4 ms·

> I'm East German; you people got a headstart That doesn’t mean PCs were somehow more capable in the 80s though ;) > Windows was as relevant to me as an Amiga

> I'm East German; you people got a headstart That doesn’t mean PCs were somehow more capable in the 80s though ;) > Windows was as relevant to me as an Amiga. Same point as above. > I never experienced serious troubles in DOS. I think that’s probably rose tinted glasses on your part then. The pain was real. Games seldom “just worked” and you often had to be really knowledgeable in your system to get stuff working. To this day, I’ve never heard the music in Transport Tycoon because that game refused to work with whatever midi drivers I threw at it. > > But by the mid-90s, we had a whole new set of problems with PCs: the OS silently corrupting itself. > News to me. How bizarre! I’d be amazed if you’ve never once heard about the old problem of computers getting slower or buggier over time and a reinstall fixing things. > Hardware? Until '87. You’re comparing theoretical top of the line PC hardware (which nobody actually owned and no one had written software for yet) with commodity Amigas and STs. And even those top of the line PCs still missed a few tricks that made some genres of games better on Amigas and Atari STs, like fast blitters. It wasn’t until the era of ray casting 2.5D 1st person shooter that PCs started looking better than their counterparts. And then things really accelerated (no pun intended) with 3D hardware graphics acceleration. Which, to be fair, was available for Amigas too, but the only software that targeted them were 3D rendering farms.

spankibalt 1y ago
> That doesn’t mean PCs were somehow more capable in the 80s though ;) It clarifies specifics relating to my personal experiences with the discussion matter, addressing (perceived) realities of a local market. How people use computers is of the utmost relevance; a fact which you, given your lamentations here, certainly must have internalized. > I think that’s probably rose tinted glasses on your part then. The pain was real. Games seldom “just worked” and you often had to be really knowledgeable in your system to get stuff working. No rose-tinted glasses here. And I believe you that your and others' pain was real. Many people could not work their heads around a PC; many of 'em fell for cheap SX clunkers with other substandard components, ffs. That's obviously an inherent problem of such an open platform: PCs are highly individual in many subtle ways; a trade-off one had, and still has, to negotiate in one fashion or another. > You’re comparing theoretical top of the line PC hardware (which nobody actually owned and no one had written software for yet) with commodity Amigas and STs. I'm comparing hardware available on the market (with key system components coming together in 1987/88, and games supporting such top-of-the-line hardware showing up in numbers from '88 onwards). I also spoke to economical realities in nearly every post in this disc; I am well aware that 16-bit home birds had a technical lead for a short while, and were an even better value proposition for many people a while longer. For some, just as valid, this still holds true. > And even those top of the line PCs still missed a few tricks that made some genres of games better on Amigas and Atari STs, like fast blitters. Yes, already addressed by referring to Prince of Persia 2 and Aladdin (1993/94!). > It wasn’t until the era of ray casting 2.5D 1st person shooter that PCs started looking better than their counterparts. So, your stylistic (genre) preference maps it into the time between 1991 (with Hovertank 3D in April as well as Catacomb 3-D in November) and Wolfenstein 3D (May 1992). Okay. With mine it begins earlier, largely because of proper 3D-titles: Deathtrack (1989, PC-exclusive), LHX: Attack Chopper (1990, no Amiga/Atari port), and Red Baron (1990, got the Amiga slideshow in 1992), as well as the odd non-3D action title here and there, e. g. Silpheed (1989, no Amiga/Atari port). One can probably go even back to 1988, for at least parity in certain markets and their segments, if one compares the technological edge in an intellectually honest fashion, i. e. what the platform, hardware and software, was really technically capable of. And productivity software, part of the deal, is of course its very own world.
- hnlmorg 1y ago
  I’m not talking about personal preference. I’m talking about the wider industry. As I said before, I had a PC back then. I used to write software for them. I know how the hardware and software compared with other systems out there at the same time. If you were in East Germany at the time, then you wouldn’t have had an accurate view of what was happening in the industry. You would have had your own brands of things because it wasn’t as easy (or even possible) to import western products. And by the time the wall fell and the borders had opened up, PCs had reached parity with their contemporaries. So of course Atari STs and Amigas weren’t common items and PCs seemed like better devices from your perspective. But surely you have to also understand that your experiences aren’t a typical snapshot of the computer industry in the 80s. In fact they’re about as atypical as it gets. You’d have been better off saying something like “things were a lot different in Soviet Germany” and we could have had a more interesting and productive insight into what life was like for yourself. Instead you’ve been talking about your own experiences like it was a fact of how those products compared to each other (which is where you’re wrong) rather than what devices made it to your borders (which you were correct on). You do understand how they’re different arguments?

