m1so wrote:

I think US, while it has 110 V, has a higher current so it is not really much less dangerous than 220-240 V.

Anyways, I cannot really believe USA people did not buy Amigas because of the price. Even the Amiga 1000 in 1985 costed 1295 dollars (granted, that was the 256 KB RAM version, but I think even with 1 MB RAM it would have still costed much less than PC AT).

IBM PC AT, on the other hand, costed around 6000 dollars. Yes, 6000 dollars.

Home users were not buying IBM's latest and greatest. If they were buying PC compatibles, they were buying more affordable XT clones in the 80s. Exchange rates may have played a factor in Europe's market as well. The US Dollar was fairly strong in the 80s against currencies like the Deutschmark.

Overall, its a complex answer to a simple question. I do know that by the 90s, the Amiga wasn't cheap at all compared to PC compatibles (Apple was always in their own price bracket!).

m1so wrote:

Anyways, I cannot really believe USA people did not buy Amigas because of the price. Even the Amiga 1000 in 1985 costed 1295 dollars (granted, that was the 256 KB RAM version, but I think even with 1 MB RAM it would have still costed much less than PC AT).

The Atari 1040ST with 1mb RAM and monochrome monitor cost $999. It was the first 1mb machine for under $1000 so why pay more for an Amiga with less memory?

m1so wrote:

And Amiga is not a gaming console. It was far more powerful than most super expensive "business" computers and its GUI operating system could have advanced productivity applications by a decade. Were the business people at the time so insane to shell out 5000 more dollars for a shittier computer because they thought multimedia capability made a computer "toy like"?

Because Amiga did not have the software support that professional users needed and Commodore was hardly in a position to provide world class technical support like IBM was.

m1so wrote:

Sure, it lacked a "real" text mode. Which is irrelevant as the CGA/monochrome green screen monitors of the IBM PCs made reading text literally painful. Amiga was capable of high resolution modes and well readable text.

At that time, Amiga was even superior in raw power. Even the 7.09 Mhz 68k was faster than the 6 Mhz 286 in the super-expensive AT and definitely faster than the crippled 4.77 Mhz 8088.

Again, all this is irrelevant when you can't buy the software that you need to run your office like you could with the IBM.

People purchased PCs in the 80's because they were using them for work at home. Not many people were willing to spend $1000+ for a DOS gaming machine, but they would play some games when work was done for the day.

m1so wrote:

Which is irrelevant as the CGA/monochrome green screen monitors of the IBM PCs made reading text literally painful.

What? The green IBM screens are pretty easy on the eyes. Text is nice and smooth and does not flicker at all.

sliderider wrote:

A lot of people in wealthier countries didn't always have top of the line hardware, either. The best bang for the buck for a particular hardware generation was usually well behind the bleeding edge and a helluva lot cheaper. For a lot of people, buying used top of the line hardware from a previous generation was also a good way to save some money and still have a system that wasn't so far behind as to be immediately obsolete. I've never owned a bleeding edge system but still managed to have plenty of fun playing games using combinations of new and used parts as they came down in price.

This is how it usually is here now. Before 2004 or so, people often played on systems that were "a generation behind", not just non-top of the line, but what would be considered "retro". The 1980s were almost a non-decade in terms of computing here, only 1 in 20 people had a computer even through every school had some.

I always roll my eyes when people say things like "PSX games look SO BAD my eyes hurt". When I was a kid in 2000 or so, I BEGGED my parents to get me a PSX and I didn't get one. If those people knew what kind of graphics the games I actually played back then had, they might rethink their statements.

m1so wrote:

sliderider wrote:

A lot of people in wealthier countries didn't always have top of the line hardware, either. The best bang for the buck for a particular hardware generation was usually well behind the bleeding edge and a helluva lot cheaper. For a lot of people, buying used top of the line hardware from a previous generation was also a good way to save some money and still have a system that wasn't so far behind as to be immediately obsolete. I've never owned a bleeding edge system but still managed to have plenty of fun playing games using combinations of new and used parts as they came down in price.

This is how it usually is here now. Before 2004 or so, people often played on systems that were "a generation behind", not just non-top of the line, but what would be considered "retro". The 1980s were almost a non-decade in terms of computing here, only 1 in 20 people had a computer even through every school had some.

I always roll my eyes when people say things like "PSX games look SO BAD my eyes hurt". When I was a kid in 2000 or so, I BEGGED my parents to get me a PSX and I didn't get one. If those people knew what kind of graphics the games I actually played back then had, they might rethink their statements.

