Atari v Commodore

[atariksi]

But Atari added features to the GTIA that meant that, if games used them, the 400 and 800 couldn't run the game. The question is more why they stopped where they did, rather than offering 80x192 and 80x96 pixel character modes for example, or wedging a colour RAM system in at the same time since the VIC 20 had already shown how useful it could potentially be at that point.

 

Try

GRAPHICS 0:POKE 623,64

and

GRAPHICS 2:POKE 623,64:PRINT #6;"caveat emptor"

 

They probably didn't add a colour RAM system to GTIA because ANTIC does the character generation.

 

Of course there are other ways to advance the graphical system that does not involve the color RAM.

[atariksi]

Okay, there's a lot of hostility in here. I don't see why I should be called a "freak" because I like a computer that someone else doesn't. I don't see why I should be told to be unbiased because I said there are some silly posts in here when there are also intelligent posts. I never said there weren't. It was an allusion to an extreme view of the debate that I had never expressed. I don't see why this site should be closed to people who have no experience of the Atari computers but are interested in them, because I followed a link on a forum that is focussed on a different computer.

...

This site is open for people who have no experience of Atari computers. Your link to come here because of it's silly posts is one-sided view of this thread. So rather than look at it negatively, you could also just take the positive from it or be unbiased and see that both types of posts are present.

 

It seems the schoolyard mentality of, "My parents/I bought this computer, therefore it's automatically better!" is still around, and in force.

...

Now you are wrong. I haven't seen that argument here in this thread.

 

So experiencing the hostility here because I dare to admit to liking the C64 is just beyond me. It is beneath contempt, and everyone here, 8-bit enthusiasts all, should be above it. But many aren't, and it is so childish that I'm just not going to post from here on. It's not worth the aggravation.

 

So, thank you very much again to everyone who welcomed me, and had an interest in introducing me to the Atari computers. To all those engaged in the petty bickering, you should know better. Say what you will of me, I won't be here to see it.

 

Peace.

If you admit there are intelligent postings here you can block out the silly ones rather than give up.

[Rockford]

Today another "random" game. LOL

 

52 - WORLD SOCCER

 

C64

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better hi-res graphics and more colours. The Atari version has worse graphics with limited colours. C64 wins again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

ATARI

more waste of time selective comparisons. And the troll comment at the end.

The troll comment at the end ??? Where do you see anything like that ??? Serious problems with reality...again ??? At the end there are only ATARI pics. Can't you distinguish "the beginning" from "the end" ??? Oh, I forgot that you are the "smartest" bloke on this forum (if we don't count frenchman).BTW, You love provoking people and then playing offended virgin, don't you ? If it's too complicated for you, scroll up and read your previous posts.

"c64 wins again" not only usually a false statement but one designed to elicit a negative response. In otherwords for the slow (rockford) Trolling!

It would seem to be your only reason for being here.

 

The phrase "c64 wins again" isn't at the end of my post either. You confuse "the end" with "the middle". So, it's even worse than I thought. LOL

 

 

Yes, atarian63 is right, it is at the end...at the end of the sentence....surely that's not difficult to understand?

At the end of the sentence you say. So, if you smart enough to scroll up then you will see what he wrote previously. Can you see "sentence" ? And before you write something silly again, don't forget that atarian63 finds trolling in every piece of text, so you must be a crystal-gazer to know exactly what goes on in his mind. As far as I know only atariksi can read people's mind.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Rockford

[TMR]

They probably didn't add a colour RAM system to GTIA because ANTIC does the character generation.

 

Well, i assume that the GTIA interprets the output from ANTIC otherwise it wouldn't be able to give the extra modes so if it could be "persuaded" to get a colour RAM from somewhere without stealing cycles (because that really would break compatibility unless it were possible to disable it) the GTIA could possibly take care of merging what Antic was providing and a colour RAM.

