Performance Difference - Blizzard 1260 VS 1230
Michael Cargill
accelerator boards?
I can get the 1230 for £80, but the 1260 is £220 - is the 1260 really that
much better?
--
Loving Created by Michael Cargill
-----------------------------------
'Don't Be a Poof - Eat White Bread!'
'You're Gonna Need a Bigger Boat...' - Sheriff Brody, Jaws
Eric Haines
> accelerator boards?
> I can get the 1230 for £80, but the 1260 is £220 - is the 1260 really that
> much better?
>
> --
> Loving Created by Michael Cargill
Yes, it really is. You can generally expect it to be around 6 times
faster, approximately speaking. Years ago, I went from a GVP '030
board to a Blizzard 1260 board and it made a huge difference
(especially with FPU-aware applications, in which case going from my
FPU-less 030 to the 060 was well over 20 times faster).
--Eric
Erkan Orhun
play hd installed games on you television. But keep in mind that workbench
will be SO much speedier with a 060 if you have lots of directories etc.
Running an a1200 with 060 will make it much nicer to work with, but its a
bit overkill for oldschool games.
Nathan
Erkan Orhun wrote:
Yup, I gotta agree. 060 is nice, but it's overkill for the money,
and IMHO the compatibility loss is a big negative if you mostly want
it for retro-gaming.
If you want game compatibility and a nice speed boost stick with the
030. ..The 040's and 060's are awesome for speed, but you will find
more games that don't work. (If you're going to play mostly WHDLoad
or JST installed games, or want to do GFX/serious stuff this mightn't
be an issue though.)
Your call.
Nathan.
Angus Manwaring
>How much difference is there between the Blizzard 1230 and Blizzard 1260
>accelerator boards?
>I can get the 1230 for £80, but the 1260 is £220 - is the 1260 really that
>much better?
In terms of processing power, and I'll use technical jargon here, so bear
with me, the 030 in comparison with an 020 (assuming fast ram is included)
is pretty nippy. The 060 in comparison with the 030 however is a
permanent resident of Rapid City, South Dakota, if you take my meaning. :)
But, while some games benefit hugely from an 060, Quake, Doom etc, many do
not, so if you just want a system that'll be good for running the majority
of Amiga games (and WHDLoad/JST patches) a 1230 Blizzard does make a lot
of sense.
You would miss out though on the much more powerful processing power of
the 060 for some games and many applications, (displaying JPEGs etc) as
well as beating me at Quake on the internet. :)
Final comment, Blizzards are great, but the prices are a bit high, unless
they are new? Power Computing?
All the best,
Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga
Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html
Angus Manwaring
>Erkan Orhun wrote:
I agree , as ever, with Nathan's comments :) but I'd add that the 060 is
generally far more compatible than the 040 (and cooler running) and I have
few problems with this issue. There are exceptions though, but as with the
Blizz 1230 you can disable the accelerator at startup and fall back to the
a vanilla 1200
...which is nice.
Nathan
> On 16-Mar-02 03:20:47, Nathan said
>>If you want game compatibility and a nice speed boost stick with the
>>030. ..The 040's and 060's are awesome for speed, but you will find
>>more games that don't work. (If you're going to play mostly WHDLoad
>>or JST installed games, or want to do GFX/serious stuff this mightn't
>>be an issue though.)
>
> I agree , as ever, with Nathan's comments :)
*gasp* :)
> but I'd add that the 060 is generally far more compatible than the
> 040 (and cooler running) and I have few problems with this issue.
Was going to differentiate between the two, but since they have oodles
of cache and other fancy tricks over 020's and 030's, I thought
laziness was the order of the day. :)
..Wasn't anything to do with me owning the most incompatible brand of
accellerator with the most incompatible CPU or anything. <grin>
> There are exceptions though, but as with the Blizz 1230 you can
> disable the accelerator at startup and fall back to the a vanilla 1200
> ....which is nice.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that! (doh!) ..Go for the 060. They really
are miles above the 030 in terms of power. It's really just a matter
of how much you're willing to spend.
Nathan.