They're looking at it from a backwards perspective, while those of us who actually lived during those times thought that those graphics were outstanding compared to what we had been playing previously. We had a forward looking perspective. Most of them didn't see the progression first hand from the earliest TV pong consoles to the present day. Most of them, I suspect, didn't get onboard until maybe the PS2/XBox came out and DirectX 8 was just starting to give way to DirectX 9 on the PC side. None of them ever actually played a game in VGA after having used monochrome/CGA/EGA for several years prior so they don't know how much of an improvement it was. You really did have to be there at the time to understand.

sliderider wrote:

They're looking at it from a backwards perspective, while those of us who actually lived during those times thought that those graphics were outstanding compared to what we had been playing previously. We had a forward looking perspective. Most of them didn't see the progression first hand from the earliest TV pong consoles to the present day. Most of them, I suspect, didn't get onboard until maybe the PS2/XBox came out and DirectX 8 was just starting to give way to DirectX 9 on the PC side. None of them ever actually played a game in VGA after having used monochrome/CGA/EGA for several years prior so they don't know how much of an improvement it was. You really did have to be there at the time to understand.

I don't agree with everything you write Sliderider, but this is spot on 😀

I was never impressed with PSX graphics. They always looked like amateurish VGA graphics to me. Never understood what the big deal that that system was.

Anonymous Coward wrote:

I was never impressed with PSX graphics. They always looked like amateurish VGA graphics to me. Never understood what the big deal that that system was.

That you could have 3D graphics for $299 instead of several grand.

Used 386s were probably about the same price.

Anonymous Coward wrote:

I was never impressed with PSX graphics. They always looked like amateurish VGA graphics to me. Never understood what the big deal that that system was.

It played 3D games, which was a huge deal back then after playing SNES and Genesis for several years, was cheaper than it's main rival, Sega Saturn and the Dual Shock controller would set the standard for game controllers for years after. It was a game changer that put Sony on the map.

I agree. The PSX was MY console. I always SUCKED at jump and runs and arcade games. I stuck mostly to adventure games. But once games went 3D I got heavily into gaming.

The PSX was indeed a game changer.

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Used 386s were probably about the same price.

Yeah, that would have played Wolfenstein 3D great and Doom with 10 FPS and tiny screen size if it was one of the better ones. Not to speak of the fact that those games aren't true 3D anyway.

Yea a 386 didn't cut it for many 3D games. You could play games with simple graphics like Stunts, F-15 Strike Eagle II, F-19 Stealth Fighter, Appache 2000, F-117A and many others.

But once the graphics became more complex you really needed a 486DX-2. Even DOOM IMO really needs a 486DX-4 to be play really well.

Back in those days CPU performance and the graphics details in games simply exploded. At the beginning of high school I was playing Wing Commander and Wolfenstein 3D, when I graduated there was Tomb Raider on a 3DFX Voodoo and Wing Commander Prophecy. In this period I upgraded 5! times:

386DX-33
486DLC40 (I so regret this purchase I was tricked into believing it's a 486, but later found out it was just a 386 with this 486DLC upgrade chip. It was faster compared to the 386DX, but not as fast a real 486DX).
486DX4 (I loved that machine. It was my first build from scratch. Quite scary for a high school students and I regret selling it as it was awesome but at that time you had to sell to upgrade to the next machine)
Pentium 133 (Fantastic machined based on a Gigabyte mainboard. Stable as a rock and later sold it to my brother who also really liked it)
Pentium II 300 MHz (Cost me a fortune but had to be done because I didn't see much improvement with the 3DFX Voodoo 2 on the Pentium).

Maybe. But Amiga 500s were cheap too.

In my opinion a typical PSX game wasn't much better than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA3pTA2DNhc

Hey PSX! 1987 is calling. They want their graphics back.

Lol. Clearly you haven't seen many PSX games. Even 1995 releases looked better than that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHudbgxWfY

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Maybe. But Amiga 500s were cheap too.

In my opinion a typical PSX game wasn't much better than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA3pTA2DNhc

That's more like a SNES with SuperFX chip. The PSX had some serious 3D power.

Launch titles:

Ridge Racer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL6i3njf-p4
Wipeout: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRSVrkzDyuA

And from there games just got better in terms of graphics.

Check out Ridge Racer Type 4:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnjie2G7_gQ

I'm actually quite impressed by the PSX Quake II port. I'd say it's up there with some of the better looking n64 titles even. It certainly looks a lot closer to the PC version than the n64 port, especially since the weapon animations on the n64 port are incredibly choppy.

I couldn't resist adding my to cents here. I was a big fan of Commodore and used a C64 for a long, long time (longer than I should). But Amgia? I am not sure I really had an idea what it was about. I jumped from C64 to a 486 and didn't look back. Kind of a shame - because in general it seems like programming the PC is convoluted at best and required 10 times the work.

Anonymous Coward wrote:

Maybe. But Amiga 500s were cheap too.

In my opinion a typical PSX game wasn't much better than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA3pTA2DNhc

Hey PSX! 1987 is calling. They want their graphics back.

Can your Amiga 500 play this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtSlGWHdE3U

Or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpO_lRWaAiw

Or this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83Vg1HzRHEM