PCs were terrible gaming platforms before SVGA/SoundBlaster/CD-ROM became standard. Expensive too.

Were most old Ataris any better?

http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/strider/scr … meShotId,16309/
http://www.mobygames.com/game/atari-st/stride … eShotId,307188/

tikoellner wrote:

I've been wondering lately why do retro PC computers (by which I mean mostly XT - 486 class machines have generally lower recogn […]
Show full quote

I've been wondering lately why do retro PC computers (by which I mean mostly XT - 486 class machines have generally lower recogniton than Amiga, Atari, consoles, etc.

Example: Amibay lists PC offers as "other" while there are separate departnents for most other stuff.
Example 2: I'm already grew tired explaining why I keep an old 486 in my room or buy any parts for it. And that's the question I do always face. If it was Amiga there would be no such questions asked (well, probably).
Or am I exagerrating?
And what do YOU think?

Who do you have to explain this to? Certainly no one on Vogons. 🤣. I think the general population would think anything 20 years old, whether computer or gaming console, is a strange thing to hold on to. But more people had consoles than PCs back in the day, so Joe Shmoe off the street is more likely to have owned or played on an NES than a DOS PC.

Also, PCs are very generic.
It's not a specific brand or type, everything is interchangeable and upgradable.
I generally bought a new PC every 2-3 years, and upgraded parts in-between.
A C64, Amiga, NES or whatever is something you'd enjoy for many years at a time. So you get more attached to it, I suppose.

An Amiga is a relic of a bygone era, the likes of which have not been produced in many years.

An old PC is just an old PC, which changed incrementally year after year and is not immediately recognizable as all that different from anything you can buy today. Of course, as we all know, it is quite impractical to run anything that runs on a 486 on an i7 without the same sort of emulation you would use to run anything that runs on an Amiga – but it's a matter of perspective.

Scali wrote:

Also, PCs are very generic. It's not a specific brand or type, everything is interchangeable and upgradable. I generally bought […]
Show full quote

Also, PCs are very generic.
It's not a specific brand or type, everything is interchangeable and upgradable.
I generally bought a new PC every 2-3 years, and upgraded parts in-between.
A C64, Amiga, NES or whatever is something you'd enjoy for many years at a time. So you get more attached to it, I suppose.

Yeah, that's probably the common perspective. PC can really be boring and generic, and those non-generic aspects remain hidden inside the case, GUS being an example (for me at least).

I generally started this thread, as to me PC was the only system ever. Most of friends at school, then highschoold, were also PC users. There were some Atari gamers maybe, but these days (mid 90s) having an Atari was considered even shameful, as I recall it.

I was pretty ashamed myself sporting 486 in 1997.

I think that it because people have different interest but mainly because they are stupid and can't make these machines work. I only stay away from messing with XT is that I am always near broke and already got a lot of other hardware. 80s and very early 90s PCs are not easy machines just to keep running and one has to really go out of their way to get them running in a way that makes them really nice to play with.

PCs are only generic when you only find the most common and basic stuff that no one ever wanted when it was new, many of us still got piles of worthless isa and pci modems that we will never find a use for 😒

I had the same gripe with AMIBay. That being said non-PC platforms like Amiga in particulars are kinda like consoles. You get an Amiga you can pretty much run most Amiga software. Just like if you get an NES you can pretty much put in any cartridge from your region away you go. I think the whole scope of everything that is possible even on old PC's gives some people paralysis.

In fact I kinda compare Amiga fans to Apple fans. Many of them say they just want a product that just works.

The answer to this thread is because each successive generation of hardware is better than the previous and fully backwards compatible via virtual emulation or newer software.
Old PC is for nostalgic or study purposes only.

Why would anyone in their right mind build a 386-Pentium machine if dosbox can do it all and more on a modern i7 machine?
To re-live the experience of couse.

Rhuwyn wrote:

In fact I kinda compare Amiga fans to Apple fans. Many of them say they just want a product that just works.

I don't think Amiga people are anything like Apple fans.
The Amiga was just a very unique platform, with very unique features. You had great arcade-like games, and killer apps like DPaint and ProTracker. And of course there's the demoscene. It's great to code demos on the unique Amiga hardware. People are still doing that even today.
And it is about as extensible as a PC. In fact, you can even get PC bridgeboards to make your Amiga PC-compatible. There's memory expansions, CF-IDE readers, CPU upgrades, graphics boards etc.

Scali wrote:

I don't think Amiga people are anything like Apple fans. The Amiga was just a very unique platform, with very unique features. Y […]
Show full quote

Rhuwyn wrote:

In fact I kinda compare Amiga fans to Apple fans. Many of them say they just want a product that just works.

I don't think Amiga people are anything like Apple fans.
The Amiga was just a very unique platform, with very unique features. You had great arcade-like games, and killer apps like DPaint and ProTracker. And of course there's the demoscene. It's great to code demos on the unique Amiga hardware. People are still doing that even today.
And it is about as extensible as a PC. In fact, you can even get PC bridgeboards to make your Amiga PC-compatible. There's memory expansions, CF-IDE readers, CPU upgrades, graphics boards etc.

Apple fans would say the same thing about apple. Amiga fans however might not say the same thing about Apple. It's their self image I am talking about. Also, don't get me wrong I realize there are all kinds of things you can do to Amiga's. But it's still an Amiga system those things are really just peripherals or ways of doing the same thing in a modern way. Amiga is still a relatively enclosed ecosystem where all the pieces are tightly integrated vs a system where components are commoditized in their own right.