Angus Manwaring
>Angus Manwaring wrote:
>> On 16-Mar-02 03:20:47, Nathan said
> >
>> I agree , as ever, with Nathan's comments :)
>*gasp* :)
:)
>> There are exceptions though, but as with the Blizz 1230 you can
>> disable the accelerator at startup and fall back to the a vanilla 1200
>> ....which is nice.
>Oh yeah, I forgot about that! (doh!) ..Go for the 060. They really
>are miles above the 030 in terms of power. It's really just a matter
>of how much you're willing to spend.
Well, I think you were right, there _is_ a small price to be paid with
compatibility on the 060, but (and I'm a games kinda guy) not a very big
price.
kfb
> are miles above the 030 in terms of power. It's really just a matter
> of how much you're willing to spend.
>
> Nathan.
Definitely go for the 060 - you'll notice an immense difference, something
like the difference between a 386 and a Pentium. Everything loads much
quicker, workbench is much snappier, 3D games are much faster. Quake is
unplayable on even the fastest 030 whereas its actually fun on an 060.
To put it in perspective; a 50Mhz 060 is about 7 times the speed of a 50Mhz
030, which in turn is about 4-5 times the speed of a stock A1200. A 66Mhz
060 is about 9 times the speed of a 50Mhz 030 (45 times the speed of a
standard A1200). A PPC card (even a slow one like the 160Mhz 603e) is, in
theory, about 3 times the speed of a 66Mhz 060 but in practice it just over
doubles the framerate in Quake (it runs on my 175Mhz PPC at about the same
speed as an Intel P233MMX in software).
If you are willing to spend £80 on an 030 you may as well spend an extra £30
or £40 and go for a PPC with an 040 or 060.
I picked up my PPC card second hand for £120 with an extra 32Mb of RAM.
Have a look on Yahoo auctions, or Ebay (They are way too expensive to buy
new, and thats if you can find them).
Cheers
kfb
Michael Cargill
> You would miss out though on the much more powerful processing power of
> the 060 for some games and many applications, (displaying JPEGs etc) as
> well as beating me at Quake on the internet. :)
>
> Final comment, Blizzards are great, but the prices are a bit high, unless
> they are new? Power Computing?
Yeah, new from Power Computing. Had a look on Ebay, but nothing apart from
some Apollo board, which isnt what I want.
I will be getting a Mediator board, and putting my Voodoo 3 PCI card in it,
along with a Soundblaster 128. Will I need a specific OS to make the
Mediator work? At the moment, I have got Workbench 3.
Oh, and will the Soundblaster work with the older, classic Amiga games?
kfb
"Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eMRk8.2638$KM2.1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
The Voodoo works on OS3+ (it uses Picasso96) although I'd really recommend
upgrading to OS3.9 - its so much better. You'll need 3.1 ROMS for this
though (I think Eyetech are doing a deal where you can trade in your old 3.0
ROMS and get 3.1 ROMS for a tenner).
The mediator/voodoo installation can be a bit daunting, but there's an
excellent guide at www.amiga-mediator.co.uk.
The Soundblaster driver works through AHI so it wont work directly with
older games who use Paula for audio. However, you can connect the audio out
from the back of the A1200 to the line-in on the SB128 and set the volume of
line-in to maximum (you get a mixer program on the MMCD with the mediator)
and that way all your sound comes throught the Soundblaster.
cheers,
kfb
Tim
the speed of a 030/25... You do the math. ;)
Tim
"Michael Cargill" <mikeme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:O1wk8.26268$nk4.1...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
John Burns
But given the latest news on Eyetech's site and the fact that earlier the OP
had stated that he was considering spending £220 on an O60 it may well be
worth waiting till May for the Amiga1.5 for only another £130. Hey he could
use the time to save up.
Michael Cargill
OP
> had stated that he was considering spending £220 on an O60 it may well be
> worth waiting till May for the Amiga1.5 for only another £130. Hey he
could
> use the time to save up.
>
Where did you get that price from? I just looked at the Eyetech site, and
in the 'News' section dated 15th March, the only price I could find was
right at the bottom - £550.
