4 ms·

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.

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.