#MultiMedia on the Amiga
33 messages in this thread
I am doing some Multi Media research for my company and because we are an
IBM shop mostly I have been concentrating on The IBM Ultimedia and MPC
hardware. I can't help but think I should be mentioning something about the
Amiga. Could someone help me out with what is in the hardware of the Amiga
that makes it a good multi media machine (ie sound, graphics, midi etc.)
Thanks
You could pick up some Amiga magazines, they all seem to be carrying
multimedia columns now a days. As for why they are better multimedia
platforms, in many people's opinions, is the built in sound capabilities,
custom graphics processors, and probably most important, the video
compatibility.
The Amiga is designed to output NTSC or PAL signals. This alone makes the
Amiga a formidable multimedia platform. Now add a GUI operating system
which performs true multitasking, and doesn't suck up memory and every
available resource. Running Windows 3.0 on a 1 MB IBM is plain silly, O/S
7.0 on a MAC with 1 MB is possible, but don't try to run anything else.
And multitasking on a MAC is possible on a Mac, but only if the tasks
running have been written to include their own switching code.
Not only can many people perform amazing feats on a 1 MB Amiga, but a 512 K
one as well.
(P.S: Forget a Unix machine with less than 4 MB and 100+ MB hard drive)
Sure. The sound on the Amiga is superior to that on the MPC. The graphics
on an Amiga are better than those on the MPC. The processor in an
accelerated Amiga is faster than that on an MPC. The multimedia software
is better than the IBM multimedia software. The Amiga line is considerably
less expensive than the IBM line. The service is better for Amigas. The
reliability is better for Amigas. The software is less expensive on
Amigas. The multitasking is substantially superior on Amigas. The Amiga
user base is considerably more sophisticated than the IBM user base. Have
I missed anything, anybody?
Robert,
While being an avid Amiga fan myself, I have to point out a something you
said. MPC is a standard for Multimedia PC's, not a product. Therefore,
you can not say the Amiga is faster, and better than MPC. Your statement
is part true and part false. If an MPC system was configured on a 486DX2
66.6 mhz (which runs faster than most RISC processors) the Amiga 3000 is
not faster. If the MPC system has a 24-bit video display board in it – the
Amiga does not have better graphics. If the MPC system has a high-end
audio board in it, then the its sound would be equal to the Amiga (or
better, depending). In order to meet MPC's level 1, the system needs a
CD-ROM that meets set performance – the Amiga does not have a CD-ROM,
unless you add it.
I don't want to bash Amiga, as I have one and use it constantly – but I
want to let the Amiga community know how the PC community is fast catching
up – and how important it is for Commodore to improve upon the Amiga , and
fast!
Joe
PS: Yes on the IBM, everything is considered an add-on – but that is what
you get with an open system. The Amiga 2000-3000 follows that same
architecture, being that you can upgrade it also.
Gerald,
The Amiga was designed from the ground up to be a wonder in the graphics
and sound arenas. It has many different native graphic modes, from 320×200
to 640×400, up to 4096 colors on the screen at one time. The output is
standard NTSC video rates, so, with a $30 video adapter, you can lay your
pictures or animations on to videotape. It has a four channel 8 bit audio
generator, the serial port supports MIDI transfer rate with a simple
inexpensive adapter, and its operating evironment, Workbench (currently
version 2.04), is fully multitasking, and is very flexible.
There is a myriad of third-party video, audio, and multimedia hardware
and software available for the Amiga. Some of the products include 24 bit
graphic display boards, 12 and 16 bit audio digitizers and generators,
video production software, graphic manipulation software, paint programs,
ray tracing programs, and the famous Video Toaster from NewTek.
I'm sure you'll get more than this one reply, but if you have any more
questions, please feel free to ask me.
Darin, SPC Superbase Technical Support
Everyone so far has made good points but lets not forget one simple fact.
You can get your feet wet in multimedia with a base A2000, (Amiga Vision
included), some pictures, animation and sound available here and elsewhere,
maybe a paint/animation program and a music program. Add speed,
harddrives, CD-ROM, Laserdiscs, etc as you need them without a motherboard
revision. And remember that a Intel CPU averages 2.7 passes for every
instruction and a Motorola 1. Don't let that lowly 7.14 Mhz fool you it is
equivlent to a 386 running at 19.27 Mhz.
Whaping from under water in Central Texas!
Bruce
Words of wisdom if I ever heard them! Keep your chin up.
