9 ms·

I always thought even though the Mac was black & white the screen resolution was much nicer than the Amiga.

badc0ffee 1y ago
Unlike the Amiga, it's high resolution, has square pixels, and is never interlaced.
leptons 1y ago
The original Macintosh had a resolution of 512 x 342 pixels. The Amiga 1000 had several resolutions up to 640 x 400 @ 16 colors, and could utilize 4096 colors in lower resolutions. The reality distortion field seems to still be working, I guess. The Amiga was better in every way practical way.
- detourdog 1y ago
  I think you are missing the point. I was an actual user of both and preferred the macintosh. The Amiga graphics were color but underwhelming in resolution.
  - leptons 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - icedchai 1y ago
      The Mac’s screen was flicker free. Almost nobody used any Amiga any higher than 640x200 (640x256 PAL) unless they had special hardware (“flicker fixer”.) That being said I preferred the Amiga.
      - leptons 1y ago
        A "flicker fixer" cost $100. A macintosh with 2-bit lower resolution graphics cost $1000 more than the Amiga. The Amiga was a bargain. And I don't remember interlace modes being that bad, honestly.
        icedchai 1y ago
        Early Macs weren't even 2-bits, they were 1-bit: black or white! The Amiga was a bargain in comparison, but it was not without its flaws, like all early machines. I had an A500 with a 1084 monitor, and the flicker at high res was bothersome to me. I later upgraded to an A3000 w/VGA monitor, and it was a vast improvement. I ran at 640x400 for everything at that point. I think you are underestimating the price of "flicker fixers" at the time. I looked up the price of a Microway flicker fixer in an old Amiga World from 1988: Over $500. You also had to add an a VGA monitor: another $400.
        leptons 1y ago
        >I think you are underestimating the price of "flicker fixers" at the time. I looked up the price of a Microway flicker fixer in an old Amiga World from 1988: Over $500. You also had to add an a VGA monitor: another $400. Still way, way better than a 2-color mac at about the same price. And it wasn't even necessary, the Amiga 1000 was amazing without it.
    - ghusbands 1y ago
      Stereo 14-bit sound didn't really happen until the 1990s and needs quite a lot of CPU time and careful hacking, as Amiga sound chips are 8-bit, 4-channel. 4096 colors via weird hold-and-modify modes was never useful outside of demos and vanishingly few games. Nobody used 640x400 because interlacing was far too flickery, and such resolutions certainly didn't support 4096 colors. The Amiga was ahead of its time in many ways, and the pre-emptive multitasking was fantastic, but claiming it was some paragon doesn't help anyone. If you wanted a fun home machine attached to a TV, it was great. Even a fun home machine attached to a monitor. If you wanted a business machine with a monitor, it wasn't the safest or best choice, if only due to a lack of software.
      - leptons 1y ago
        The Amiga 1000 can do 14 bit stereo sound. What did the Mac have? Oh, single-channel 8-bit. It doesn't matter if it took all the CPU to do it, the mac simply was not capable of coming anywhere close to Amiga in terms of graphics or sound. The standard Amiga sound capabilities were 4-channel stereo 12-bit, which was still light years ahead of Apple.
        ghusbands 1y ago
        Try to notice how you're avoiding answering the points I raised and jumping at any chance to defend the Amiga (it was only 4-channel 8-bit built in and nobody achieved 14-bit sound before 1991). The Amiga vs X wars were decades ago at this point - you could just let it go.
        leptons 1y ago
        >4096 colors via weird hold-and-modify modes was never useful outside of demos and vanishingly few games. 16 colors is still way better for games than 2 color black-and-white. The fact that the Amiga could achieve 4096 colors in a world where 16 colors was the norm, was astonishing. The resolution did not matter. The capabilities mattered, and the Amiga was far more capable in every way than the Mac. The mac had 1-channel 8-bit sound, the Amiga had 4-channel stereo 8-bit sound, and was capable of 14-bit sound. So go nitpick some more if you want to, I don't care, but I won't be responding to you anymore.
  - Zardoz84 1y ago
    Mac : 512x342 Amiga : 640x400 In what universe 512x342 was better that 640x400 ?