spankibalt 1y ago

> That doesn’t mean PCs were somehow more capable in the 80s though ;) It clarifies specifics relating to my personal experiences with the discussion matter, addressing (perceived) realities of a local market. How people use computers is of the utmost relevance; a fact which you, given your lamentations here, certainly must have internalized. > I think that’s probably rose tinted glasses on your part then. The pain was real. Games seldom “just worked” and you often had to be really knowledgeable in your system to get stuff working. No rose-tinted glasses here. And I believe you that your and others' pain was real. Many people could not work their heads around a PC; many of 'em fell for cheap SX clunkers with other substandard components, ffs. That's obviously an inherent problem of such an open platform: PCs are highly individual in many subtle ways; a trade-off one had, and still has, to negotiate in one fashion or another. > You’re comparing theoretical top of the line PC hardware (which nobody actually owned and no one had written software for yet) with commodity Amigas and STs. I'm comparing hardware available on the market (with key system components coming together in 1987/88, and games supporting such top-of-the-line hardware showing up in numbers from '88 onwards). I also spoke to economical realities in nearly every post in this disc; I am well aware that 16-bit home birds had a technical lead for a short while, and were an even better value proposition for many people a while longer. For some, just as valid, this still holds true. > And even those top of the line PCs still missed a few tricks that made some genres of games better on Amigas and Atari STs, like fast blitters. Yes, already addressed by referring to Prince of Persia 2 and Aladdin (1993/94!). > It wasn’t until the era of ray casting 2.5D 1st person shooter that PCs started looking better than their counterparts. So, your stylistic (genre) preference maps it into the time between 1991 (with Hovertank 3D in April as well as Catacomb 3-D in November) and Wolfenstein 3D (May 1992). Okay. With mine it begins earlier, largely because of proper 3D-titles: Deathtrack (1989, PC-exclusive), LHX: Attack Chopper (1990, no Amiga/Atari port), and Red Baron (1990, got the Amiga slideshow in 1992), as well as the odd non-3D action title here and there, e. g. Silpheed (1989, no Amiga/Atari port). One can probably go even back to 1988, for at least parity in certain markets and their segments, if one compares the technological edge in an intellectually honest fashion, i. e. what the platform, hardware and software, was really technically capable of. And productivity software, part of the deal, is of course its very own world.

hnlmorg 1y ago
I’m not talking about personal preference. I’m talking about the wider industry. As I said before, I had a PC back then. I used to write software for them. I know how the hardware and software compared with other systems out there at the same time. If you were in East Germany at the time, then you wouldn’t have had an accurate view of what was happening in the industry. You would have had your own brands of things because it wasn’t as easy (or even possible) to import western products. And by the time the wall fell and the borders had opened up, PCs had reached parity with their contemporaries. So of course Atari STs and Amigas weren’t common items and PCs seemed like better devices from your perspective. But surely you have to also understand that your experiences aren’t a typical snapshot of the computer industry in the 80s. In fact they’re about as atypical as it gets. You’d have been better off saying something like “things were a lot different in Soviet Germany” and we could have had a more interesting and productive insight into what life was like for yourself. Instead you’ve been talking about your own experiences like it was a fact of how those products compared to each other (which is where you’re wrong) rather than what devices made it to your borders (which you were correct on). You do understand how they’re different arguments?