 

Of course, colour RAM is just one way to deal with the issue of colour use, there's others but it was the only one i could think of (apart from using more memory and DMA fetches) where an existing example predates GTIA; the point i was making was that Atari weren't afraid of making changes that could impact on compatibility.

 

Slight edit: been meaning to ask this, does anyone know why there's no 16 shades/colour modes for character-based screens?

Edited October 24, 2009 by TMR

[oky2000]

Um... one problem here... the C16 was one of the post Tramiel ideas.

The C116 was the original machine and it was supposed to be the sub $100 computer you describe.

<edit>

I realize you were thinking of the C116 when you mentioned the chicklet keyboard. It was available in Europe.

 

Yup basically anything based around the TED chip of the C16/+4 etc. The original design for the computer to use the basic functionality of the C16 was meant to be in a smaller case using chicklet keys otherwise it's the same thing for $70. The basic idea was take the horrible Sinclair ZX 81, do it for the same price but add sound and colour and 16x the RAM (or if you like up the resolution of the VIC to 320x200 and add more colours) There is a fantastic youtube video about it with Dave Haynie and Bil Herd here....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5ENMeGSK0M&fmt=18

 

6:30 onwards is a lovely explanation of how a good idea was ruined by morons succeeding JT

[atariksi]

They probably didn't add a colour RAM system to GTIA because ANTIC does the character generation.

 

Well, i assume that the GTIA interprets the output from ANTIC otherwise it wouldn't be able to give the extra modes so if it could be "persuaded" to get a colour RAM from somewhere without stealing cycles (because that really would break compatibility unless it were possible to disable it) the GTIA could possibly take care of merging what Antic was providing and a colour RAM.

 

Of course, colour RAM is just one way to deal with the issue of colour use, there's others but it was the only one i could think of (apart from using more memory and DMA fetches) where an existing example predates GTIA; the point i was making was that Atari weren't afraid of making changes that could impact on compatibility.

 

Slight edit: been meaning to ask this, does anyone know why there's no 16 shades/colour modes for character-based screens?

 

The problem with interpreting extra data read by ANTIC like in char modes is that the AN0..AN2 becomes the limiting factor. So although enough data is read by ANTIC in Gr.0 for example to create a 160*200*16 mode, the communication with GTIA uses a 3-bit local bus. And I don't see your point of GTIA breaking compatibility with CTIA. And 16 shades/color modes on char modes can be enabled with POKE 623,64 or 623,192 as already suggested. You then have to recreate the charsets.

[atariksi]

If the player sprite shoots missiles then playfield detection for player and missiles is all hardware.

 

And what did they hit? If all the enemies are made from PF and they're multicolour so must be using all the PFs how does the hardware detect that those 4 pixels near the middle of the screen in a little + shape aren't the ones in a little + shape next to them?

 

 

Pete

 

Registers 53248..53251 will read missile collisions with playfields. So if any playfield color collides with Missile 0 then register 53248 will be nonzero, if any playfield color collides with Missile 1 then register 53249 will be nonzero, etc.

[oky2000]

... but it's wrong to attack the competing system or it's users! Saying things that the A8 is clearly the superior machine, or the C64 sold so much more it's not even worth talking about - this kind of talk is ridiculous.

 

Yawn... just another C64 freak with polite words.

 

The whole tread meanwhile is about "vice versa"...

 

C64 guys come along to an Atari forum, telling everyone that the C64 is the deus ex machina, thus not accepting that the A8 has its superiorities. So, please go back to lemon, thanks.

 

Maybe some say that but I have never said anything other than BOTH machines were a necessary compromise due to the technology of the time. The C64 fixed many of the severe restrictions of the A8s available colours on screen and restrictive/limited PM graphic system. They also added one of the most versatile analogue synths on a chip which only AMY could have surpassed in the history of Atari computers in my opinion. OK you get less CPU speed of course on the C64 which most knowledgeable users (on both sides!) agree is only about 33% in real terms but as the games of the time were 99% scrolling background+sprites based that's what the C64 was designed to do easily. There are faster machines than the A8 too like the Memotech/MSX/Sord M5 or the Acorn machines or the 16bit Texas Instruments CPU sure but they lack the sophisticated large sprites and colour resolution of the C64. In reality 32 colours would have been enough anyway, but like I said all 8bit machines are a compromise. As a games machine it was the best possible compromise and that is the reason it went on to be the worlds best selling computer of all time and probably will be forever the way things are going now that people don't really care what model of disposable desktop/laptop they use to run Winblows or OSXtinct.

