i owned the jaguar back in the day and i even bought doom for it, the controller for the jaguar is similar to the saturn nights controller and the dreamcast controller to a extent. u even had a little cut-out u would put over the like "30" buttons on the damn controller. was the last cartriage console system, they even came out with a cd-addon for it too.

Nintendo 64 came after.

I'm glad I read that all the way through because my immediate knee jerk reaction was to flame you for your lack of understanding of what a 64-bit bus actually is. The second reaction was one of irony, becuase something reeked of satire. Hats off to you, because you could be a fanboy in a cheap hollywood production.

Atari's math was off. Two 32-bit processors (named Tom and Jerry) does not equal a 64 bit bus. Secondly the bus width preaching of the old gamming days was nothing but a gimmick. Why didn't I buy one? Because my parents thought my SNES was sufficient and didn't think I needed another gamming console. Being 10 or 12 at the time I wanted every video game system out there because I played video games then like I drink now. ALL THE TIME!

Now I wouldn't buy one because well its dated and it really had no support. 2 problems for me...I love old consoles, but that love turns to hate  when they didn't have anything for software...cept for the SEGA CD becuase Lunar 1 and 2 pwned!

The PC-Engine had a 16bit graphics chip in it.  It was in the same class as Genesis and SNES.  Anyhow, the point here is number of bits doesn't matter anyhow.

We are at a place where people no longer discuss number of bits, because it flat out doesn't matter to sales.  In regards to the Jaguar, here is Wikipedia on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Jaguar

Flare II initially set to work designing two consoles for Atari Corp. One was a 32-bit architecture (codenamed "Panther"), and the other was a 64-bit system (codenamed "Jaguar"); however, work on the Jaguar design progressed faster than expected, and Atari Corp. canceled the Panther project to focus on the more promising 64-bit technology.

In a last ditch effort to rescue the Jaguar, Atari Corp. tried to play down the other two consoles by proclaiming the Jaguar was the only "64-bit" system. This claim is questioned by some^[9], because the CPU (68000) and GPU executed a 32-bit instruction-set, but sent control signals to the 64-bit graphics co-processors (or "graphics accelerators"). Atari Corp.'s position was that the mere presence of 64-bit ALUs for graphics was sufficient to validate the claim. Design specs for the console allude to the GPU or DSP being capable of acting as a CPU, leaving the Motorola 68000 to read controller inputs. In practice, however, many developers used the Motorola 68000 to drive gameplay logic.

Processors

• "Tom" Chip, 26.59 MHz
  • Graphics processing unit (GPU) – 32-bit RISC architecture, 4 KB internal cache, provides wide array of graphic effects
  • Object Processor – 64-bit RISC architecture; programmable; can behave as a variety of graphic architectures
  • Blitter – 64-bit RISC architecture; high speed logic operations, z-buffering and Gouraud shading, with 64-bit internal registers.
  • DRAM controller, 32-bit memory management

Again, it was 64bit the wat the PC-Engine was 16bit.  It had a 64bit processor in it and a 64bit bus.  Of course, most developers coded to the 16bit processor in it, so it was moot.  Number of bits don't mean much either.  The Intellivision was a 16bit system, but compare the 8bit NES to it.  The NES blows it away. 

I understand what is going on here.  The real understanding is screaming specs is a joke when it comes to games.

Exactly, "bits" referred to the CPU, not GPU, and PC-Engine only had an 8-bit CPU. The 16 in TurboGrafx-16 was a marketing ploy, much like the Jaguar spouting about it's 64 bits that you mention in the OP.

PC-Engine was really 4.5th gen, it released two years after the Master System (Mark III), but three years before the Super Famicom and was somewhere in between powerwise.

Anyway, back to your question, I didn't get a Jaguar because I wanted a Saturn, but I ended up getting a Playstation instead. I didn't get a Lynx because it was too big, I had a Gamegear and PC-Engine GT instead.

This is pretty much where I learned everything I know about the Atari Jaguar.

the way i see it is that the jaguar had virtually no good games. at the time everyone wanted mario, sonic, zelda, FF, ect., and those weren't on the jaguar. so graphics really dont win in the long (or short) run, games and gameplay do. besides, isn't it a bit late to be freaking out about this?

You answered your own question... Any console that requires you to do math, isn't worth buying.

Truth is the value of a console depends on expectations.

Had Atari been a japanese brand every-one would have expected it to succeed. And instead of waiting to see what happens developpers would have actually invested budgets in it, and gamers would have naturally followed.



Console wars, armies of fanboys creating and destroying expections, are merely a sympton of the gaming-platform market structure.