note the score because it was under my previous high. I better get back to ranging that zone.

That's odd. I first became interested in Retro Gamer when saw their Anthology - which had a nice big article with lots of Atari 8-bit photos in it. In fact, looking at the lovely 800XL photos in that magazine is what got me obsessed with getting back into Atari.

That thing is shocking! It looks like a bunch of circuit boards got very sick and started vomiting up cables. Now that's what I call retro computing.

Impressive. I was about to make a complex elaborate joke involving blinking LEDs, porn, binary errors and three-legged camel, but I decided just to let it go.

You got one of those things on the internet? (...but how could you tell if you had )

Yes, I know of pretzels and I've eaten Shreddies before... but I don't quite get the "touch the thing that bothers you" part. You mean, run into the enemy attacker? Won't you blow up when you do that? I've gone into the maze many times, collected the dots, but never "touched the thing that bothers me".

I'd love to see an 800 on the internet. Imagine a 1979 computer on the internet! What is the oldest home computer anybody ever got "on the internet" (not just connecting, but doing something "useful")? Is it 1982(83?) C64? Did anybody get an Apple II on the internet? I used a 1987 Amiga 500 as my main internet computer for 6 years. A 1985 Amiga 1000 can also "easily" get on the internet. I'm interested to see "how low we can go".

That's not much of a list, but I had a word with nobody and he added it to the vote, kinda spoiled the arcade classics theme, well sort of... there you go, see what I do for you, now you're gonna tell me you already voted for something else p.s. where's your 'best of basic' scores Thanks for having a word with nobody. I've talked to nobody quite a few times myself. He's a nice guy. (but doesn't say much) When I played those "best of BASIC" games, I took a screenshot of each one. When I went to list my best scores, I noticed that many of the screenshots didn't show the damn score. I said, "damn it!" (actually used harsher words), deleted the screenshots and just gave up any hope of competing. I just can't force myself to play those games again.

Could you explain that using more technical terminology? I don't know what a "pretzel/shreddie thingy" is or why you would want to touch him.

ARRRGH! I did suggest Montezuma's Revenge (16K fixed), but nobody listened.

Bah! I don't like any of those games.

I tried it with a TAC-2 and a Competition Pro. Maybe I just need to replace my hands. My theory (...I like to make theories to explain why I'm losing...) is that Deteacher is playing with an emulator, not a real Atari, and that gives him some advantage... an advantage I know nothing about... an advantage that will destroy all my hopes and dreams and allow DETEACHER TO WIN AND GO ON TO ONE DAY CONTROL THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE!!! (...somehow) Awww... I thought it meant I was cool. You ruined my illusions of coolness.

What's that dot below the 9... cut & paste error when you faked the score? Are you playing in PAL or something? I heard games are slower on PAL machines. Is that the secret of your success? I nearly killed myself getting 9309. I don't think I can do any better.

11,589 Level 8 - after a few goes going much quicker = more bonus Screenshots! Screenshots, people! It's not that I don't trust you... it's just that... well... I don't trust you.

i make a custom xxx.cfg file and keep it seperate from the LW folder and when I install a new beta I get my colors back by loading this xxx.cfg file. so many beta's... new key definitions... becomes a new learning curve, when fingers are programed to use previous key def's. icons are almost good... but slower than just selecting the proper keys for desired action. Yes, I always copy the config file over too - but because of the bug fix, the colours are different even though I'm using the exact same config file. I've fixed my config files now for the new change and everything's fine again. The icons are slower than key sequences, but it's easier for someone new to the program to use icons before they've memorized the key sequences.

Are you talking about taking a bite out of an animal, then letting it go on its merry way? I didn't consider that either. Actually, I don't eat mammals. I don't walk on mammals either... except an unfortunate accident when I stepped on a sheep. To be fair, though, he stepped on me far more often than I ever stepped on him. (thankfully, he never landed on a hamburger bun) You can quantify the pain and suffering via an equation. One method of doing it is: S(t,i) = INTEGRAL[0..t](P(i)), where P(i) is the intensity of pain depending on nervous system and or how aware the species is. [0..t] is the duration for which the function P(i) is applied. Then the integral of the continuous function P(i) would give you the total suffering of that species S(t,i). Taking the derivative of S(t,i) and setting it to zero and solving that equation allows you to calculate the minimal suffering. Logically, the lower species have less of a nervous system and feel less pain over any given duration. So, eating smaller species means less pain you are causing. So eating a chicken is better than eating a cow. And so on. Of course, eating vegetables would be best. ...and how does the game Beef Drop fit into all this? From my experience, I would calculate pain like this(simplified): P = s (M² / T) ...where P (pain) equals the mass of the sheep squared divided by the thickness of my shoes, multiplied by the sharpness of his hooves. (as he stands on my foot and reaches while he tries to get food off me) As you can see by my calculation, wearing no shoes and getting stepped on the toes by a heavy sheep with sharp hooves hurts like a bitch.