CD32 and Jaguar were the 2 most sucsessful 32 bit consoles.

[mcjakeqcool]

CD32 and Jaguar were the 2 most sucsessful 32 bit consoles. That's all I have to say.

[kroogur]

And i also feel that since the Intellivision was a 16 Bit system it was superior to the Genesis/Megadrive thats my story and im-a- stickin' to it!

[gamerz]

CD32 and Jaguar were the 2 most sucsessful 32 bit consoles. That's all I have to say.

 

Playstation 1 was a 32 bit console.

[Koopa64]

CD32 and Jaguar were the 2 most sucsessful 32 bit consoles. That's all I have to say.

 

Playstation 1 was a 32 bit console.

 

You forget that the REAL 32-Bit systems were the early ones, like 3D0 and CD32. The Saturn and PSOne are sort of 32-2-Bit...

 

Also, the Jaguar is really a 32-Bit system, everyone knows that.

[otaku]

interesting take on things but personally I would say the psone was most successful maybe your arguement is its 64bit? Jaguar I definetly have an issue with being 64bit...I'd agree its 32bit but again not the best

[Herbarius]

If you mean commercially successful, you're obviously wrong. The Playstation sold more than both combined (propably several multiples).

 

Also, the Jaguar is really a 32-Bit system, everyone knows that.

That's how you define it, as there is no real definition of what makes a game console (as opposed to a computer) "32 bit"...

The Jaguar was a multi-processor-system, some of the processors were 64, others were 32 bit. If you're going to be strict, you'd say, that means it's 32 bit, because you'd say the 32 bit is a kind of bottleneck. However, because they wanted to sell the console, Atari said it was 64 bit, because it had 64-bit capabilities that could be used for some tasks.

 

You forget that the REAL 32-Bit systems were the early ones, like 3D0 and CD32. The Saturn and PSOne are sort of 32-2-Bit...

I would think it's the other way 'round. 3DO, CD32, Saturn are "early attempts" at a 32 bit console, but the Playstation got it right. There are propably several reasons, maybe the world wasn't yet ready for 32-bit Gaming... Note that the Playstation was released 1995, the same year Windows 95 came out and PC gaming made the jump from 16 to 32 bit. It was the beginning of the end

Edited June 7, 2009 by Herbarius

[Ze_ro]

 

I love both the Jaguar, and the CD32... hell, I'm a few cartridges away from a complete Jag collection, and I have something like 120 CD32 games... but both systems were miserable failures.

 

--Zero

[+remowilliams]

CD32 and Jaguar were the 2 most sucsessful 32 bit consoles.

And I take it that successful in this particular use case, means having had a horrible and untimely death?

[Koopa64]

If you mean commercially successful, you're obviously wrong. The Playstation sold more than both combined (propably several multiples).

 

Also, the Jaguar is really a 32-Bit system, everyone knows that.

That's how you define it, as there is no real definition of what makes a game console (as opposed to a computer) "32 bit"...

The Jaguar was a multi-processor-system, some of the processors were 64, others were 32 bit. If you're going to be strict, you'd say, that means it's 32 bit, because you'd say the 32 bit is a kind of bottleneck. However, because they wanted to sell the console, Atari said it was 64 bit, because it had 64-bit capabilities that could be used for some tasks.

 

You forget that the REAL 32-Bit systems were the early ones, like 3D0 and CD32. The Saturn and PSOne are sort of 32-2-Bit...

I would think it's the other way 'round. 3DO, CD32, Saturn are "early attempts" at a 32 bit console, but the Playstation got it right. There are propably several reasons, maybe the world wasn't yet ready for 32-bit Gaming... Note that the Playstation was released 1995, the same year Windows 95 came out and PC gaming made the jump from 16 to 32 bit. It was the beginning of the end

 

Would it have helped if I added a "/sarcasm" tag at the end? I was JOKING! Geez, thought it would have been obvious enough on it's own... >_>

[Koopa64]

Also, I call the Jaguar 64-Bit just like the rest of you. Just because it doesn't look 64-Bit, doesn't mean it isn't. Take a look at the 2600. It's technically an 8-Bit machine but just from looking at it's games, you'd think it was 4-Bit or something. Definitely not in the same league as the NES or Master System, even though they're 8-Bit as well.