Paul,
Well it looks like the water is subsiding so I guess I'll just have to
change my signature again.
Whaping from under water in Central Texas!
Bruce
True, if not for my Amiga I would not have as much of an interest in
multimedia. To give you an idea, an average IBM-clone MPC system will cost
approximatley $5,000. This would be a 386 33mhz, 4 megs RAM, CD-ROM &
software, large hard drive [200meg], etc. How much would an Amiga system
configured same cost?
Well, a comparative Amiga system would run you about $2000 for a A3000,
another $200 for the RAM, about $600 for the hard disk, another $700 for
the CD-ROM, and say $500 for a monitor. That's $4000.
Five thousand? Where do you shop? You can get a good 486 system with
super VGA, maybe HiColor 32K colors, 200 meg drive, 8 megs RAM, keyboard,
mouse, monitor, etc. for about $3000. Add a CD-ROM and sound card and you
haven't spent $2,000, you've spent about $600-700 more.
We're talking OEM equipment here – IBM only. Comparing clone prices to
Amiga prices is liking comparing Yugo to Ferrari – after all, they're both
cars, so they should compete directly on price, right?
It is not reasonable to consider IBM's prices, mainly because CLones these
days are standard. Reputable names such as Dell, Gateway, Compaq are all
clones – and their prices range from expensive to inexpensive.
Unfortunately, the Amiga is only sold & made by Commodore. How about
comparing an Acura to a Ferrari?
Robert:
"Talking IBM only" is not a valid comparison. Many of the clones surpass
"true" IBM's in speed and quality, and they do it for a third of the price.
Everyone uses the same components. IBM was able to ride it's name for
years. Remember the cliche, "No one ever got fired for buying IBM"? That
no longer holds true, and my guess is that a lot of people are getting
fired for buying IBM. Where I work, we use Macs and clones. The local IBM
rep paid us a visit and tried to sell us some new 486's. They wanted $9500
for the same units that we paid $3200. Over a cup of coffee, I asked her
what we would be getting for the additional $6300 each. She said "uh, uh,
you'd be getting IBM". BTW, the $9500 mentioned above reflects a major
price reduction.
George
When I mention the MPC Level 1 spec, you need more than just a CD-ROM, you
need a CD-ROM that can maintain 150kb/sec transfer rate which requires
aprox. 64kb of onboard SRAM cache, also you need a sound board that will
playback and digitize audio. Most CD-ROM kits w/ SCSI controller & sound
board run in the $795 – $1295 range. I just purchased a Gateway
486DX250mhz system w/ 8 meg RAM, 211 meg hd, fax/modem, 15" multisync
flat-screen monitor, coprocessed video VGA card, et all for $3580.00. Add
$800 for a MPC Level 1 upgrade for a grand total of $4380.00
SLightly short of the $5000 I quoted above, but I based that price on both
the Tandy Multimedia PC & Compuadds Multimedia PC. You can then go one
level more and add a Genlock TV video board that will playback video at 30
fps & act as a framebuffer for $595 – $2000.
Joe,
The last time I priced an Amiga system I could probably get an A2000, a
50MHZ 68030, 5Megs RAM, one of those new 240Meg Quantums, a CD-ROM, a
Laserdisc player and software for about $4,000. If you want toast, 24 bit
graphics, or 16 bit sound it will cost a bit more. I currently use an
A3000 running at 25Mhz at home, a 20 Mhz 386 and a 25Mhz 486 at work. To
me the Clones definitely seem real slow. (Even the 486 doesn't appear
faster than my 68030.)
Whapping in from beautiful Ft. Hood.
Bruce
Joe:
A quick look in Computer Shopper shows an average price of $1900 for a
386-33 with 4 megs, 200 meg harddrive, and SuperVGA monitor(1024 x 768 non
interlaced), Windows, DOS 5.0, and a good quality mouse. Add $500 for the
CD-ROM drive and you're closer to $2400. If you want to go '486-33, then
add around $300.
George
I don't want to seem rude or unfriendly to our very good friend, Ami,
but it sure doesn't seem like my computer is running (at 7.14 Mhz) as fast
as a 386 at any speed. A case in point is the game, Harpoon, which bogs
down badly on my A1000 didn't flinch on a 386 machine (that I was forced to
use recently;-)). I just thought I'd point that out.