Eric Haines
Look again. The price for the board + CPU is stated as £350 or $500.
This can be confirmed by actually ordering one. (Actually it's 10%
off right now.) The only thing is, the OP would have to also buy
other equipment (graphics card, case, etc. not to mention OS4 which
is another $60 or so) which would raise the price a fair bit, as
opposed to just popping the 1260 in an expansion slot.
It depends on what the purpose of getting the 1260 is. I get the
feeling in this case that an Amiga1.5 would be extreme overkill and
perhaps less compatible for classic gaming purposes, though it's very
tempting for those of us who've already been using 060s and want to
move on to the next level.
--Eric
Steven Folberg
MC> How much difference is there between the Blizzard 1230 and
MC> Blizzard 1260 accelerator boards? I can get the 1230 for £80, but
MC> the 1260 is £220 - is the 1260 really that much better?
MC>
MC>
MC>
MC>
Yep, huge difference. I went from an '030 to an '060 years ago, the
speed difference, especially concerning productivity apps like
Pagestream, is tremendous. As for games, a few of them will fall over
dead, but most work just fine, sometimes with some early startup menu
or Degrader tweaking.
Steve
--
re...@texas.net
http://lonestar.texas.net/~rebbi
www://main.org/ctacs
Amiga -- think different; think REALLY different!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted with Amiga NewsRog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Burns
Same place under the paragraph titled "AmigaOnepoint5 pricing"
[QUOTE]
Dealers are free to set their own end user prices both for the AmigaOnepoint5
boards and for complete systems to take account of import duty, localisation of
support, documentation etc. However our recommended pricing for the AmigaOnepoint5
motherboard, inclusive of a 750CXe 600 MHz G3 PPC processor but exclusive of local
taxes and shipping charges, is UKP350, USD500, EUR600.
[END QUOTE]
The price you quote was an estimate made of what the original A1200 AmigaOne would
have cost and the para in which it is quoted clearly reflects this fact.
Did you actually read it or just skim through to find a price?
Adam Atkinson
>How much difference is there between the Blizzard 1230 and Blizzard 1260
>accelerator boards?
Huge
>I can get the 1230 for £80, but the 1260 is £220 - is the 1260 really that
>much better?
Oh, yes. I went from a 1230 to a 1260 in 1997. The change is vast.
Also, put a decent amount of memory in. I have 48 megs, which is more
than enough for pretty much anything.
--
Adam Atkinson (gh...@mistral.co.uk)
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
incompetence.
Marcel DeVoe
> Erkan Orhun wrote:
>> I think for only gaming a 060 is too much, a 030 is fine if you just want to
>> play hd installed games on you television. But keep in mind that workbench
>> will be SO much speedier with a 060 if you have lots of directories etc.
>> Running an a1200 with 060 will make it much nicer to work with, but its a
>> bit overkill for oldschool games.
> Yup, I gotta agree. 060 is nice, but it's overkill for the money,
> and IMHO the compatibility loss is a big negative if you mostly want
> it for retro-gaming.
Uh, guys, are we losing sight here? If he just wanted it for retro-gaming,
why would he even want an accellerator /at all/ it the /first/ place?
The stock A1200 020 is just fine for that. ;)
--
Marcel J. DeVoe - mde...@shore.net - Team *AMIGA*
A4091scsi CV64 96 megs CDRW M1764-17" Catweasel FUSION/Emplant
A4000/060 CyberStorm MKII overclocked 66mhz - see "How to Overclock!"
and "DIY A4000 Tower for $45" @ http://www.shore.net/~mdevoe
John Burns
>> Erkan Orhun wrote:
>>> I think for only gaming a 060 is too much, a 030 is fine if you just want
>>> to play hd installed games on you television. But keep in mind that
>>> workbench will be SO much speedier with a 060 if you have lots of
>>> directories etc. Running an a1200 with 060 will make it much nicer to work
>>> with, but its a bit overkill for oldschool games.
>> Yup, I gotta agree. 060 is nice, but it's overkill for the money,
>> and IMHO the compatibility loss is a big negative if you mostly want
>> it for retro-gaming.