    - Findecanor 1y ago
      640×400 was an interlaced mode. Every other scanline was shown every other frame. This was a NTSC TV signal, remember? There was an add-on called a "Flicker Fixer" that cached the video signal and emitted VGA-signals at twice the pixel clock and horizontal refresh rate. The Amiga 3000 had one built in. The ECS and AGA chipsets supported "Productivity mode" that emitted VGA signals but ECS supported only four colours in this mode. All games used the TV modes. "Multisync" monitors that could switch between VGA and television refresh rates were expensive, so few people had them.
      - leptons 1y ago
        A "flicker fixer" cost $100. The macintosh cost $1000 more than the Amiga. The math is rather simple here.
        icedchai 1y ago
        As I mentioned in a previous post, it cost a LOT more than $100. $500 for a Microway flicker fixer + another $400 for the monitor. They may cost $100 "today", but at the time, it was very expensive. Also remember the Amiga was competing with the Mac II line for most of its life. Yes, it was much more expensive... but we are comparing specs, and you could get Mac II displays that supported 256 colors out of 16 million (24-bit.) The Amiga didn't have 24-bit color until 1992.
        leptons 1y ago
        >As I mentioned in a previous post, it cost a LOT more than $100. Nope, at the time the flicker fixer was about $100. The monitor didn't cost that much either. I had both, I was not rich, I was a kid who saved up some money. >Also remember the Amiga was competing with the Mac II line for most of its life. We're talking about the original Macintosh computer released in Jan 1984, and the original Amiga 1000 released in July 1985. Don't move the goalposts. The Mac II was not released until 1987, and it had a 68020 CPU. The system you should be comparing it to is the Amiga 2000 with 68020 card. The Mac II was released at a ridiculous price of $3700. It really makes the Amiga look like a bargain - the price for an Amiga 2000 with 68020 was $1495, you could easily buy two of them for the price of one Mac II. >The Amiga didn't have 24-bit color until 1992. I don't care? The topic was the original Mac vs the original Amiga 1000. Not wherever you want to take this conversation.
- AndrewStephens 1y ago
  The differences between the Amiga and Mac are a fascinating study in priorities. The Amiga was orientated around home use so its graphics hardware was designed to be attached to a TV. That design goal affected the entire system, to the point that the system clock changes frequency depending on whether the machine is outputting PAL or NTSC. Technically the Amiga could display a rock solid hires picture but only on a special monitor that I personally never saw. The priority on the Mac was to have a high quality monitor for black and white graphics. They put a lot of effort into drawing libraries to make the most of in-built display. The result was that the Amiga was perfectly fine for playing games or light word processing but if you actually needed to stare at a word processor or spreadsheet for 8 hours a day you really wanted a Mac.
  - leptons 1y ago
    Nope. The Amiga did just fine 8 hours a day, even 16 hours a day, coding and word processing and everything else. Interlace wasn't a huge issue, and the price difference between Macintosh and Amiga made it easy to justify. A simple "flicker fixer" could be added for far less than the difference in price between an Amiga and a Mac. The Mac cost $1000 more than an Amiga, which is a lot to pay to get a far less capable platform. A "flicker fixer" went for $100. Apple in the 90's was cirlcing the drain, nobody wanted an overpriced black-and-white computer except die-hard apple fans, and Apple only exists today because Microsoft bailed them out. Too bad Microsoft didn't invest in Amiga instead.
    - orionblastar 1y ago
      Not to mention, with emulators like A-Maxx, the Amiga could run Mac software: https://amiga.resource.cx/exp/amax https://amiga.resource.cx/exp/amax There were even C64, Apple II, IBM PC-DOS, and Atari ST emulators for the Amiga.
      - krige 1y ago
        As the saying went, the best Mac you could get was an Amiga with Shapeshifter running.
- icedchai 1y ago
  Are you forgetting about interlace? You won’t want to use 640x400 for very long due to the low refresh rate.
  - leptons 1y ago
    The top resolution was 640 x 400, not lower than the Mac, which had one single 2-color resolution. Interlace didn't bother me, but a "flicker fixer" was only $100. The Amiga had a ton of cheap and easy mods depending on what your interests were.
