Falcon vs Jaguar. Did atari make a step backwards?

[Christos]

So the Falcon is a computer and the Jaguar a console so I'll limit it to the gaming aspect of things.

The falcon has more games. More than 100 and most of them are free, and they are actually pretty good as well.If you also count the Falcon compatible ST games it goes up to a 1000. It's also much easier to code on, with very few hardware bugs. All the developer tools you will ever need are there. From assemblers to Basic and from C to C++ are there and most importantly free. The Falcon can also work with various controllers, from the classic CX40 to the jagpad.

On a hardware level, this machine is perfect for gaming. It has a 32bit 68030 cpu and a RISC M56001 DSP that has been used to make beautiful 3d graphics. Texture mapping is standard on it's demos. I don't even need to speak about the audio capabilities.

The Falcon also features fine scrolling and a blitter coprocessor. It also features all kinds of magnetic and optical mediums which IMHO should have been added to the jag as well. Also the falcon is much more expandable, there are all kind of hardware expansions, from simple memory add ons to the fastest running 68060 processor and from ethernet that can be used for fast online gaming to usb for the possibility of adding usb controllers.

But because gaming is about games, it clearly is a winner. The quality of most falcon games is superb, even if some of them are simplistic in nature, classic 8 bit ports etc.

[kevincal]

yet ANOTHER vs thread..when will the insanity stop!??

[A Sprite]

The Falcon's performance was not as great as it could have been, mostly due to Atari's decision to put the 32-bit 68030 microprocessor on a 16-bit data bus.

 

This sounds familiar...

[Gorf]

Some one lock this thread NOW!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Falcon is missing a 64 bit buss a Blitter on the magnitude of the one in the Jaguar whihc is also 64 bits,

and OPL and two risc processors....Falcon aint even close...see Amiga computers vs thread...about the same..

[Brian R.]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what this brings up in my mind is the question of Atari basing another game console on an existing computer platform, like the 5200 based on the 400.

 

That's what's meant by the Jaguar being based on the Falcon, right? I have no experience with the Falcon.

 

But instead, Atari bought the Jaguar from someone else, right?

Edited August 5, 2007 by Brian R.

[A Sprite]

Wait. Before this thread gets locked, can someone actually show a few games? I've looked for a Falcon site with no success, Youtube has lots of demos, and one Joust platformer with no attacks...

 

How bad can this system be?

[Gorf]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what this brings up in my mind is the question of Atari basing another game console on an existing computer platform, like the 5200 based on the 400.

 

That's what's meant by the Jaguar being based on the Falcon, right? I have no experience with the Falcon.

 

But instead, Atari bought the Jaguar from someone else, right?

 

 

Yes...Atari worked with Flare....the only relation to the Jaguar is the 68k inside and nothing

else..completely other planet in design and purpose.

[A Sprite]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what this brings up in my mind is the question of Atari basing another game console on an existing computer platform, like the 5200 based on the 400.

 

That's what's meant by the Jaguar being based on the Falcon, right? I have no experience with the Falcon.

 

But instead, Atari bought the Jaguar from someone else, right?

 

 

Yes...Atari worked with Flare....the only relation to the Jaguar is the 68k inside and nothing

else..completely other planet in design and purpose.

 

It also required a Jaguar controller for many of it's games.

[+davidcalgary29]

Wait. Before this thread gets locked, can someone actually show a few games? I've looked for a Falcon site with no success, Youtube has lots of demos, and one Joust platformer with no attacks...

 

How bad can this system be?

 

A bad system? Where did you get that idea?

 

While it's true that the Falcon was released at the end of Atari's forays into home computing, was released in relatively small numbers, and is prohibitively expensive to buy now (upwards of $350 per computer!), it has many fans who continue to release dedicated games for it...including, I understand, a pretty good port of Chu Chu Rocket. I just got my falcon, and have yet to try anything on it, but I'm sure a rabid Falcon fan will chime in an extol the virtues of this system.

[Gregory DG]

I remember reading a rumor somewhere that Atari was thinking of turning the Jaguar into a computer. Why would they do that if the Falcon was superior hardware?

[Christos]

Firstly I don't see a reason for this thread to be locked. I am pretty sure we are mature enough not to resort to flames. Actually Gorf the dsp is a risc processor.

A sprite, the bus is 32 bit width, the processor is connected to the 16 of them while the videl is 32bit and thus the bus is 32 bit. There is a rational behind the use of a 16 bit data connection, that being that the RAM would have to be either 2 Mb's (too little) or 8Mb's (too expensive).

