What is the best 16-bit computer?

[thrax]

Keep in mind that the Macs did not have multitasking until OS X came out, before that they used task switching at best. I'd say teh Atari ST and Amiga had better OSs. The Amiga had pre-emptive multitasking, but it did not have any memory management, which caused some apps to take down the whole system.

I definately kept it in mind. (See below also.)

 

 

 

Amiga. Easy.

 

If the STe was the "release" ST, and it had sprites, multitasking OS and a few other features, then it might have taken that title.

We were an Amiga and ST dealer back in the day. The Amiga multitask was a joke especially on the release machine, customers used to crash it all the time. Maybe if the Amigahad been an Atari as it was intended to be and not cludged up by Commodore.. We sold both Systems and the St was the big seller hands down.

 

Atari ST easy, plus is could later on do mac and PC, best of all worlds. it really was power without the price!

 

Atarian63

 

Another thing about multitasking that made it a 'joke' in those days was the fact that most people wouldn't of had enough memory to run more than one program. The original amiga 1000 came with 256K!

[atarian63]

Keep in mind that the Macs did not have multitasking until OS X came out, before that they used task switching at best. I'd say teh Atari ST and Amiga had better OSs. The Amiga had pre-emptive multitasking, but it did not have any memory management, which caused some apps to take down the whole system.

I definately kept it in mind. (See below also.)

 

 

 

Amiga. Easy.

 

If the STe was the "release" ST, and it had sprites, multitasking OS and a few other features, then it might have taken that title.

We were an Amiga and ST dealer back in the day. The Amiga multitask was a joke especially on the release machine, customers used to crash it all the time. Maybe if the Amigahad been an Atari as it was intended to be and not cludged up by Commodore.. We sold both Systems and the St was the big seller hands down.

 

Atari ST easy, plus is could later on do mac and PC, best of all worlds. it really was power without the price!

 

Atarian63

 

Another thing about multitasking that made it a 'joke' in those days was the fact that most people wouldn't of had enough memory to run more than one program. The original amiga 1000 came with 256K!

They even had and pre boot boot disk(this was the o/s as it was not ready at the A1000's release., Actually when it finally had all it's stuff and some ram it was much better but still a bit crash happy. And that o/s... I remember the employees laughing at it. They said it looked like some kid designed it. Kinda cartoony. I would love to see how it all would have been had atari finished it as their product.. moot point now..

[GasMonkey]

I always thought of Commodore and Atari was being each other's red-headed step sibling: after all, they both had the same father.

[Curt Vendel]

This argument has numerous pitfalls to its asking:

 

Do we compare on platform class alone? Not entirely a fair argument since the TI/99A was a 16bit micro, and I wouldn't class it with the likes of the Mac, ST, Amiga computers.

 

The ST's has the advantage of lower price, the ST mono for $799 was a damned impressive machine with you compared it against the Mac which came out a year early. I had the opportunity in College to see one of the first Macs and Laserwriters, it was a 128MB mac with 1 external 400K disk drive, the disk swapping was slow and unbelievably annoying, but the GUI was just spectacular.

 

The Amiga was a far superior graphics machine, but it was also twice the price of the ST. Now if Atari had invested some time into a graphics processor and came out a little later along side of the Amiga, it would've made for an interesting head to head.

 

When you look at the 3 68K class machines, they all had great features and took home computing to the next level, all the while the non-GUI PC kept trudging alone bolstered by Wordperfect, Harvard Graphics, Lotus 1-2-3 making it a "Business Machine" and that was what people wanted when they came home from work, but an incompatible "GUI" machine, hence why such sophisticated computers just couldn't stand up against PC's

 

 

 

Curt

 

Some would say marketing makes the best computer and experience would back this up. However, this is an argument that is rather boring and lack emotion.

 

From power, graphics, sound and other aspects, what do you consider to be the best 16-bit computer/model ever made?

 

The price wars from the early 80s reduced the number of entrants into this category and saw the further rise of the Intel-based, or Wintel systems -- boo...

 

However, true pioneering was still in the non-wintel world.

[solidus8]

Here, let me throw in my two cents! The Sharp X68000 was definitely the the most powerful Motorola based computer of the late 1980's (at least for gaming-Look at those YS ports! ). The Amiga, ST and X68000 are all architecturally similar, with with some added "magic ICs" to the mix. Only problem with the X68000 (if you could get one), was the infernal 5.25 disks with soft eject! Other than that, this system had its fair share of QUALITY arcade ports; Strider, Final Fight, Street Fighter 2, Ghosts 'n Goblins and even some early ports of NeoGeo MVS games! Again though, these 68k machines couldn't stand up to the ever growing and sophisticated pee-cee market.

[applekevin]

I have to say the Apple IIgs. It had ADB before the Mac did, and was just plain awesome.

[thomasholzer]

Sinclair QL, quite popular in Germany at one stage

[Christos]

Sinclair QL, quite popular in Germany at one stage

 

I think there was a 100% native speed emulator of that machine for the ST.

[FastRobPlus]

I vote Amiga too. ST is a great system.

[+DarkLord]

Well, I had a choice when I first upgraded from my 800Xl...

 

I could have got an Amiga 1000, with mouse, internal floppy drive,

keyboard, and some system software for around $1500.00...

 

Or I could get an Atari 520ST, built in keyboard, color monitor,

external floppy drive, mouse, system software, etc, for $999.00

 

Yep, I went with the Atari, and never regretted it

 

PS Although later on, I did also own an A1000, 2000 and an

A1200, and thought they were fun. But it was my Atari's that

always "did it" for me...

[Gunstar]

It definately depends on the model too, like I had an Amiga 2000 and it's pretty awsome with it's expandability, but then, so is the Mega STE with it's VME slot and Simm memory and Blitter, etc. I personally think the Mega STE is the best 16-bit, becuase of the VME, 16Mhz speed, Blitter, optional 68881/2 co-processor, etc. Definately puts it a LOT closer to the Amiga 2000 in many respects and TOS/GEM 2.5/6 destroys the clanky Amiga Workbench, IMHO.