  - orionblastar 1y ago
    $20 Polarized Sunglasses fixed it for me. :)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

Unlike the Amiga, it's high resolution, has square pixels, and is never interlaced.

The original Macintosh had a resolution of 512 x 342 pixels. The Amiga 1000 had several resolutions up to 640 x 400 @ 16 colors, and could utilize 4096 colors in lower resolutions. The reality distortion field seems to still be working, I guess. The Amiga was better in every way practical way.

detourdog 1y ago
I think you are missing the point. I was an actual user of both and preferred the macintosh. The Amiga graphics were color but underwhelming in resolution.
- leptons 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - icedchai 1y ago
    The Mac’s screen was flicker free. Almost nobody used any Amiga any higher than 640x200 (640x256 PAL) unless they had special hardware (“flicker fixer”.) That being said I preferred the Amiga.
    - leptons 1y ago
      A "flicker fixer" cost $100. A macintosh with 2-bit lower resolution graphics cost $1000 more than the Amiga. The Amiga was a bargain. And I don't remember interlace modes being that bad, honestly.
      - icedchai 1y ago
        Early Macs weren't even 2-bits, they were 1-bit: black or white! The Amiga was a bargain in comparison, but it was not without its flaws, like all early machines. I had an A500 with a 1084 monitor, and the flicker at high res was bothersome to me. I later upgraded to an A3000 w/VGA monitor, and it was a vast improvement. I ran at 640x400 for everything at that point. I think you are underestimating the price of "flicker fixers" at the time. I looked up the price of a Microway flicker fixer in an old Amiga World from 1988: Over $500. You also had to add an a VGA monitor: another $400.
        leptons 1y ago
        >I think you are underestimating the price of "flicker fixers" at the time. I looked up the price of a Microway flicker fixer in an old Amiga World from 1988: Over $500. You also had to add an a VGA monitor: another $400. Still way, way better than a 2-color mac at about the same price. And it wasn't even necessary, the Amiga 1000 was amazing without it.
  - ghusbands 1y ago
    Stereo 14-bit sound didn't really happen until the 1990s and needs quite a lot of CPU time and careful hacking, as Amiga sound chips are 8-bit, 4-channel. 4096 colors via weird hold-and-modify modes was never useful outside of demos and vanishingly few games. Nobody used 640x400 because interlacing was far too flickery, and such resolutions certainly didn't support 4096 colors. The Amiga was ahead of its time in many ways, and the pre-emptive multitasking was fantastic, but claiming it was some paragon doesn't help anyone. If you wanted a fun home machine attached to a TV, it was great. Even a fun home machine attached to a monitor. If you wanted a business machine with a monitor, it wasn't the safest or best choice, if only due to a lack of software.
    - leptons 1y ago
      The Amiga 1000 can do 14 bit stereo sound. What did the Mac have? Oh, single-channel 8-bit. It doesn't matter if it took all the CPU to do it, the mac simply was not capable of coming anywhere close to Amiga in terms of graphics or sound. The standard Amiga sound capabilities were 4-channel stereo 12-bit, which was still light years ahead of Apple.
      - ghusbands 1y ago
        Try to notice how you're avoiding answering the points I raised and jumping at any chance to defend the Amiga (it was only 4-channel 8-bit built in and nobody achieved 14-bit sound before 1991). The Amiga vs X wars were decades ago at this point - you could just let it go.
        leptons 1y ago
        >4096 colors via weird hold-and-modify modes was never useful outside of demos and vanishingly few games. 16 colors is still way better for games than 2 color black-and-white. The fact that the Amiga could achieve 4096 colors in a world where 16 colors was the norm, was astonishing. The resolution did not matter. The capabilities mattered, and the Amiga was far more capable in every way than the Mac. The mac had 1-channel 8-bit sound, the Amiga had 4-channel stereo 8-bit sound, and was capable of 14-bit sound. So go nitpick some more if you want to, I don't care, but I won't be responding to you anymore.
- Zardoz84 1y ago
  Mac : 512x342 Amiga : 640x400 In what universe 512x342 was better that 640x400 ?