 

The discussion really after 460 pages should be about how to overcome the design compromises on either in a given situation and give examples of software that utilised the positive aspects of each machine. A classic example would be like Super Stardust AGA or Shadow of the Beast on the Amiga...games designed around the standard features available...and then optimised to within an inch of the chipsets life. There is a very good reason why no other conversions could touch the original versions....and by being here I hope to be on a journey to discover the equivalent titles for the A8.

[PeteD]

If the player sprite shoots missiles then playfield detection for player and missiles is all hardware.

 

And what did they hit? If all the enemies are made from PF and they're multicolour so must be using all the PFs how does the hardware detect that those 4 pixels near the middle of the screen in a little + shape aren't the ones in a little + shape next to them?

 

 

Pete

 

Registers 53248..53251 will read missile collisions with playfields. So if any playfield color collides with Missile 0 then register 53248 will be nonzero, if any playfield color collides with Missile 1 then register 53249 will be nonzero, etc.

 

Yes, I know all that but as I keep asking how do you know which of those few pixels that comprises an enemy ship in formation in the middle of the screen, or the greater number of pixels for one that's flying around is the one that's been collided with if you only have registers telling you A missile has hit A playfield.

 

 

 

Pete

[Tezz]

As I expected, this thread is really ruining AA's A8 forum. For one thing as you can see above, any new visitors taking one look at this dominating thread are completely turned off from AA or indeed perhaps checking out the Atari scene at all thinking the whole forum/scene will be at this tone. The forum here before this thread appeared and has since attracted numerous non Atari enthusiasts into endless bickering was a decent forum with a good sharing of information and was a good place to visit. It's a shame that the thread has been allowed to run on for so long to bring everything down to this level. Whether or not some of the new visitors who have expressed an interest in exploring the A8 and creating some new stuff (whilst deriding it's shortcomings on the back of these arguments) do actually produce anything remains to be seen. Regardless of any possible positives of new participants and the sharing of knowledge within the discussion/arguments that have been argued against closing this thread I just think that the whole momentum and the point of this forum has been erroded by all of this and I've seen much less of the normal activity and information sharing in the forum as a whole. Personally I enjoy working with the A8 for the many reasons why most here do with the closer connection with retro computing, I like the A8 for what it is and enjoy the challenge of pushing it's boundaries and AA was a good place to share and discuss.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Tezz

[oky2000]

 

If they enhanced it without worrying about existing CTIA functionality, it would cause incompatibility. They added GTIA functionality while maintaining backward compatibility with ANTIC and previous CTIA modes. This is unlike what Commodore did by introducing a whole line of incompatible machines-- Pet, Vic-20, C64, C16, etc. It's easier and cheaper to just redesign, but compatibility is a major good point as already discussed.

 

PET was purely for business use, never ever designed for or marketed to hobbyists or home users. An IBM killer and nothing more.

 

VIC-20 was the first home computer and merely a quick diversionary machine to keep the reverse engineering departments of competitors busy whilst the real home machine was being designed.

 

C64...who's only true successor at the same intended market segment IS C64 compatible and damned good at it too.

 

C16/+4 was never meant to exist, as proof shows in the youtube video of the designers talking about it shows it was meant to be a $70 budget machine to wipe out the competition in the lower segment of the market...the C116 was never meant to even approach the C64 potential sales, it was meant to be a complimentary business plan by the devious mind of Jack Tramiel.