Brian R, I have some mini reviews and links for falcon games at my blog here in atariage. Also it didn't require a jaguar controller since even before the jaguar a grey controller was released for the STE. The jaguar controller is based on that.

[A Sprite]

A bad system? Where did you get that idea?

 

I don't know whether it's good or bad - this is the first I've heard of the system.

 

The only thing close to a Falcon site I could find, lists 22 games, with one sentence reviews.

Edited August 5, 2007 by A Sprite

[A Sprite]

A sprite, the bus is 32 bit width, the processor is connected to the 16 of them while the videl is 32bit and thus the bus is 32 bit. There is a rational behind the use of a 16 bit data connection, that being that the RAM would have to be either 2 Mb's (too little) or 8Mb's (too expensive).

 

You're needed at the Wikipedia page.

[Christos]

And here is tof's site with falcon games.

[Gorf]

Firstly I don't see a reason for this thread to be locked. I am pretty sure we are mature enough not to resort to flames. Actually Gorf the dsp is a risc processor.

 

Um...it was a joke... and yes forgot about the DSP.

[Fadest]

There is nothing in common between Falcon and Jaguar, except the 68K family processor, and the STE extended joystick port for connecting jagpad.

 

The falcon can be considered as a Next for eveyone, like the ST for a Macintosh for everyone. This was a good computer, but came a bit late, and should have been a little bit more powerful (32mhz like the TT would have been great)

 

The Jaguar was intended to explode every single console already existing. This is a very powerful console, dedicated to gaming (and mainly 2D gaming where it is at the top, even if its 3D capacities are far better than SNES, Genesi, 32X and every 16bits), of course, Jaguar capacities overules Falcon's one, on gaming side (sprites, Gouraud, ...), but the Falcon was more versatile.

 

But both failed, because of the lack of support from Atari and third party editors (mostly newcomers). The Falcon came too late (or should have been more powerful, and the 40 version should have been out), while the PC systems begun to overrule the market. The Jaguar had a better support from big editors at the beginning, but Atari disappeared too soon...

 

Concerning official games, I think that there are more on Jaguar, concerning DP, shareware, homebrews games, there are far more of course on Falcon (a computer is far more easy to program, and there are a lot of tools). Concerning quality of the games, I guess this is up to evryone to determine whether they like Falcon of Jaguar games, but there are unique games on each systems.

[Gorf]

There is nothing in common between Falcon and Jaguar, except the 68K family processor, and the STE extended joystick port for connecting jagpad.

 

The falcon can be considered as a Next for eveyone, like the ST for a Macintosh for everyone. This was a good computer, but came a bit late, and should have been a little bit more powerful (32mhz like the TT would have been great)

 

The Jaguar was intended to explode every single console already existing. This is a very powerful console, dedicated to gaming (and mainly 2D gaming where it is at the top, even if its 3D capacities are far better than SNES, Genesi, 32X and every 16bits), of course, Jaguar capacities overules Falcon's one, on gaming side (sprites, Gouraud, ...), but the Falcon was more versatile.

 

But both failed, because of the lack of support from Atari and third party editors (mostly newcomers). The Falcon came too late (or should have been more powerful, and the 40 version should have been out), while the PC systems begun to overrule the market. The Jaguar had a better support from big editors at the beginning, but Atari disappeared too soon...

 

Concerning official games, I think that there are more on Jaguar, concerning DP, shareware, homebrews games, there are far more of course on Falcon (a computer is far more easy to program, and there are a lot of tools). Concerning quality of the games, I guess this is up to evryone to determine whether they like Falcon of Jaguar games, but there are unique games on each systems.

 

 

The Falcon was definitely a smaller market than jaguar. If it was larger, Atari may not have needed the jaguar.

Atari would have been making money.....more than they were anyway.

[Brian R.]

If part of the problem was support, wouldn't it had made sense for Atari to repeat its own history and base a game console off of an existing computer platform like the Falcon? They could have made some modifications/improvements to it to make it stronger - like the 64 bit bus, I guess, maybe more - but retain compatiblity and/or make it easy for games to be ported between the computer platform and the game system.

 

Again, I don't know much about the Falcon - nothing really. Did it have the bugs and problems that the Jag did when it came to programming and development?

 

I wonder what a Falcon-based Jaguar could've done. And how it may have gone over in the market.

