Amiga vs PC 2
INFORMATION HERE A few of the PC versions in the video would sound better using an MT-32. However, those things were *very* expensive back then and the vast majority of people had standard adlib/soundblaster cards (if anything at all). Besides, I don’t have an MT-32 and I cannot emulate it properly either. And for all you nitpickers out there – I *know* the Amiga is a PC! 
I’m using the term as it is most often used these days. Thanks to the forumers over at EAB for helping me out by suggesting games! 
25 Responses to “Amiga vs PC 2”
By weaselfierce on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@LOveERDos Doom doesn’t run on a 286 either. My first crappy PC cost 4 times as much as my 1200 had, so why not compare apples to apples.
Both Fears and Alien Breed3D ran very playable on a basic A1200. Whats the best FPS that will run on a PC with 2 megs of RAM?
By LOveERDos on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@weaselfierce yes but u must pomp your amiga with expansive board! an normal amiga 1200 can’t play that game
By weaselfierce on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@LOveERDos
Amiga couldn’t do 3D huh ?
I guess Alien breed 3D, Doom, Breathless, Gloom and Quake were mirages of imagination then.
By RFTL on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@MobyGamer
The truth is Amiga was for a time better than most PCs.
Than the PC changed gears and left Amiga way behind.
It’s funny when some Amiga Fanboi talks about ho mutch better the Amiga Sound is.
Then i often fire up my MT-32
Often they accuse me of cheating with CD sound.
The other hand i have to get a Midi Connector for my Amiga. There are almost none MT-32 games aviable. But it would be nice.
By MobyGamer on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
For goodness’ sakes, I could just as easily put together a video that showcased a 386-16 smashing the Amiga. This was a just a LITTLE biased
By harleykman on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@LOveERDos I haven’t spent a dime on my Amiga 500 since I bought it. Plus I got a free Amiga 2000 from a friend who didn’t want it anymore
.
And a NEW Power Amiga costs about $900 – cheaper than a Macintosh
.
By LOveERDos on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@harleykman yes the thing is change in 1990 , first the amiga was better, all the game for pc was just in ega and cga but with vga is change. the thing stupid is that the amiganian say that pc was to expansive and now they spend 1000 time more than a normal pc for to keep amigas alive look the board EFIKA how much cost
anyway i love the people that keep the fire burning
By harleykman on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@LOveERDos Yeah I’m not buying it. I lived during that time period (circa 1990) and the PCs didn’t hold a candle to what a 1985 Amiga could do, unless you’re were willing to spend over $5000 to get the latest expensive video and sound cards (which I was not)
.
Plus in 1990 games were programmed to what most PC owners actually owned. i.e. CGA and a bare-boned SoundBlaster, and did not take advantage of expensive setups
.
By LOveERDos on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@harleykman is not like u say my Olivetti386 33mh was much better than amiga i had vga1 mb hard disk 80 mb and sound card from roland and was much better than amiga. i remanber i have a game called alone in the dark from infrogames that still with pc speaker doing fx sound effect and incredible 3D graphic for the time, no miga e no mac was able to do that and worked with dos no windows windows was just for office application. go to look after alone in the dark 1992
By nicolunacba on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
AGA wins! SVGA defeated
By nicolunacba on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@lindflake When computing was fun ;D
By lindflake on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
Amiga! Ahhh the good times!
By harleykman on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@sirandelot P.S. And also as I mentioned – my PC’s set to 60 hertz right now and it works just fine. I don’t have a headache.
By harleykman on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@sirandelot Your comments about “50 hertz” demonstrates you are not thinking outside of Europe. In Canada/US and Japan the Amiga had 60 hertz, in order to match NTSC TV standards.
By pauljs75 on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@panathatube
I’m pretty sure the Amiga had something like 512 colors. (It really sounds like you’re confusing it with the C64.) And it went up to 4096 colors if you count the HAM graphics mode. The PCs took a little longer to catch up. You’re probably thinking SVGA graphics rather than VGA. And the Amiga was around for something like 8 years at that point. (Remember in comparing that DOS OS and IBM based 8086, 286, 386 CPUs also counted as PCs. Of course you had to be around back then…)
By pauljs75 on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
If I remember the best home computer to have was something like this:
Amiga > Atari ST > Mac > C64 > Atari XE/XL > Apple IIe > IBM PC > Tandy > Franklin > TI.
This was pretty much the way it was until Win95 and the 486DX2 (or arguably for stability and prevalence of multimedia: A 586 + Win98SE) meant a PC was worth having. Also some diehards would argue on the Atari vs. Commodore aspect (I had an XE and an Amiga) but regardless of which, they spanked the Apples and PCs of the 8-bit era.
By sirandelot on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@harleykman
The early Amiga models had a monitor working with 50hz… therefore it was not the best idea for use in office! Later models got an integratet scan-doubler to increase the framerate! But in the meantime , PC´s won the race! That´s just fact!
By harleykman on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@fuckinfak Sure is. The IBM PC’s sound is like my old Atari 2600/ VCS console from 1977! Even a Commodore=64 had better music ability than those IBM PCs
.
I remember people trying to convince me to buy an IBM, and I just laughed. That would have been a downgrade from my C=64. Instead I bought the Amiga. I never touched a PC until 1998 (and then we depressed by its slowness and dullness).
By harleykman on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@00Betty00 Even after Macs and PCs caught-up graphically and musically, there was still ONE thing they couldn’t do – preemptive multitasking. Microsoft PC didn’t get that capability until Windows 98, and Mac not until OS X (2000)
.
It took them 10+ years to catch up to what Amiga did in 1985.
By harleykman on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@sirandelot I don’t know what you’re talking about? Every one of my PCs is set to the same speed as my old Amiga (60 hertz), and I don’t develop any headaches or other problems.
By harleykman on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@laffer35 BTW back in the days of BBSes we always said “Amiga versus IBM PC”. Or sometimes just “Amiga versus IBM” because the platform originated with the IBM company
.
Today I suppose the completely accurate designation would be “Microsoft PC” since they are all designed to run Microsoft operating system.
By ShadowDreadblade on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
Robocod is the opposite. The first was Amgia version.
And for all you nitpickers out there – I *know* the Amiga is a PC!
I’m using the term as it is most often used these days.”
No, they are wrong. Those systems were called Home Computers and were designed to have everything built in ahead of their time. Meaning? Only upgrades an amiga needed was RAM, and if you wanted a hard disk drive . In fact even without the upgrades it OWNED pcs. Period.
By klops3000 on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
PC Graphics looks ugly (cold) and sound is SO FUCKING ANNOYING!!!! worst than Zx Spectrum… Amiga kicks PC ass.
By Chaniyth on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
@sirandelot
Um, PC gaming had just as much computer piracy as the Amiga did, so did the Commodore and even Apple’s and other computers of the time had piracy. Piracy has ALWAYS been around, and it is even around in modern day times. That comparison was kinda moot. Also, Amigas had scan doubler & flicker fixer cards so PC monitors could be connected. Amiga 3000 came with one built-in so a PC monitor could be connected “out of the box”.
By fuckinfak on Jun 30, 2010 | Reply
the sound on the pc is horrible