 

So there we have it in a nutshell, VIC-20 was disposable, C16 and Plus4 would never have existed had the morons not caused JT to leave C= and the 128 the only real successor to the C64 is very compatible...so much so that it hurt bespoke C128 game development with the instructions always saying "Type GO64" under the 'Commodore 128' loading instructions. The C116 would have cleaned up as a basic machine 1/4 the price of a C64 for people who wanted to play games but couldn't afford a C64. It would have been cheaper and better than the VCS whilst being a real home computer for 'educational' use for the kids without encroaching on the C64 sales/market demographic at all. WIN/WIN really all round.

 

(yes I know educational was just a figment of the marketing man's imagination to let the parents buy their kids a computer with less guilt )

[atarian63]

This is one of the main reasons I skip your little forum of c64'ers.

 

What, the one with more Atarians than C64 users, you mean (nine users out of sixteen in total)? And there was us thinking it was just because you couldn't hide behind the "this is an Atari site" argument...

 

As a DEALER as in owned, bought,sold,serviced many brands of PC's. Making financial decisions based on profit etc. I am telling you that at electronics shows,dealer symposiums etc, it being c64 was view a cheaply made toy. That is not just my opinion but the opinion of many at the time.

 

Yeah, okay, so you and the people you dealt with weren't impressed with the C64 we bloody get that. But when you repeatedly use phrases like "cheaply made toy" you're doing so to get a response, it's trolling plain and simple.

 

You can discount my experience and call it trolling if you like but I am probably one of the most qualified here to speak about conditions at the time.

 

i know that at thirty seven i'm too young to have been in the trade when the A8 was actually selling (we had an XEGS, but i can't remember ever seeing it fired up) but i spent nearly a decade selling more Commodore 64s than Atari STs and having less of the Commodore kit back in returns - of course that was after the five year window you saw, but it doesn't make my experiences any less valid than yours, probably more so because i've no doubt i saw more C64s go through.

No, "cheaply made toy" was a common saying back at the time. you may not like it but it is so. Since you werent there or operating at that level I expect you would not know.

I need to repeat I was a dealer to some who don't get it (as yourself) I was in a unique situation to see it from the inside.

Yes, thirty would be a bit young here in the US to have much of any knowlege about the 5 years c64 span here. Maybe different where you are from. I have mentione previously that 64c was a decent unit with few probloems other than power bricks. Almost as low a rate of return as and Atari 800xl, however this was pretty much past the prime for c64. Same could be said of C128, micely made for what it was,certainly the d model anyway.

[oky2000]

Puhleezzz. The c64 has one of the worst keyboards next to the chiclet kb of the pc JR

 

Nsh, you show your lack of ownership of EVERY 8bit computer ever made unlike me

 

There are plenty of machines with worse keyboards than the C64 (the XE style being one for sure...which IS cheap cheap spongy cheap) Amstrad CPC, Jupiter Ace, Dragon 32/64, Aquarius, Spectrum+ +2, +3 128 QL, Sord M5 and the list goes on.

The C64 had a better keyboard than the Dragon?

Sorry, I have to disagree.

I have a Tano Dragon and I like the touch on it better than the C64s I've used, but I've never used the later C64s.

I won't disagree on the others listed.

 

The Color Genie keyboard is ok but a little springy and noisy.

The Franklin Ace 1000 keyboard feels a little stiff, kinda feels like they were shooting for an electric typewriter feel.

The Plus/4 keyboard is pretty good. If later C64s were like it I have no problem with them.

 

I only have a Dragon64....maybe they cut costs but I assumed they were the same. Also only having one machine is not great to try I admit so maybe it is better than I think. Some C64 keyboards are better than others due to age probably too...but I find the white keyboards slightly smoother/less resistive in action but maybe that is also to do with age. I have two PET keyboard VICs and short of the 128D or Amiga 1000 that is my personal favourite...so I put one in my bespoke silver C64C for coding

[oky2000]

No, "cheaply made toy" was a common saying back at the time.

 

And the ST was portrayed as a clockwork toy in the Amiga 500 adverts in Europe. What is a saying is rarely true you will find.

