Commercially successful Jaguar

[+rdemming]

Following up with that though, if Atari had went with an upgraded 68040 with GPU Chipset from the Jaguar in the 'next' Falcon, with potential support for 32 or 64MB of RAM, they could have really not only positioned themselves to offer a dedicated gaming computer that would have been unlike anything available during the time for the PC market but would've also allowed easier transition of software between both their Falcon line and Jaguar console.

 

The Jaguar and Falcon graphic/sound hardware are very different. To make a computer with a Jaguar chipset and still be Falcon compatible would be essentially putting the graphics/sound chips from both in one machine creating an expensive Frankenstein.

 

A computer created only out of the Jaguar chipset would be more realistic hardware wise but who would buy a computer at that time that has no backwards compatibility with one of the already established systems (ST, Amiga, PC)?

 

Robert

[Lost Dragon]

I was given a GB, along with GB Printer etc, by a mate who knew i was then very much into my Retro.

Hated it purely because of the screen issues.Try as i might i just couldn't find a setting i found useable, so never really tried GB Alien 3, T2 etc until i had a GB Player for my Game Cube.

Also had an N-Gage for a while, but traded it, interesting device, only really got it for the WW2 game, but changing game cards was a real chore and so it ended up being neglected and thus traded in.

I did try using it as a phone for a while, much to the amusement of friends at work, lots of...WTF is that?.

[SoulBlazer]

phoenixdownita, on 31 Mar 2016 - 10:33 PM, said:

So in the Jag forum a theory that the Gameboy was successful because of cheap parents caring about not spending too much money in batteries thus dooming the Lynx is now put forth ..... brilliant.

 

Don't mind him, he's well known for his hatred of some of the best gaming devices ever made, like the GameBoy, Commodore 64, and Xbox line.

[ggn]

 

The Jaguar and Falcon graphic/sound hardware are very different. To make a computer with a Jaguar chipset and still be Falcon compatible would be essentially putting the graphics/sound chips from both in one machine creating an expensive Frankenstein.

 

A computer created only out of the Jaguar chipset would be more realistic hardware wise but who would buy a computer at that time that has no backwards compatibility with one of the already established systems (ST, Amiga, PC)?

 

Robert

 

The VDI code in TOS source code actually has some mentions of the Object Processor, so don't dismiss this that quickly

[+rdemming]

 

The VDI code in TOS source code actually has some mentions of the Object Processor, so don't dismiss this that quickly

 

Nice find. I didn't knew the TOS source code was actually floating around. Found it on Atari Document Archive.

 

At VDI level you could indeed make it compatible just as how VGA like cards could be added to the VME bus such as the NOVA graphics cards. But that only works for software that uses VDI to display graphics while 99.99% of the Atari ST games drive the graphics hardware directly. But it is great way to run Calamus DTP on the object processor

 

I suppose you could add the Jaguar chipset to a Falcon computer in the form as an add-on board with its own RAM and write software that uses the Jaguar chips on the add-on board. But then you still have two systems in a box which would still be an expensive Frankenstein .

[Clint Thompson]

I'll take the expensive Falconstein, please!