>Uh, guys, are we losing sight here? If he just wanted it for retro-gaming,
>why would he even want an accellerator /at all/ it the /first/ place?
>The stock A1200 020 is just fine for that. ;)
I would disagree. A stock A12k is unable to utilise the majority of WHDLoad patches
since these require extra mem and a HD, not forgetting classic games such as The
Settlers, Lemmings 2, etc. have enhancements for machines with extra mem. Also
games such as Civilization and UFO are much better playing experiences when used
with at least an 030 (In fact I wouldn't even bother with UFO on a stock A12k).
Stuart Wilson
> I would disagree. A stock A12k is unable to utilise the majority of WHDLoad patches
> since these require extra mem and a HD, not forgetting classic games such as The
> Settlers, Lemmings 2, etc. have enhancements for machines with extra mem. Also
> games such as Civilization and UFO are much better playing experiences when used
> with at least an 030 (In fact I wouldn't even bother with UFO on a stock A12k).
So bearing in mind how poor UFO is on a stock A1200, why was an A500
version released? Maybe they expected all A500 users to have a
turbonutterbastard GVP add-on.
Stuart
Angus Manwaring
Agreed, and once you get into flight-sims and 3D the 030 proves well
worth having over a vanilla 1200.
kid...@remoov.wvi.com
>accelerator boards?
IIRC, beyond the fact that the 060 is far and away faster than an 030, the
B060 has a SCSI controller.
>I can get the 1230 for £80, but the 1260 is £220 - is the 1260 really that
>much better?
Yes. But then, what is it you want to do w/ it? If it's just play old games,
then I'd probably just get the 030. It's more compatible w/ that sort of thing
than the 060 will be.
If you are doing any serious work or want to play anything even remotely new,
I'd go for the 060. WHD/JST have HOARDS of patches, so if you have/add an HD
you will be sitting far prettier w/ the 060. Not to mention, if you do anything
3D at all from 4D Sports Boxing to Tornado 3D, you will certainly know where
your money went.
kid...@remoov.wvi.com
>>why would he even want an accellerator /at all/ it the /first/ place?
>>The stock A1200 020 is just fine for that. ;)
>I would disagree. A stock A12k is unable to utilise the majority of WHDLoad
>patches since these require extra mem and a HD, not forgetting classic games
>such as The Settlers, Lemmings 2, etc. have enhancements for machines with
>extra mem. Also games such as Civilization and UFO are much better playing
>experiences when used with at least an 030 (In fact I wouldn't even bother
>with UFO on a stock A12k).
Agreed. There are many games I have that I make me thankfull for my 060, and
that I wouldn't touch on an 020 or 030. Some of them are ancient and others
not so much so.
Napalm
Foundation
AB3D2:TKG
The various Frieden/Hauser pre Hyperion ports (Abuse, Descent, etc.)
Any Sierra title
Ultima 6 and above (anyone tried the Ultima 7 port?)
Etc.
kid...@remoov.wvi.com
Not completely sure, but I think most A500 users were used to that sort of
thing at that point in time. A friend of mine played endless turn based
strategy games on his stock A500 (years ago), and even though it took the
computer ages (go make a grilled cheese sandwich kind of ages), he kept
banging away at them. Of course, this was a WAY better experience than the
same games on his previous machine (a C=64).
Either way, when I was looking to sell my 030 @ 25 MHz Derringer so that I
could upgrade to a 50MHz on of it, he jumped on it. :-)
>Stuart
kid...@remoov.wvi.com
>some Apollo board, which isnt what I want.
>I will be getting a Mediator board, and putting my Voodoo 3 PCI card in it,
>along with a Soundblaster 128. Will I need a specific OS to make the
>Mediator work? At the moment, I have got Workbench 3.
No, but make sure there are drivers available for the cards that you want
to use. BTW, I wouldn't even consider PCI w/o an 060.
>Oh, and will the Soundblaster work with the older, classic Amiga games?