  - Findecanor 1y ago
    640×400 was an interlaced mode. Every other scanline was shown every other frame. This was a NTSC TV signal, remember? There was an add-on called a "Flicker Fixer" that cached the video signal and emitted VGA-signals at twice the pixel clock and horizontal refresh rate. The Amiga 3000 had one built in. The ECS and AGA chipsets supported "Productivity mode" that emitted VGA signals but ECS supported only four colours in this mode. All games used the TV modes. "Multisync" monitors that could switch between VGA and television refresh rates were expensive, so few people had them.
    - leptons 1y ago
      A "flicker fixer" cost $100. The macintosh cost $1000 more than the Amiga. The math is rather simple here.
      - icedchai 1y ago
        As I mentioned in a previous post, it cost a LOT more than $100. $500 for a Microway flicker fixer + another $400 for the monitor. They may cost $100 "today", but at the time, it was very expensive. Also remember the Amiga was competing with the Mac II line for most of its life. Yes, it was much more expensive... but we are comparing specs, and you could get Mac II displays that supported 256 colors out of 16 million (24-bit.) The Amiga didn't have 24-bit color until 1992.
        leptons 1y ago
        >As I mentioned in a previous post, it cost a LOT more than $100. Nope, at the time the flicker fixer was about $100. The monitor didn't cost that much either. I had both, I was not rich, I was a kid who saved up some money. >Also remember the Amiga was competing with the Mac II line for most of its life. We're talking about the original Macintosh computer released in Jan 1984, and the original Amiga 1000 released in July 1985. Don't move the goalposts. The Mac II was not released until 1987, and it had a 68020 CPU. The system you should be comparing it to is the Amiga 2000 with 68020 card. The Mac II was released at a ridiculous price of $3700. It really makes the Amiga look like a bargain - the price for an Amiga 2000 with 68020 was $1495, you could easily buy two of them for the price of one Mac II. >The Amiga didn't have 24-bit color until 1992. I don't care? The topic was the original Mac vs the original Amiga 1000. Not wherever you want to take this conversation.
AndrewStephens 1y ago
The differences between the Amiga and Mac are a fascinating study in priorities. The Amiga was orientated around home use so its graphics hardware was designed to be attached to a TV. That design goal affected the entire system, to the point that the system clock changes frequency depending on whether the machine is outputting PAL or NTSC. Technically the Amiga could display a rock solid hires picture but only on a special monitor that I personally never saw. The priority on the Mac was to have a high quality monitor for black and white graphics. They put a lot of effort into drawing libraries to make the most of in-built display. The result was that the Amiga was perfectly fine for playing games or light word processing but if you actually needed to stare at a word processor or spreadsheet for 8 hours a day you really wanted a Mac.
- leptons 1y ago
  Nope. The Amiga did just fine 8 hours a day, even 16 hours a day, coding and word processing and everything else. Interlace wasn't a huge issue, and the price difference between Macintosh and Amiga made it easy to justify. A simple "flicker fixer" could be added for far less than the difference in price between an Amiga and a Mac. The Mac cost $1000 more than an Amiga, which is a lot to pay to get a far less capable platform. A "flicker fixer" went for $100. Apple in the 90's was cirlcing the drain, nobody wanted an overpriced black-and-white computer except die-hard apple fans, and Apple only exists today because Microsoft bailed them out. Too bad Microsoft didn't invest in Amiga instead.
  - orionblastar 1y ago
    Not to mention, with emulators like A-Maxx, the Amiga could run Mac software: https://amiga.resource.cx/exp/amax https://amiga.resource.cx/exp/amax There were even C64, Apple II, IBM PC-DOS, and Atari ST emulators for the Amiga.
    - krige 1y ago
      As the saying went, the best Mac you could get was an Amiga with Shapeshifter running.
icedchai 1y ago
Are you forgetting about interlace? You won’t want to use 640x400 for very long due to the low refresh rate.
- leptons 1y ago
  The top resolution was 640 x 400, not lower than the Mac, which had one single 2-color resolution. Interlace didn't bother me, but a "flicker fixer" was only $100. The Amiga had a ton of cheap and easy mods depending on what your interests were.
- orionblastar 1y ago
  $20 Polarized Sunglasses fixed it for me. :)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]