[IceCold]

Yeah the whole "bit" thing is not an indicator of performance. It was pretty much just to sell game systems.

 

Herbarius - while not as commercially successful, the Saturn is on par with the Playstation. The Saturn came out in Japan like a week or two before the Playstation. They are both definitely a level up from the 'early' 32 bit systems(such as the 32x for example)

[IceCold]

Oh and this seems like a cheap attempt to troll. It's right up there with the rap thread he posted. Which is funny because he actually posts quite a few really good and intelligent posts, but there's the occasional one where you just have to think "what?".

 

Anyways, I could be mistaken about this thread, so if you really think this mcjakeqcool please enlighten us to your criteria for their success and why you think so.

[famicommander]

3DO, Saturn, and PS1 all outsold the Jaguar and the CD32. I suppose you could argue that they were more successful than the 32X.

[ApolloBoy]

Which is funny because he actually posts quite a few really good and intelligent posts

Since when? He's perhaps one of the least informed and least coherent posters I've seen here in ages.

[carmel_andrews]

well cd32 at least had the support of the 3rd party publishers, moreso then the jaguar, even though most of the cd32 games were 'lazy' portovers of amiga games

[IceCold]

Which is funny because he actually posts quite a few really good and intelligent posts

Since when? He's perhaps one of the least informed and least coherent posters I've seen here in ages.

Hehe I was doing my best to be nice :P

 

Honestly, I've seen a couple that I did think "wow, that's from mcjakeqcool and he's absolutely right about that" but you're right, a lot of them may be just a bit misinformed.(such as comparing the Atari 8 bit computer line/XEGS to a super nintendo.. the hardware is like a decade apart)

 

My personal belief is that he's actually a made up account from a senior member here, or maybe one that was banned before, that's here to troll... but that's just a hunch. Biggest thing that makes me think this is that, as I said, he does have some good posts but then you'll see one like his 'debuit single' rap thread.

 

As I said in my post-

 

If you really think this mcjakeqcool please enlighten us to your criteria for their success and why you think so. Otherwise it is dismissed as a troll post.

[kool kitty89]

The CD 32 didn't even sell 1/2 of what the Jag did. (only ~100,000 total) Most "support" was shovelware from older disk based games form the 16-bit Amiga and a few A1200 ones too. (though there seem to be many ports that were of lower quality than the A1200 version, like Wing Commander) It wasn't enough to save Commodore is for sure. (not technically a bad system, but the hardware was aging -better had it been released a year earlier; it was expensive, and wasn't even released in the US)

 

Sales wise for the early "32-bit" era (ie pre PSX), the 3DO was the most successful, and they had a decent amount of support too (their lacencing poicies were very attractive, though meant the 3DO had to be expensive as they couldn't make money off software licensing). After that the PSX is obviouslt the most sucessful. As for 32-bit systems, and not "32-bit era" hardware, the Wii's on its way to best the PSX. (the PS2 is the top for sales of course, though it did have a 64-bit CPU I beleive, if that's how you want to define a system)

 

On the actual "bitness" it's often described as the CPU and software archetecture used (the OS generally being the determining factor for computers, I've got a laptop with a 64-bit CPU, but it's only running a 32-bit OS, of course I could upgrade, but technically it's still a 32-bit archetecture with 32-bit software just using a 64-bit CPU that supports this)

As I mentioned with the Wii most modern systems can be considdered 32-bit systems, at least if you go by the CPU archetecture (not the data bus width), the CPU's of the Dreamcast, GC, Xbox, Xbox 360, and I think the PS3's cell processor's cores are all 32-bit. (not sure on the PS3 though) The "128 bit era" is a misnomer. (marketing "bittness" is almost completely a gimick, largely started by Sega)

 

The N64's CPU is technically 64-bit (internal registers are 64-bit and it can run 64-bit operations), but it's on a 32-bit external data bus as it;s the low cost version (much like the Motorola 68k, the Intel 386SX, SH2's in the 32x, and Atari Falcon have 32-bit internal chips on 16-bit data busses, granted the 68k also has a 16-bit ALU). But technicallities asside the N64's CPU was never really needed for 64-bit operations, and a fully 32-bit version of similar performance would have worked fine. (though no such MIPS chip existed, the fastes 32-bit version was a speed bubed R3000A like the PSX had, but at 40 MHz, less than 1/2 of what the N64's is) PC emulators for the N64 even do all work as 32-bit. (which is much more convient for PC software)