Most of them no, older games usually talk directly to the hardware. More
recent games use AHI and would work w/ any sound card that you have drivers
for (not sure what's on the Mediatore driver disk, ask them).
John Burns
It's not that the game is poor, in fact its just the same, but without an
accelerator and extra mem it takes so long between rounds that you soon tire
of the delays. As for the A500 version I've never tried it but I believe it
suffers from the same slow pace. I imagine it was released mainly from a
financial point of view as there were quite a few A500 owners around at the
time.
>turbonutterbastard GVP add-on.
Hehe, I did, cost a bloody fortune too, and then there was the problem of non
standard Mem SIMMs :(
Marcel DeVoe
>>In comp.sys.amiga.hardware Nathan <tko...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>>> Erkan Orhun wrote:
>>>> I think for only gaming a 060 is too much, a 030 is fine if you just want
>>>> to play hd installed games on you television. But keep in mind that
>>>> workbench will be SO much speedier with a 060 if you have lots of
>>>> directories etc. Running an a1200 with 060 will make it much nicer to work
>>>> with, but its a bit overkill for oldschool games.
>>> Yup, I gotta agree. 060 is nice, but it's overkill for the money,
>>> and IMHO the compatibility loss is a big negative if you mostly want
>>> it for retro-gaming.
>>Uh, guys, are we losing sight here? If he just wanted it for retro-gaming,
>>why would he even want an accellerator /at all/ it the /first/ place?
>>The stock A1200 020 is just fine for that. ;)
> I would disagree. A stock A12k is unable to utilise the majority of WHDLoad patches
> since these require extra mem and a HD,
You can still do that with a stock A1200. Many people are doing so right
now.
> not forgetting classic games such as The
> Settlers, Lemmings 2, etc.
I don't know about Settlers, but I do have Lemming 2 and it does utilise
extra ram, ya, extra "chip" ram. Remember, it was written in Blitz Basic
which doesn't know what "fast" ram is.
On my A4000 it plays fine whether I have fast ram disabled or not. On my
A2000 it also plays fine, but you just don't get the speech of the little
guys.
So chip ram is the /only/ extra ram it utilises and 2 megs of chip is all
that it will ever use.
> have enhancements for machines with extra mem. Also
> games such as Civilization and UFO are much better playing experiences
when used
> with at least an 030 (In fact I wouldn't even bother with UFO on a
stock A12k).
True, everything/anything will be faster and hence semm more enjoyable,
especially once you've expenrienced it and then have to go back. But it
really isn't absolutely necessary.
But you are talking about some of the latter day games when accellerators
only just started making the scene.
Take Leisure Suit Larry. It does work on a stock A2000, but since it
basically was a "port" from the IBM PC world, it's programming was VERY
ineficient and thus agonisingly slow to play. Wanting to speed things up
but not wanting to loose compatability with and games that I read at the
time don't run anymore that people complained about when they got an
030, I opted to get a compatible accellerator, the SupraTurbo, which was a
specialised 68000 clocked up to 28mhz.
I thought that was a nice "tween" way to go. ;-)
Joachim Froholt
John Burns wrote:
> >In comp.sys.amiga.hardware Nathan <tko...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> Erkan Orhun wrote:
>
> >>> I think for only gaming a 060 is too much, a 030 is fine if you just want
> >>> to play hd installed games on you television. But keep in mind that
> >>> workbench will be SO much speedier with a 060 if you have lots of
> >>> directories etc. Running an a1200 with 060 will make it much nicer to work
> >>> with, but its a bit overkill for oldschool games.
>
> >> Yup, I gotta agree. 060 is nice, but it's overkill for the money,
> >> and IMHO the compatibility loss is a big negative if you mostly want
> >> it for retro-gaming.
>
> >Uh, guys, are we losing sight here? If he just wanted it for retro-gaming,
> >why would he even want an accellerator /at all/ it the /first/ place?
>
> >The stock A1200 020 is just fine for that. ;)
>
> I would disagree. A stock A12k is unable to utilise the majority of WHDLoad patches
> since these require extra mem and a HD, not forgetting classic games such as The
> Settlers, Lemmings 2, etc. have enhancements for machines with extra mem.