-Sean
– Whap!ping from drizzly Banbury, England
Sean,
And I don't want to seem rude or unfriendly either, but I've had the
opportunity to play with a '030 50 Mhz Amiga as well as the latest '486
machines. I don't know about Harpoon but general use gave me the
impression of 'The Tortoise and the F-15.'
Consider that the Amiga 1000 is rather dated, and the '486 is considered
state-of-the-art (Mostly by those who don't know any better 8) Also
consider that high end IBM-type stuff at the time when Amiga was new was
the XT. Now, if you compared your 1000 to an XT I think you'd find that
Harpoon's playability on the Amiga astounding realative to the XT.
Clock speed comparisions between different CPU's is just about
meaningless. I know from personal experience that a 680X0 running at the
same clock speed as a comparable 86X86 generally makes the Intel based
chips seem brain damaged.
Doug
I didn't realize that you were refering to 030 vs. 486 speed. You're
quite right about the dated A1000. I really would like to get an
accelerator for the A2000 that I've recently ordered. Do you (or anybody
else reading this) have any advice on which is/are the best value?
-Sean
– Whap!ping from drizzly Banbury, England
Was Harpoon ported from MS-DOS to Amiga? It may be slow code, and is
probably not optimized for an Amiga anyway. xit
Sean,
It's absolutely meaningless to compare a game on one machine with
the same named game on another machine.
Don
It seems like the two different versions of the game are very similar
and that the only real differences would be in IO. Since the Ami bogs down
when there's more going on (in that particular game and I don't mean "going
on" on the screen) and the PC doesn't that the PC is handling calculations
faster. I don't think it's _absolutely_ meaningless, although I'm sure
that there are much better ways to compare two machines.
-Sean
– Whap!ping from drizzly Banbury, England
Difference between two games is one: It was developed primarily for the IBM
– then PORTED to the Amiga. What this means, it was optimized for IBM
usage, but not for Amiga usage. If they spent extra time, they could
programmed it to use the Amigas coprocessors, and sped up the game play
considerably, but I guess they did not consider it worth the expense.
I wish they would have taken the time to optimize it, because it really
is a tremendous game. I guess I'll just have to get an accellerator (I
wish I had a spell checker in this text editor;-)) Thanks for clearing
things up for me.
-Sean
– Whap!ping from drizzly Banbury, England
Sean,
I agree with what Joe said.
A programmer that's a hot shot on an IBM box may know all the
little tricks you need to do to get those things running well. However,
that same person, or the programmer who did the port, may have known very
little about the Amiga and thus may not have taken advantage of it's
features.
I can write a program that simply counts from one to one million
and write it to be very slow, or quite fast. Depends on what logic I
employ.
So, again I say…looking at what appears to be the same program on
two different types of machine can be very deceptive and is not at all a
good comparison between machines…merely a comparison between that
particular game running on two different platforms.
Don
Thanks for your input. It's been quite a while since I did any
programming and most of that was FORTRAN and BASIC. I'm interested in
throwing some more time into it and starting again in C (or some variation
thereof) this time.
Any advice on documentation, texts, etc, to get me on my feet?
-Sean
– Whap!ping from drizzly Banbury, England
Sean,
There's a 4 volumn set of Amiga documentation published by
Addison-Wesley and Bantam Books. That's the best place to start.
Don
Don,
Would those be the RKMs?
Thanks,
Sean
– Whap!ping from drizzly Banbury, England
Sean,
Yes…they are the RKM's plus the AmigaDOS Manual by Bantam Books.
Don
Thanks.
-Sean
Gerald,
To the other technical replys you recieved, let me, as a cdrom programmer
for Mac, PC, and amiga platforms add a few notes:
1) the CDTV box is the lowest cost multimedia player you will find. It
supports direct NTSC/PAL output, cdrom, great sound, etc. It can also
easily control video disks, etc. Commodore is actively promoting it as a
kiosk machine with touch screens, etc. (well, as 'actively' as C= promotes
anything <grin>)
2) it is much easier to get good true multimedia output from the Amiga than
either Mac or PC. the multi-tasking operating system makes simultaneous
video, sound, etc much easier. Basis hw gives you quite a jump on the
competition. (built in ntsc output, good sound playback, graphic sprites,
etc) even voice output comes with the basic machine is better than the $1K
up PC voice generators.
"If only C= would learn to market their products." – thats the lament of
every Amiga owner. The box is one of the best kept secrets in the computer
industry.
Jerry Isdale