[BuddyBuddies]

There is nothing in common between Falcon and Jaguar, except the 68K family processor, and the STE extended joystick port for connecting jagpad.

 

The falcon can be considered as a Next for eveyone, like the ST for a Macintosh for everyone. This was a good computer, but came a bit late, and should have been a little bit more powerful (32mhz like the TT would have been great)

 

The Jaguar was intended to explode every single console already existing. This is a very powerful console, dedicated to gaming (and mainly 2D gaming where it is at the top, even if its 3D capacities are far better than SNES, Genesi, 32X and every 16bits), of course, Jaguar capacities overules Falcon's one, on gaming side (sprites, Gouraud, ...), but the Falcon was more versatile.

 

But both failed, because of the lack of support from Atari and third party editors (mostly newcomers). The Falcon came too late (or should have been more powerful, and the 40 version should have been out), while the PC systems begun to overrule the market. The Jaguar had a better support from big editors at the beginning, but Atari disappeared too soon...

 

Concerning official games, I think that there are more on Jaguar, concerning DP, shareware, homebrews games, there are far more of course on Falcon (a computer is far more easy to program, and there are a lot of tools). Concerning quality of the games, I guess this is up to evryone to determine whether they like Falcon of Jaguar games, but there are unique games on each systems.

 

 

The Falcon was definitely a smaller market than jaguar. If it was larger, Atari may not have needed the jaguar.

Atari would have been making money.....more than they were anyway.

LOL,this is true nobody knows what a Falcon is!!! imagine how bad they would have bashed that!! all Atari stuff got a bad rap....

[Brian R.]

There is nothing in common between Falcon and Jaguar, except the 68K family processor, and the STE extended joystick port for connecting jagpad.

 

The falcon can be considered as a Next for eveyone, like the ST for a Macintosh for everyone. This was a good computer, but came a bit late, and should have been a little bit more powerful (32mhz like the TT would have been great)

 

The Jaguar was intended to explode every single console already existing. This is a very powerful console, dedicated to gaming (and mainly 2D gaming where it is at the top, even if its 3D capacities are far better than SNES, Genesi, 32X and every 16bits), of course, Jaguar capacities overules Falcon's one, on gaming side (sprites, Gouraud, ...), but the Falcon was more versatile.

 

But both failed, because of the lack of support from Atari and third party editors (mostly newcomers). The Falcon came too late (or should have been more powerful, and the 40 version should have been out), while the PC systems begun to overrule the market. The Jaguar had a better support from big editors at the beginning, but Atari disappeared too soon...

 

Concerning official games, I think that there are more on Jaguar, concerning DP, shareware, homebrews games, there are far more of course on Falcon (a computer is far more easy to program, and there are a lot of tools). Concerning quality of the games, I guess this is up to evryone to determine whether they like Falcon of Jaguar games, but there are unique games on each systems.

 

 

The Falcon was definitely a smaller market than jaguar. If it was larger, Atari may not have needed the jaguar.

Atari would have been making money.....more than they were anyway.

LOL,this is true nobody knows what a Falcon is!!! imagine how bad they would have bashed that!! all Atari stuff got a bad rap....

 

Most don't know what a Jaguar is... aside from the cat and the car.

[Gorf]

If part of the problem was support, wouldn't it had made sense for Atari to repeat its own history and base a game console off of an existing computer platform like the Falcon? They could have made some modifications/improvements to it to make it stronger - like the 64 bit bus, I guess, maybe more - but retain compatiblity and/or make it easy for games to be ported between the computer platform and the game system.

 

Again, I don't know much about the Falcon - nothing really. Did it have the bugs and problems that the Jag did when it came to programming and development?

 

I wonder what a Falcon-based Jaguar could've done. And how it may have gone over in the market.

 

 

The Falcon was a machine more like an ST with a DSP. It did only use 16 bits of

the 030 to maintain better compatibility with the ST line.

 

Its a Moto 56k in there and its connected to 32 bit bus 24/8 to be more specific.

It's not so similar to a CPU yet not that different either...I would not use it as a main

CPU in a console or computer but definitely in a audio workstation. i'd still have

another processor for non audio tasks like maintaining any display and user input.

 

The DSP is not like one in the Jag where it can operate easily as a normal CPU.

It's really geared toward communication and audio apps. It would not be very

efficient at acting like a CPU. Its not made for that. It could do it but it's a much

better signal processor. It's great for math intesive stuff like Fast Fourier Transforms

or FFT(s).