[atarian63]

But Atari added features to the GTIA that meant that, if games used them, the 400 and 800 couldn't run the game. The question is more why they stopped where they did, rather than offering 80x192 and 80x96 pixel character modes for example, or wedging a colour RAM system in at the same time since the VIC 20 had already shown how useful it could potentially be at that point.

You are aware that here in the US many bought the Vic 20 and never used it. Many of them ended up as doorstops. Can't tell you how many people tried to trade those in. They were often never or barely used. It's a moot point what it could do as people here in the US nought it to say they had a computer. Few actually used it and you couldnt do much with it. Software was very hard to find anywhere.

 

wood_jl said of the lack of colour control that if Atari had '"fixed" it it would have rendered earlier machines incompatible' and my point was and still is that they already did change the design to add optional modes that were incompatible with the introduction of the GTIA so that wasn't an issue as far as Atari were concerned. Trolling about the VIC makes no difference to that point, you'd have been better off keeping it to yourself.

using the VIC as an example was a moot point, therefore my statement.

 

No it wasn't, it was a valid point; the VIC demonstrated the concept of colour RAM, that's all it was mentioned for. Your statement is invalid and trolling.

 

You may return to your own trolling now or lemon or whatever.

 

And you're doing it again, trolling and then accusing others. i don't post to Lemon by the way.

Seems your recent trolling might be more welcome there. You are doing the accusing. As for the "other" it is a fact he is trolling. Not sure why you are joining.

[atariksi]

Atari ST would also have been much better if they maintained backward compatibility.

 

Well, If they put compatibility in, what would it be?

A8 is too much different

C64? Even more possible. As we know the ST is a "Plus 4" successor. Which is a C64 without Sprites and SID, and some colours added.

 

I never heard that before-- ST being a Plus4 successor. A8 is too much different because they made the ST from scratch. Of course, not having a backward compatible processor was the first problem as Motorola 68000 is not 6502 compatible although some instructions work are similar. They definitely could have incorporated the existing A8 chipset within Atari ST and memory mapped the 6502 address space into a 64K chunk somewhere in the 16MB linear memory.

[atarian63]

No, "cheaply made toy" was a common saying back at the time.

 

And the ST was portrayed as a clockwork toy in the Amiga 500 adverts in Europe. What is a saying is rarely true you will find.

In the USA since the ST was released first and was more business oriented, it was the serious machine here. The Amiga didn't take of till the A500 and then mainly customers bought it as a game machine as it was intended for the chipset to be used by Atari. Would have made a great games system in 85! Not so great in 93 with CD32.

Also were you aware many banks in Germany used the ST. It was in many of them.

Edited October 24, 2009 by atarian63

[atarian63]

sorry, double post

Edited October 24, 2009 by atarian63

[atarian63]

 

 

As usual your comments make no point or no sense.

 

But your comments always make "sense", like comparing C64 games to A2600 games or posting fart videos. ROTFL

 

 

no my problem if you dont have the $$ for the real deal.

What an incredibly moving Rockefeller-like speech. LOL

Fart videos were especially for you. It was to illustrate your level of mentality in your posts which you continue to do.

As for Rockefeller.. Hey one has to aspire. You should try it.

So, YOU posted farting videos and that illustrated MY mentality. Your logic is as comical as your comments. ROTFL

based on your behavior

[oky2000]

 

An analogue synthesizer (well technically an analogue phase accumulator) with full ring modulation/synchronisation/filtering and FULL ADSR enveloping on ALL channels PLUS a fourth sample channel effectively...compared to what? A limited VCS sounding chip which hasn't got a hope in hell of making either a decent piano sound or electric guitar sound let alone both let alone in more than two channel mode...hmmmm?

 

I hope you are exaggerating here when you claim the A8 sounds like the VCS. No way, man.

...