Nothing against Amiga in fact getting one is on my bucket list. I just don't see where old x86 PCs get the backseat to old Amiga's. In the same way I don't agree that Modern PC's should take a backseat to Apple. All these products had their merits.

Rhuwyn wrote:

Scali wrote:

I don't think Amiga people are anything like Apple fans. The Amiga was just a very unique platform, with very unique features. Y […]
Show full quote

Rhuwyn wrote:

In fact I kinda compare Amiga fans to Apple fans. Many of them say they just want a product that just works.

I don't think Amiga people are anything like Apple fans.
The Amiga was just a very unique platform, with very unique features. You had great arcade-like games, and killer apps like DPaint and ProTracker. And of course there's the demoscene. It's great to code demos on the unique Amiga hardware. People are still doing that even today.
And it is about as extensible as a PC. In fact, you can even get PC bridgeboards to make your Amiga PC-compatible. There's memory expansions, CF-IDE readers, CPU upgrades, graphics boards etc.

Apple fans would say the same thing about apple. Amiga fans however might not say the same thing about Apple. It's their self image I am talking about. Also, don't get me wrong I realize there are all kinds of things you can do to Amiga's. But it's still an Amiga system those things are really just peripherals or ways of doing the same thing in a modern way. Amiga is still a relatively enclosed ecosystem where all the pieces are tightly integrated vs a system where components are commoditized in their own right.

Nothing against Amiga in fact getting one is on my bucket list. I just don't see where old x86 PCs get the backseat to old Amiga's. In the same way I don't agree that Modern PC's should take a backseat to Apple. All these products had their merits.

Modern Apple gas no merits, it's slow, it's outdated and it's to damn white

Rhuwyn wrote:

Also, don't get me wrong I realize there are all kinds of things you can do to Amiga's. But it's still an Amiga system those things are really just peripherals or ways of doing the same thing in a modern way.

There is nothing like an Amiga. Nothing before it, and nothing since.
If you don't get what an Amiga is, I suggest you read up on its unique combination of hardware and software.
You might not get it at first, because it's quite technical. But it's worth it.
The Amiga was the first home/personal computer that gave us the complete package of a GUI, multitasking and multimedia.
You could say it was the first 'modern' computer. PCs couldn't do what the Amiga did until Windows 95 came around.
The Amiga could do all this because it was a very clever and elegant design. PCs just did it with bruteforce.

tikoellner wrote:

Yeah, that's probably the common perspective. PC can really be boring and generic, and those non-generic aspects remain hidden inside the case, GUS being an example (for me at least).

Funny, that's exactly what I like about clone systems in general. To me, clone systems were never boring..
There was always something new to explore and to learn every time! Despite beeing "generic" in a superficial point of view,
they were quite different and creative sometimes. And their circuitries were often different, even though they served the same purpose.

And how were other popular platforms more exciting ? Please explain.
If I'm not mistaken, the Macs, Ataris and Amigas were all mouse grey, of rather simple design (case) and had similar internals.

tikoellner wrote:

I generally started this thread, as to me PC was the only system ever. Most of friends at school, then highschoold, were also PC users. There were some Atari gamers maybe, but these days (mid 90s) having an Atari was considered even shameful, as I recall it.

Why was this considered shameful ? And who determined this ?

tikoellner wrote:

I was pretty ashamed myself sporting 486 in 1997.

I had a 286. But I've never knewed I should have felt ashamed about it. I thought to even own a computer was cool enough back then..

Edit: Changed the qoutes to what I was referring to. 😊

Well, you know, I was at primary school back then and kids were just laughing of anything that did not fit their concept of being cool. Ataris were pretty outdated and owned by those who couldn't afford a better (modern) system.

The concept of retro was yet unknown where I live, at least not among kids.

So that was the game of social status, simpy said (in such a poor society as the Polish society was back then, the computer was a factor of social status among youngsters, just like a pair of Nike shoes).

Scali wrote:

Also, PCs are very generic. It's not a specific brand or type, everything is interchangeable and upgradable. I generally bought […]
Show full quote

Also, PCs are very generic.
It's not a specific brand or type, everything is interchangeable and upgradable.
I generally bought a new PC every 2-3 years, and upgraded parts in-between.
A C64, Amiga, NES or whatever is something you'd enjoy for many years at a time. So you get more attached to it, I suppose.

I am quite attached to my PCs. I hand-picked the components, and built them all myself. The more I upgrade them, the more I love them.

nforce4max wrote:

PCs are only generic when you only find the most common and basic stuff that no one ever wanted when it was new, many of us still got piles of worthless isa and pci modems that we will never find a use for 😒

Funny you said that, I just opened a box that I hadn't touched for years and didn't remember what I had in it. Turns out it's ISA modems. Including an odd beast like this:

Some FOSS communities are absolute on the latest compilers, libraries, and etc whateer because Debian says so. so my interest on maintenance for older platforms and PCs is often discriminated upon. So much for Freedom of choice in Free Software 🙁

Surely, there would be chaos and hell had DOSBox had supported only SDL2.

leileilol wrote:

Some FOSS communities are absolute on the latest compilers, libraries, and etc whateer because Debian says so.

And systemd 🙁