 

Jerry is more flexible as a result and can play the role of a CPU as it

has a flexible RISC core. Plus it has a good deal of DSP related support

hardware. MAC and Matrix mulipiers as well....in fact the RISC cores in the

Jaguar are similar in architecture electrnically to the Motorola line of 32 DSP's.

The cores were altered designs of Motorola but they were designed to be able

to perform typical CPU tasks as well as DSP tasks.

 

The Jag is ultimately more powerful with the 64 bit bus, the two risc cores

and the Blitter and OPL which are monster pixel pushers. The Falcon for what

it is is rather powerful.

[Fadest]

The Falcon was definitely a smaller market than jaguar. If it was larger, Atari may not have needed the jaguar.

In US, probably, because the ST line succes have not been as large in US than in Europe.

But, in Europe, the Falcon could have make a better carrer, even generalist magazine spoke about it at his launch, and it was awaited.

[spiffyone]

What Atari should have done is create more compatibility with the Falcon or ST line of computers on the Jag, IMHO.

 

Didn't have to base the console on Falcon. Just have similar tools built for each.

 

More games. More games equal more potential reasons to purchase which equal more potential hardware sales.

 

I see that there are games that appeared on both platforms, so I wonder if there were tools associated with each.

[Gorf]

What Atari should have done is create more compatibility with the Falcon or ST line of computers on the Jag, IMHO.

 

Didn't have to base the console on Falcon. Just have similar tools built for each.

 

More games. More games equal more potential reasons to purchase which equal more potential hardware sales.

 

I see that there are games that appeared on both platforms, so I wonder if there were tools associated with each.

 

 

Yeah more games is what you want but more of the same thing everyone else is already doing?

 

Lets face it folks...most of those games would have looked 2D 16 bitish for a next gen system.

Though some of the games were ceratinly beter than that, they would never be on the level of

3D the Jaguar was capable of.

 

The point was to leapfrog the current technology. Atari was looking to move the entire industry

forward and did just that. Too bad they screwed it up for themselves and pertty much handed it

to Sony. I'll agree with you on one thing. The one similarity the Jaguar should have had with the

Falcon030 would be the 030 instead of the 68k.

 

No longer would you have to choke the bus and the 030 has two 256 byte caches one could keep

them busy in while the 64 bit monsters are pushing the pixels around. You'd have a coJag if you

added a hard drive and a few more megs.....that is what expansion ports are for. Same clock

instead of half and 32 bit access. Tht means the DSP would then have full 32 bit access to the main

bus. It would have made a very significant difference in the Jaguar's performance. Plenty of good

compilers and tools for the 030 at the time and would have made the Jag a much simpler system to

code for to attain good FPS and higher poly counts.

 

Keep in mind at first for about a year before Jag's release and about 6 months after it, the press

and the buzz for it were good. It was a fresh new idea. It did indeed leapfrog the comp considerably.

IT would have done fine if the Updated classics were there...they would be an easy code and in 3D too.

Asteroids 3D should have been the packin. I have a demo I wrote on the Jag of a centepedish like game.

its in 3d and its 60 fps and it took me about four days to get playable. This is something Atari could have

done and made THAT that packin.

 

The 16 bitish stuff was already more than any one needed between the 16 bit systems. The Amiga and ST

stuff were a little better, but the Jaguar aimed many moons ahead of these. All Atari needed to do was be

Atari but they felt being everyone else was a good idea.

[spiffyone]

Quite true on the 16-bit-ish look of the games...but still it would be more games, and it would be because of some tools being familiar to devs.

 

Putting an 030 in there would've been icing on that cake, because then you'd have ST and Falcon developers being fine with the tools on the European side of things, and Japanese developers being fine with the Motorolla chip (even though it's an 030 instead of a regular 68k, it's still familiar to them on some level).

 

But, y'know...the Tramiels were in charge. And although Sam was less tight with the wallet than his old man, I'm pretty sure he still had to answer to ol' that tightwad Jack on some level, particularly when it came to the money spent. Cost was the only reason that an 020 or 030 wasn't in there, and, tbqh, even with that processor it wouldn't have cost that much more than the $249 the console cost at launch. But those Tramiels...notorious penny pinchers.

 

Atari could've done a lot of things differently. But they didn't. That's why friggin' Infogrames (I absolutely refuse to call them Atari) owns the name now.