Once every few weeks, you get the SAME arguments from oky2000 and some others as if the fanboy reset button was pressed. Then you get the same arguments as answered many many times: Atari can only do 2 colors in 320 mode, 4 colors in 160 mode, electric guitar on SID, etc. etc. Just one-sided views. And comparing with C16 as if thread is C64+C16 vs. A8. I would recommend comparing A8+A7800 vs. C16+C64. C16 colors are still less and it's incompatible. C16 came too late but at least Commodore realized palette isn't subjective. POKEY DACs running at high frequency or combined to form higher sound bit depth is much easier than what SID can do. And it fits in well with the superior hardware design of A8 since you can have SIO or joystick ports doing streaming audio/imagery without having to worry about all the timing issues involved with synchronized audio/video events.

My point about Pokey is that 99% of the time even today the 'instruments' sound the same on the music, whereas even in 1985 a David Whittaker tune sounded nothing like a Martin Galway tune which sounded nothing like a Rob Hubbard tune. That's three composers who made tunes that if you played them to the man on the street he would be hard pressed to say they were produced by the same sound chip. Diversity of sound = superiority simple as that really.

 

And the colour comments are excluding the screen modes with many shades of the same colour like 16 shades of blue OR any kind of CPU draining assistance to do palette swaps or mix modes etc. If this wasn't the case then Last Ninja on A8 would have been finished months ago!

[atarian63]

53 - ACE OF ACES

 

C64

C64

C64

 

The C64 version has better hi-res graphics, sound & music, handling, more colours and works smoothly. On Atari everything is worse: low-res graphics, limited colours and unresponsive handling that makes it a chore to play. What's more, it's a flight simulation and works slower on ATARI. Yeah...what a shocker ! C64 wins again.

 

ATARI

ATARI

ATARI

Actually it doesnst. The atari version may be a bit less colorful ( bad programming) but it plays smoother than the c64 version. Do you own any real hardware to base these statements on?

[oky2000]

Atari ST would also have been much better if they maintained backward compatibility.

 

Well, If they put compatibility in, what would it be?

A8 is too much different

C64? Even more possible. As we know the ST is a "Plus 4" successor. Which is a C64 without Sprites and SID, and some colours added.

Different CPU, different memory maps....so really the +4/16 is nothing like the C64 except that the C16 uses the same physical keyboard

 

This makes sense as the VIC-II and SID designers had left MOS and that was that. Even the Commodore 128 uses a separate graphics chip to add its SVGA resolution 80x50 char 640x512 hi-res screen because the VIC-II designer was no longer available to C=

[atarian63]

 

An analogue synthesizer (well technically an analogue phase accumulator) with full ring modulation/synchronisation/filtering and FULL ADSR enveloping on ALL channels PLUS a fourth sample channel effectively...compared to what? A limited VCS sounding chip which hasn't got a hope in hell of making either a decent piano sound or electric guitar sound let alone both let alone in more than two channel mode...hmmmm?

 

I hope you are exaggerating here when you claim the A8 sounds like the VCS. No way, man.

...

Once every few weeks, you get the SAME arguments from oky2000 and some others as if the fanboy reset button was pressed. Then you get the same arguments as answered many many times: Atari can only do 2 colors in 320 mode, 4 colors in 160 mode, electric guitar on SID, etc. etc. Just one-sided views. And comparing with C16 as if thread is C64+C16 vs. A8. I would recommend comparing A8+A7800 vs. C16+C64. C16 colors are still less and it's incompatible. C16 came too late but at least Commodore realized palette isn't subjective. POKEY DACs running at high frequency or combined to form higher sound bit depth is much easier than what SID can do. And it fits in well with the superior hardware design of A8 since you can have SIO or joystick ports doing streaming audio/imagery without having to worry about all the timing issues involved with synchronized audio/video events.

My point about Pokey is that 99% of the time even today the 'instruments' sound the same on the music, whereas even in 1985 a David Whittaker tune sounded nothing like a Martin Galway tune which sounded nothing like a Rob Hubbard tune. That's three composers who made tunes that if you played them to the man on the street he would be hard pressed to say they were produced by the same sound chip. Diversity of sound = superiority simple as that really.