The Settlers is perfectly playable on a stock A1200, it loads all the sound effects and
music (which it does not do on, for instance, an 1 MB A600), and it allows gamers to
play all missions (which are mapsize 3), plus it allows people to set single game
mapsizes up to 5, which is pretty large. With extra memory, you get extra mapsizes,
though I think the max size you get is 7. This is, I think, four times larger than
mapsize 5... I'd be interested in hearing if anyone has ever completed a game with that
mapsize :-)
> Also
> games such as Civilization and UFO are much better playing experiences when used
> with at least an 030 (In fact I wouldn't even bother with UFO on a stock A12k).
I don't know about UFO, but Civ AGA is perfectly playable on a stock A1200.
I would go for an A1200 first, and then if I saw the need for it, buy a Blizzard 030 or
something, with at least 16 mb of extra ram. A 060 would probably be nice, but I can't
really see the need for it if my main use for the machine is old games..
Joachim
Angus Manwaring
>>"John Burns" <jo...@free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:<1216.844T659...@free-online.co.uk>...
>>> I would disagree. A stock A12k is unable to utilise the majority of
>>> WHDLoad patches since these require extra mem and a HD, not forgetting
>>> classic games such as The Settlers, Lemmings 2, etc. have enhancements
>>> for machines with extra mem. Also games such as Civilization and UFO are
>>> much better playing experiences when used with at least an 030 (In fact I
>>> wouldn't even bother with UFO on a stock A12k).
>>So bearing in mind how poor UFO is on a stock A1200, why was an A500
>>version released? Maybe they expected all A500 users to have a
>It's not that the game is poor, in fact its just the same, but without an
>accelerator and extra mem it takes so long between rounds that you soon tire
>of the delays. As for the A500 version I've never tried it but I believe it
>suffers from the same slow pace. I imagine it was released mainly from a
>financial point of view as there were quite a few A500 owners around at the
>time.
The AGA version has 256 colour graphics I think, and the A500 version
looked pretty rough in comparison. I fired up the AGA version the other
day, it works without trouble from hard drive on my 060, and I was very
impressed at just how nice the game looks, sounds and plays even now.
Angus Manwaring
Somebody I knew upgraded their Amiga to a 68010. He used to reckon that
Battle Isle's AI ran much faster with it. We thought he was talking
rubbish and used to make jokes about how the lights in our town flickered
and dimmed whenever he powered up "The 68 Ten!!" :)
Eric Haines
> >accelerator and extra mem it takes so long between rounds that you soon tire
> >of the delays. As for the A500 version I've never tried it but I believe it
> >suffers from the same slow pace. I imagine it was released mainly from a
> >financial point of view as there were quite a few A500 owners around at the
> >time.
>
> The AGA version has 256 colour graphics I think, and the A500 version
> looked pretty rough in comparison. I fired up the AGA version the other
> day, it works without trouble from hard drive on my 060, and I was very
> impressed at just how nice the game looks, sounds and plays even now.
>
>
>
> All the best,
> Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM)
I read a review of the A500 version, and aside from the worse graphics
they said it took about 20 minutes for the computer to make its turn.
The game was no speed demon on the 40MHz '030 I played it on, so I
think that 20 minutes might not even be an exaggeration.
--Eric
John Burns
>>>> Erkan Orhun wrote:
My error, you are of course correct about L2. However, many games do detect
extra Fast RAM. Settlers BTW lets you choose larger maps which obviously lets
you build larger settlements etc.
>> have enhancements for machines with extra mem. Also
>> games such as Civilization and UFO are much better playing experiences
>when used
>> with at least an 030 (In fact I wouldn't even bother with UFO on a
>stock A12k).
>True, everything/anything will be faster and hence semm more enjoyable,
>especially once you've expenrienced it and then have to go back. But it
>really isn't absolutely necessary.
>But you are talking about some of the latter day games when accellerators
>only just started making the scene.
