@ sieanr

I was basing what I said on LordTheNightKnight comments, I didn't investigate the matter myself, so I took his statement as being correct. What is so hard for you to understand?



OK, but quoting you:

"The SNES and Mega Drive don't have video connectors. RF and A/V plugs are the only options. "

"The Mega Drive and the SNES never had monitors, so a TV was the only option."



The 68000 also found its way into various game consoles, including the Sega MegaDrive. The full 32-bit CPU found in the Amiga CD32 games console was several times faster than the Amiga 500 CPU, the A600 was still available the year the CD32 launched.



Its RAM was tiny, especially compared to available RAM on the Amiga CD32 games console. Its games storage was small, usually 1 MB cartridges due to production costs. Both Snes and Mega Drive offered stongpoints for game development, but were far less powerfull technically than the Amiga CD32. But sadly Commodore was no Sony and were unable to really show off the potential of its Amiga devision's excellent creation.

MikeB said: @ sieanr Nice try, but no dice. I was basing what I said on LordTheNightKnight comments, I didn't investigate the matter myself, so I took his statement as being correct. What is so hard for you to understand? I didn't claim it couldn't connect to a monitor. OK, but quoting you: "The SNES and Mega Drive don't have video connectors. RF and A/V plugs are the only options. " "The Mega Drive and the SNES never had monitors, so a TV was the only option." Also, comparing the CPU speed to a home console is a bunk comparison unless the console came out ten years after a particular PC (two present consoles excepted). The 68000 also found its way into various game consoles, including the Sega MegaDrive. The full 32-bit CPU found in the Amiga CD32 games console was several times faster than the Amiga 500 CPU, the A600 was still available the year the CD32 launched. You didn't bring up ANYTHING else about its specs, not the CPU cache, not its RAM, its spriting abilities, or the enhancement chips. Its RAM was tiny, especially compared to available RAM on the Amiga CD32 games console. Its games storage was small, usually 1 MB cartridges due to production costs. Both Snes and Mega Drive offered stongpoints for game development, but were far less powerfull technically than the Amiga CD32. But sadly Commodore was no Sony and were unable to really show off the potential of its Amiga devision's excellent creation.

 I stand corrected on the only option part, but that doesn't make the Amiga a home console.

 The FIRST comment you made about the Amiga was not the CD32. It was about the original PC model. I'll give the CD32 has specs closer to 5th gen systems, but not only did the CD32 come out three years after the Super Famicom (again making it an iffy comparison), you wrote "espcecially", meaining it's not the only console to compare to.

This is where the tiny claim falls short. Looking at the tech specs for the SNES, Mega Drive, Turbo Grafix-16, and Neo-Geo, the actual contemporary systems of the 4th gen, we see the SNES actually had the most system RAM, 128KB, compared to 64KB for the Mega Drive and Neo-Geo, and 8KB for the TG-16. The SNES has about the same VRAM as all of them, 64KB, with the Neo-Geo having another 10 to help with the greater color depth. Calling that tiny compared to the other is just a lie.

And if you are going to insist on including the original Amiga's 512KB, you HAVE to compare the PS3's 512MB to the 1-2GB of a typical new PC.

And don't bring up the CD32 anymore with me. I'm not arguing that.

All you can say until next christmas is that there are a lot of unknowns.

@ LordTheNightKnight

RAM is expensive and game consoles were designed to be cheap, but consumer electronics like the CDi and CDTV as released in 1991 (Snes was launched in Europe in 1992) offered mutliple times more memory, thus this was still a tiny amount of RAM to deal with, nomatter if other consoles had tiny amount of RAM as well.



Amigas didn't need to boot a full OS, the kickstart chip included the core OS and drivers, allowing you to directly boot into disc or CD based games without having to go through a GUI or CLI.

AmigaOS was also rather efficient, let's just take Crysis as an example. The game requires 1.5 GB of RAM in combination with Vista and 1 GB of RAM in combination with XP. This 500 MB difference is probably just caused by the OS being even less optimised and more bloated than Windows XP already is. As Windows uses up so many resources the comparison is flawed, on the PS3 you don't have to boot up an inefficient OS first to play a game.

Personally I am more a fan of the AmigaOS-approach, I wish there was a modern efficient OS available maybe based on technically impressive OSes like BeOS or the QNX Neutrino microkernel. I would like to see operating systems become more efficient and thus more powerful with new releases, not slower. My old Amiga 2000 always responded to my user input, nomatter how many files I was transferring or applications I was running in the background (even at 7 Mhz), sadly that's not the case for Windows even with my multi-Ghz setup.

MikeB said: @ LordTheNightKnight This is where the tiny claim falls short. Looking at the tech specs for the SNES, Mega Drive, Turbo Grafix-16, and Neo-Geo, the actual contemporary systems of the 4th gen, we see the SNES actually had the most system RAM, 128KB, compared to 64KB for the Mega Drive and Neo-Geo, and 8KB for the TG-16. RAM is expensive and game consoles were designed to be cheap, but consumer electronics like the CDi and CDTV as released in 1991 (Snes was launched in Europe in 1992) offered mutliple times more memory, thus this was still a tiny amount of RAM to deal with, nomatter if other consoles had tiny amount of RAM as well. And if you are going to insist on including the original Amiga's 512KB, you HAVE to compare the PS3's 512MB to the 1-2GB of a typical new PC. Amigas didn't need to boot a full OS, the kickstart chip included the core OS and drivers, allowing you to directly boot into disc or CD based games without having to go through a GUI or CLI. AmigaOS was also rather efficient, let's just take Crysis as an example. The game requires 1.5 GB of RAM in combination with Vista and 1 GB of RAM in combination with XP. This 500 MB difference is probably just caused by the OS being even less optimised and more bloated than Windows XP already is. As Windows uses up so many resources the comparison is flawed, on the PS3 you don't have to boot up an inefficient OS first to play a game. Personally I am more a fan of the AmigaOS-approach, I wish there was a modern efficient OS available maybe based on technically impressive OSes like BeOS or the QNX Neutrino microkernel. I would like to see operating systems become more efficient and thus more powerful with new releases, not slower. My old Amiga 2000 always responded to my user input, nomatter how many files I was transferring or applications I was running in the background (even at 7 Mhz), sadly that's not the case for Windows even with my multi-Ghz setup.

 The SNES was never meant to be in the class of those other dveices. Get that around your thick skull.