 

And the colour comments are excluding the screen modes with many shades of the same colour like 16 shades of blue OR any kind of CPU draining assistance to do palette swaps or mix modes etc. If this wasn't the case then Last Ninja on A8 would have been finished months ago!

Personal preference but I nearly always thought SID sounded like a bunch of angry bees and had a horrid grating sound. Mostly in games and it lacked an authentic arcade sound to it. As has already been mentioned here but many arcades 79-84 had pokeys sound installed in them, same as Atari A8 though some arcades had 2 of them. For some newer arcade that had a distinctive "synthy" sound to them (GaPlus that someone posted comes to mind) it sounds just fine.

Edited October 24, 2009 by atarian63

[oky2000]

But Atari added features to the GTIA that meant that, if games used them, the 400 and 800 couldn't run the game. The question is more why they stopped where they did, rather than offering 80x192 and 80x96 pixel character modes for example, or wedging a colour RAM system in at the same time since the VIC 20 had already shown how useful it could potentially be at that point.

You are aware that here in the US many bought the Vic 20 and never used it. Many of them ended up as doorstops. Can't tell you how many people tried to trade those in. They were often never or barely used. It's a moot point what it could do as people here in the US nought it to say they had a computer. Few actually used it and you couldnt do much with it. Software was very hard to find anywhere.

 

wood_jl said of the lack of colour control that if Atari had '"fixed" it it would have rendered earlier machines incompatible' and my point was and still is that they already did change the design to add optional modes that were incompatible with the introduction of the GTIA so that wasn't an issue as far as Atari were concerned. Trolling about the VIC makes no difference to that point, you'd have been better off keeping it to yourself.

 

Simple fact is they sat on their asses until bankruptcy loomed and Jack Tramiel bought them...there is no reason why they couldn't have added an extra chip on the board to add decent sprites or add even more colourful modes to the existing GTIA chip. They made the same mistake that Commodore did with the Amiga, and it cost them dearly in the end culminating in the A8 line being completely ignored when the ST was released.

 

(and Shiraz Shivju had hardly any input into the C64...his work was on the VIC really...VIC-II and SID where nothing to do with the ST dev team who followed JT to Atari before anyone asks)

[oky2000]

No, "cheaply made toy" was a common saying back at the time.

 

And the ST was portrayed as a clockwork toy in the Amiga 500 adverts in Europe. What is a saying is rarely true you will find.

In the USA since the ST was released first and was more business oriented, it was the serious machine here. The Amiga didn't take of till the A500 and then mainly customers bought it as a game machine as it was intended for the chipset to be used by Atari. Would have made a great games system in 85! Not so great in 93 with CD32.

Also were you aware many banks in Germany used the ST. It was in many of them.

 

I actually agree with you on the 520ST, apart from lacking multi-tasking it was a fantastic business machine and a far better choice than the Mac (which it outsold 4:1 in the EU in its first year according to Atari User UK. I am merely pointing out how the ST was portrayed in the EU at the launch of the A500...the infamous 'TOYS' double page adverts with a little clockwork computer with the rhomboid ST function keys shown on the 2 page spreads.

 

There was a lot of niche areas the Amiga was better for with it's 50/60FPS animation capability and HAM mode graphics and Fairlight compatible sound library setup but for a general purpose business machine the extra features of the A1000 weren't of importance. Hence as I said what is a saying is rarely true. See if you check out the Natal video for Microsoft's Xbox360 console....well Amiga did the same thing 2 decades ago...not because it is a games machine but because it was designed around video and is still the best machine for anything to do with analogue video full stop and why a Genlock can be designed by any monkey unlike for STs/PCs/Macs which need a whole load of extra logic. Ditto with pre VGA/Photoshop days of photo-montage using Digi-View and HAM mode...you'd have to be a bit stupid in those days not to use an Amiga for that stuff...I should know it was my job