DOS vs. Amiga: The Great Debate

There are a ton more exclusives on DOS

Amiga hands down until the early 90s, then 50/50 for a few years, then PCs hands down.

File: necklaugh.jpg (62KB, 734x510px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 734x510px

>>4242862
>amiga
>ever being good

>>4242862
This. Look at some of the versions of games on both systems, MS-Dos ones were always vastly inferior(Moonstone for instance) until Doom sealed the fate of Amiga.

>>4242862
This is absolutely inarguably correct the only discussion is which years (and which games) represented DOS's rally although it was really more about the advances in graphics hardware for PC

Amiga every year starting from 1986 (when Amiga became widely available) to 1991.

1992 is when DOS started getting decent exclusives so it was 50/50.

1994 Amiga loses hands down to DOS.

Like everyone else has said:
Pre-Doom: Amiga.
Post-Doom: DOS.

File: CDTV.jpg (77KB, 666x666px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 666x666px

>>4242967
The CDTV makes my dick hard, though.

>>4243136
Holy crap! Commodore invented the "Playstation" D-pad years before Sony!

>>4243136
I wish I've gotten one back in the early 90s when they went for 15 pounds a piece.

It would make a stylish as fuck hi-fi cd player.

>>4243178
I want one so bad.

Amiga, in terms of games, until 1994.
Amiga in terms of media until 2005.

>>4242759
MS DOS

PC Master Race are a bunch of PC fanboy faggots. PC gamers on the other hand are pretty cool.

I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as DOS, is in fact, IBM/DOS, or as I've recently taken to calling it, IBM plus DOS. DOS is not an gaming platform unto itself, but rather another commercial component of a fully functioning IBM PC gaming system made useful by International Business Machines.

Many computer users run a 100% IBM compatible gaming system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of IBM compatible which is widely used today is often called DOS, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the IBM system, developed by the International Business Machines.

There really is a DOS, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. DOS is the operating system: the program in the system that loads programs. The operating system is an essential part of a gaming system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete gaming system. DOS is normally used in combination with the IBM PC: the whole system is basically IBM with DOS added, or IBM/DOS. All the so-called DOS emulators are really emulators of IBM/DOS!

>>4242759
Amiga up until 1992, DOS from 1993 onwards. Debate over.

>>4242759
Until the early 90's, DOS and PCs where a joke.
Amiga was way ahead in terms of graphics and sound capabilities.

>>4243583
DOS has nothing to do with IBM or PCs you retard.

>>4243583
what about AmigaDOS?

>>4243670
MS-DOS is the only disk operating system worth mentioning.

>>4243676
care to elaborate?

>>4243705
Most others were tied to a specific system while MS-DOS was used for various x86 based systems.
Obviously you have other OS like CP/M or UNIX but they're not relevant for games.

>>4243720
most x86 DOS came bundled with a specific system, they weren't tied to them, mostly ran on any x86 compatible machines, that was the point of being x86 compatible, MS-DOS wasn't even developed by MS, it was called QDOS, latter acquired by MS. There where several different DOS for x86 at the time side by side

CP/M and UNIX have nothing to do with it, nobody thought about games back then, CP/M and UNIX probably had more games for the first few years when MS-DOS was starting to be a thing
games are mostly the games though that where compatible with far more x86 DOSes then just MS-DOS, it was usually office software that Microsoft makes changes to MS-DOS to not be compatible with other x86 DOS systems

>>4243720
also MS-DOS was irrelevant for the bigger games market until the early 90's and it was blown over by the mid/late 90's as Win9x specific games became a thing

>>4243729
Good luck running IBM compatible MS-DOS on PC-98 or vice versa.

>>4243729
>x86 compatible
No such thing. There were "IBM compatibles", but MS-DOS was available for more than just those, and most programs that touch the hardware directly (pretty much all games, for example) aren't going to work on differing architectures.

>>4243730
It was quite relevant in the mid-80s.
Most games were ported to IBM for a reason. Amiga on the other hand often got ignored.
C64 was the only real competition in terms of market share.

>>4243735
There are x86 compatibles in a different context such as AMD286 or NEC V20.

File: pc98.jpg (417KB, 1440x1920px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1440x1920px

>>4243741
Sure, that's true. They don't exist in the sense of a complete computer, was my point.

I've got a non-IBM-compatible x86 MS-DOS computer sitting right next to me, in fact.

>>4243737
What are you smoking, Amiga and C64 had way more games and got more releases until the very early 90's, compared to PC.

Amiga unlil Wolf3D was released, then IBM PC.

>>4243985
Not really, a lot of good Amiga and even C64 games still came out after Wolf3D, I'd say Doom is when the downfall started, even after Doom the Amiga was still getting much attention, but that's the period the PC started to slowly pass it.

>>4243831
Those were small games by hobbyists. Big commercial games were made for the trinity of Apple, IBM and C64.

>>4242759
In the 80s, Amiga.
In the 90s, PC.

>>4244101
Wrong.
Early 80's was all about C64 and Apple II, mid 80's to early 90's was Amiga, Atari ST.

You're either baiting or actual IBM fanboy.
Else bring a dozen examples at least.

>>4244217
Name some big game that wasn't ported to IBM. They might not have been the greatest once, lacking sound and the like, but it was a platform nobody could ignore.