>Take Leisure Suit Larry. It does work on a stock A2000, but since it
>basically was a "port" from the IBM PC world, it's programming was VERY
>ineficient and thus agonisingly slow to play. Wanting to speed things up
>but not wanting to loose compatability with and games that I read at the
>time don't run anymore that people complained about when they got an
>030, I opted to get a compatible accellerator, the SupraTurbo, which was a
>specialised 68000 clocked up to 28mhz.
>I thought that was a nice "tween" way to go. ;-)
Fair enough but then it wouldn't be a stock machine. Actually though most games
which fail to work are due to the A1200 chipset itself rather than an 030
and in these days I'd say it would be better to go for a 030+ since there
are not that many _good_. games for which you can't get a patch. This option
also lets you play some of the later games which have already been mentioned
at reasonable speeds etc.
John Burns
Yeah, but it took a few days (Mapsize 8). I'm not too sure if this is even the
largest it may be dependent on amount of extra RAM but short of fitting some
larger SIMMs I can't say.
>> Also
>> games such as Civilization and UFO are much better playing experiences when
>> used with at least an 030 (In fact I wouldn't even bother with UFO on a
>> stock A12k).
>I don't know about UFO, but Civ AGA is perfectly playable on a stock A1200.
Point is not that they can't be played but that they are more enjoyable experiences
with a faster machine, How long do you wait for CivAGA for instance to generate a
new map.
>I would go for an A1200 first, and then if I saw the need for it, buy a
>Blizzard 030 or something, with at least 16 mb of extra ram. A 060 would
>probably be nice, but I can't really see the need for it if my main use for
>the machine is old games..
Well without an A1200 all the foregoing is rather moot ;)
Joachim Froholt
John Burns wrote:
A few days? :-) My Mapsize 5 games took a few days.. this would have taken a few weeks
for me :-)
Actually, one multiplayer game lasted for a couple of years (ms 5).. we didn't get time
to play the game very much, though, but still. I can remember the features of the
landscape :-)
We also had great fun with a couple of Mapsize 2 maps (when the mouse port of my A1200
was broken, we had to play on the A600). This is pretty amazing in retrospect, and
what's even more amazing is that we always started with two opponents as well! :-)
> I'm not too sure if this is even the
> largest it may be dependent on amount of extra RAM but short of fitting some
> larger SIMMs I can't say.
Okay. I don't know. Maybe I got Mapsize 8 too, I've got 16 mb fast ram.
>
> >> Also
> >> games such as Civilization and UFO are much better playing experiences when
> >> used with at least an 030 (In fact I wouldn't even bother with UFO on a
> >> stock A12k).
>
> >I don't know about UFO, but Civ AGA is perfectly playable on a stock A1200.
>
> Point is not that they can't be played but that they are more enjoyable experiences
> with a faster machine, How long do you wait for CivAGA for instance to generate a
> new map.
Well, that took pretty long (there was a key which I could press to avoid watching the
entire intro, though), but it only happened once per game, you know :-)
>
> >I would go for an A1200 first, and then if I saw the need for it, buy a
> >Blizzard 030 or something, with at least 16 mb of extra ram. A 060 would
> >probably be nice, but I can't really see the need for it if my main use for
> >the machine is old games..
>
> Well without an A1200 all the foregoing is rather moot ;)
Yeah :-) My point is that he don't need to buy anything extra unless he feels the need
for it, if classic games is what he wants to play, then he'll be able to play a lot of
them using simple degraders and stuff like that. Ofcourse, playing from floppy isn't
always as pleasant as playing from hd, but this depends on the game in question. Most
arcade games are pretty okay.
Joachim
John Burns
Well OK I was spending about 18 hours a day (honest) playing it at the time but
even then maybe I should have said a "fair" few days..
>Actually, one multiplayer game lasted for a couple of years (ms 5).. we
>didn't get time to play the game very much, though, but still. I can remember
>the features of the landscape :-)
>We also had great fun with a couple of Mapsize 2 maps (when the mouse port of
>my A1200 was broken, we had to play on the A600). This is pretty amazing in
>retrospect, and what's even more amazing is that we always started with two
>opponents as well! :-)
>> I'm not too sure if this is even the
>> largest it may be dependent on amount of extra RAM but short of fitting
>> some larger SIMMs I can't say.