 

 

Most systems, including game consoles, have CPU's, and it's the CPU which (generally) will determine the "bitness" of the system. (the TG-16 actually has a fast 8-bit CPU, though it's still quite capable compared to the contemporary Genesis and SNES, it's main disadvantage was limited memory addressing, though CD's largely mitigated this)

The Jaguar is a bit odd as it's a multiprocessor system, with a fairly modular, flexible layout and no designated CPU.

 

The 16/32-bit 68000 was often used as a CPU, though to the system's detrement, using one of the 32-bit RISC processors as a CPU is also possible, though difficult due to the very limited tools available. The true 64-bit portions of the Jag are in the graphics processors, the blitter and object processor, which really are the defining parts of the system. However technically speaking, in the general sense, they wouldn't make the system really 64-bit just as a PC with a 32-bit cpu and OS with 64-bit processor(s) in the graphics card wouldn't really be a 64-bit system. (though in a graphical and gaming sense this portion is far more important than the "bitness" definition generally used) Again, the Jag's multiprocessor nature blurs things a bit, perhaps i it had used segmanted memory and a dedicated CPU this wouldn't be much of an issue.

 

Likewise the 64-bit data bus doesn't make the system "64-bit" 32-bit PC CPU's have had this ability since the original Pentium in 1993.

 

 

 

Now as to the original post, I wasn't sure about mcjakeqcool at first, he seemed a bit misguided but with sme interesting thoughts and a few points. But now he's most obviously a troll and many of the aformentioned interesting "points" turned out to be rubbish. (actually had me thinging the CD32 was reasonably succesful in Europe...) More recently he's just spiraled into pointless crazy trollism.

 

My favorite post so far is this:

Alright then, my backup statement... The 5200 jr was cancelled and was a huge sucsess, the Intelvision II was supported during the game crash of '83 and was a huge sucsess, the ColecoVision jr never exzisted and was a huge faliure and the 2600 was a huge sucsess and reshaped the industry. I was smokeing this morning, but trust my, I'm sober now. lol! lol! hahahahaha

Edited June 8, 2009 by kool kitty89

[dreamcastrip]

Note that the Playstation was released 1995, the same year Windows 95 came out and PC gaming made the jump from 16 to 32 bit.

Pedantic I know, but PlayStation was first released in Japan on December 3rd 1994.

[2600Lives]

[carmel_andrews]

Hence my point about 'lazy' port overs from the amiga (and probably the ST/e as well) koolkitty

 

Also, CBM were already in doodoo when the cd32 was released so it really never stood a chance, if you noticed that both Amiga technologies/Escom, viscorp or gateway didn't bother trying to ressurect the cd32 in any form

 

Perhaps if CBM had released the cd32 at the same time as the a1200 (but purely as a games system) and got publishers to stick to the a1200 programming guidelines when producing games for the cd32 it might have stood a chance

Edited June 8, 2009 by carmel_andrews

[mcjakeqcool]

Also, just to clear this, my Rap post was not a troll, it was a atempt to kickstart my rap career, and please bare and mind it was in the general chat section, so rapping is genral chat, also I am very serious about my rap career, and I felt Atari age was the best place to kickstart it. As for this post... did everyone have a good night last night? I know I did!

[Koopa64]

Also, just to clear this, my Rap post was not a troll, it was a atempt to kickstart my rap career, and please bare and mind it was in the general chat section, so rapping is genral chat, also I am very serious about my rap career, and I felt Atari age was the best place to kickstart it. As for this post... did everyone have a good night last night? I know I did!

[thegamezmaster]

Sayeah right as if, not!

[carmel_andrews]

is that a rap then, gamezmaster

[Wickeycolumbus]

I never understood classifying systems by number of bits. What is it based off of? The word size? The width of the data bus? The width of the Address bus? Even more confusing is when people say "this system has xx bit graphics!". What the heck is that supposed to mean?