Look at Wizardry or Wasteland for 80s games not released on the Amiga.

>>4244226
Wasteland was a Apple II game that got ported to IBM PCs.
Obviously big games where ported to many systems. But IBM PC is almost never the origin platform or has the definitive version for a game.
While C64, Amiga, Atari ST got all the better ports or are actual origin platforms for games with definitive versions. A lot of big game companies that still exist got their start at making C64 and Amiga games.
It's dumb to say IBM PCs got ports for a reason, while those computers costed way more and had nowhere as good graphics or sound capabilities, they where nowhere in anyone's mind as a system to profit compared to C64's, Amigas, Atari ST's and even Apple II's because the educational market.

You're also moving goalposts, you said Amiga got ignored, while Amiga got more focus than IBM PCs.

>>4244274
>Obviously big games where ported to many systems
But not the Amiga apparently.
Sierra did a lot of work for IBM.

>>4244290
>But not the Amiga apparently.
Because it was the origin platform of many big games of the time and yes, it did get a lot of ports from other big games and arcade ports too.
Are you pulling this shit out your ass?

>Sierra did a lot of work for IBM.
So did they for the Amiga, their games even support MIDI out on the Amiga for things like MT-32. Same with the Atari ST.

>>4244226
>Look at Wizardry
>a game that came out 4 years before the Amiga

>>4244309
What Sierra game was originally made for the Amiga?
What big games were made for the Amiga in the 80s? Even Dungeon Master was originally for the Atari ST.

>>4244316
They released 1-3 for IBM and C64 in 86 and could easily have been ported to the Amiga due to the Pascal implementation.
Wizardry 4 and 5 came out after the Amiga so there's no excuse.
Wizardry 7 might could have gotten an AGA port or a downgrade for OCS but it didn't.

>>4244319
>What Sierra game was originally made for the Amiga?
You where talking about ports, Amiga has plenty of ports of Sierra games. Monkey Island series, Flight of the Amazon Queen, etc.
Are you trying to move the goalpost again?

>Even Dungeon Master was originally for the Atari ST.
Dungeon Master was also on the Amiga. Amiga has also it's fair share of good dungeon crawlers, Black Crypt, etc. Also games both systems had, Amiga versions where almost always unarguably superior.
Lemmings?
Worms?
Another World?
Settlers?

>>4244360
>>4244360 (Me)
>Monkey Island series, Flight of the Amazon Queen, etc.
I was talking about similar games here, not Sierra games, not to get confused.
Amiga ports like Larry and King's Quest if we are talking about Sierra.

>>4244360
IBM was Sierra's original platform from the second half of the 80s onward. You are the one trying to move goalposts.
The 80s typically end with 1989. You can't claim that many great games in the 80s were originally made for the Amiga only to provide examples from the 90s.

>>4244376
>IBM was Sierra's original platform from the second half of the 80s onward.
I never denied that. You mentioned ports, I just said Amiga had a big portion of Sierra games.

>The 80s typically end with 1989. You can't claim that many great games in the 80s were originally made for the Amiga only to provide examples from the 90s.
First, you asked big games, so I gave answers from big studios. You didn't ask about "great games".
See https://warosu.org/vr/thread/S4137290 for example for some of great Amiga games, many of them originating on that platform and some are also from the 80's.

Second, you're awfully cherry picking here. Now it's not okay if they aren't in a particular timeframe that suits your argument?

File: planar.png (142KB, 1877x1297px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1877x1297px

>>4243136
The CDTV was way ahead of it's time. This thing was one of the first real CD-based consoles.

But what held it back (this thing sold like crap and flopped big time) was Commodore's typical way of going cheap. The CDTV pretty much was "just" an Amiga 500 with additional drivers for the CD-ROM and some extra stuff for video playback, which was very limited (with CDXL
using an proprietary format) but was still better then other solutions on the market (at the time).

They did it again with the CD32 by just putting an Amiga 1200 into a console case with only a single chip differentiating it from a regular A1200 - the "Akiko"-Chip to control the CD-Drive and help the Amiga for 3D games with a chunky2planar routine in hardware, since this was necessary because the Amiga's planar display was very good with 2D gaming and especially parallax scrolling but these advantages backfired, since this architecture did cost extra processing power to convert the chunky pixels of 3D graphics to the bitplane graphics of the Amiga graphic chip.

>>4244402
Let me quote
>origin platform of many big games of the time and
Specifically
>of the time
I didn't write that part. We were talking about the 80s and therefore I asked about games from the 80s.
I forgot to mention Defender of the Crown.

>>4244430
>Defender of the Crown
Nice example of a 80's Amiga game that had origins on Amiga also.

File: kings_quest_iv_amiga.png (7KB, 320x256px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 320x256px

>>4244402
> I never denied that. You mentioned ports, I just said Amiga had a big portion of Sierra games.

Too bad that most of the Sierra ports for the Amiga were done extremely lazy. Kings Quest, Police Quest, heck even the Hoyle's board/card game series were ported extremely poorly and I would say even amateurish. Early King's Quest games even used the butt ugly CGA color palette of the PC almost without any changes on the Amiga, but still run slow as molasses, despite being ported to an (at the time) much more capable hardware. And of course they didn't even utilize the Amiga's sound capabilities.

>>4244454
At least they weren't worse than the PC counterparts

>>4244410
Good post. Thank you.