>Okay. I don't know. Maybe I got Mapsize 8 too, I've got 16 mb fast ram.
>>
>> >> Also
>> >> games such as Civilization and UFO are much better playing experiences
>> >> when used with at least an 030 (In fact I wouldn't even bother with UFO
>> >> on a stock A12k).
>>
>> >I don't know about UFO, but Civ AGA is perfectly playable on a stock
>> >A1200.
>>
>> Point is not that they can't be played but that they are more enjoyable
>> experiences with a faster machine, How long do you wait for CivAGA for
>> instance to generate a new map.
>Well, that took pretty long (there was a key which I could press to avoid
>watching the entire intro, though), but it only happened once per game, you
>know :-)
Granted but it's still annoying.
>>
>> >I would go for an A1200 first, and then if I saw the need for it, buy a
>> >Blizzard 030 or something, with at least 16 mb of extra ram. A 060 would
>> >probably be nice, but I can't really see the need for it if my main use
>> >for the machine is old games..
>>
>> Well without an A1200 all the foregoing is rather moot ;)
>Yeah :-) My point is that he don't need to buy anything extra unless he feels
>the need for it, if classic games is what he wants to play, then he'll be
>able to play a lot of them using simple degraders and stuff like that.
>Ofcourse, playing from floppy isn't always as pleasant as playing from hd,
>but this depends on the game in question. Most arcade games are pretty okay.
Well arguably if it is true retro gaming he wishes for then he would be best to
get an A500.
Joachim Froholt
John Burns wrote:
> >> >> I would disagree. A stock A12k is unable to utilise the majority of
> >> >> WHDLoad patches since these require extra mem and a HD, not forgetting
> >> >> classic games such as The Settlers, Lemmings 2, etc. have enhancements
> >> >> for machines with extra mem.
> >>
> >> >The Settlers is perfectly playable on a stock A1200, it loads all the
> >> >sound effects and music (which it does not do on, for instance, an 1 MB
> >> >A600), and it allows gamers to play all missions (which are mapsize 3),
> >> >plus it allows people to set single game mapsizes up to 5, which is pretty
> >> >large. With extra memory, you get extra mapsizes, though I think the max
> >> >size you get is 7. This is, I think, four times larger than mapsize 5...
> >> >I'd be interested in hearing if anyone has ever completed a game with that
> >> >mapsize :-)
> >>
> >> Yeah, but it took a few days (Mapsize 8).
>
> >A few days? :-) My Mapsize 5 games took a few days.. this would have taken a
> >few weeks for me :-)
>
> Well OK I was spending about 18 hours a day (honest) playing it at the time but
> even then maybe I should have said a "fair" few days..
Ok, I see :-)
We always used to dream of how it would be like to play on mapsize 7 or 8, but when
I finally got that accellerator board, neither of us were prepared to sit for hours
with that game... we had played it do death allready :-)
> >>
> >> >I would go for an A1200 first, and then if I saw the need for it, buy a
> >> >Blizzard 030 or something, with at least 16 mb of extra ram. A 060 would
> >> >probably be nice, but I can't really see the need for it if my main use
> >> >for the machine is old games..
> >>
> >> Well without an A1200 all the foregoing is rather moot ;)
>
> >Yeah :-) My point is that he don't need to buy anything extra unless he feels
> >the need for it, if classic games is what he wants to play, then he'll be
> >able to play a lot of them using simple degraders and stuff like that.
> >Ofcourse, playing from floppy isn't always as pleasant as playing from hd,
> >but this depends on the game in question. Most arcade games are pretty okay.
>
> Well arguably if it is true retro gaming he wishes for then he would be best to
> get an A500.
Maybe.. or an A600. But I think that, thanks to games such as The Patrician (PC
owners should check out the recently released sequel, btw - it's one of the best
games on the market today, definitely the best trading game available), The
Settlers and Civilization, an A1200 is still a better buy. Also, the Putty Squad
demo won't work on non AGA machines :-)
Joachim