Any chance of an Amiga subforum?

[TwiliteZoner]

If you watch the Computer Chronicles ST episode from 89. They demo Spectre GCR and it is clearly stated that it is indeed 20% faster than a Mac Plus.

 

Wasn't there a story back in the day that stated that Apple themselves actually used ST's equiped with GCR's for debugging due to Dave Smalls utilities? I know I read that in an ST mag back then.

[dwhyte]

I'm going to go to an Amiga forum and ask for the chance of an ST Sub-Forum...

[frogstar_robot]

THats nice however I WAS an Atari retailer and the largest in Columbus Ohio as well as AMiga.

 

Was that MicroCenter by any chance?

[atarian63]

THats nice however I WAS an Atari retailer and the largest in Columbus Ohio as well as AMiga.

 

Was that MicroCenter by any chance?

Nope, MicroCenter was on Lane Ave back in the day, they were huge but not in the Amiga/ST areas. Mostly MAC ,IIgs and pc and add on's. Huge place but just the opposite of Atari / Commodore, they started carrying it I think as a reaction to the smaller stores including mine doing well with it.

They were lots of fun to talk to, they had Amiga at first and paid it little to no attention and would basically tell you to buy a PC or a mac or maybe a "nice" IIgs. Later on they picked up the ST though they did little with it.

Edited December 13, 2008 by atarian63

[FastRobPlus]

I'm going to go to an Amiga forum and ask for the chance of an ST Sub-Forum...

 

Why bother? The Amiga guys know the ST is a retro computer. And they know the Amiga is a modern computer (Natami, SAM, Hyperion OS4, etc.)

You might as well ask for a retro Amiga forum on an Amiga board. They'll think you're an alien!

[dwhyte]

I'm going to go to an Amiga forum and ask for the chance of an ST Sub-Forum...

 

Why bother? The Amiga guys know the ST is a retro computer. And they know the Amiga is a modern computer (Natami, SAM, Hyperion OS4, etc.)

You might as well ask for a retro Amiga forum on an Amiga board. They'll think you're an alien!

 

So asking for an Amiga sub-forum on an Atari board is viewed as normal then?

[atarian63]

I'm going to go to an Amiga forum and ask for the chance of an ST Sub-Forum...

 

Why bother? The Amiga guys know the ST is a retro computer. And they know the Amiga is a modern computer (Natami, SAM, Hyperion OS4, etc.)

You might as well ask for a retro Amiga forum on an Amiga board. They'll think you're an alien!

 

So asking for an Amiga sub-forum on an Atari board is viewed as normal then?

seems odd to me, though the lineage makes it kinda weird. It's like ol Steve Jobs ( or Bill gates,pick your poison) conspired to put the funny whammy on Atari and Commodore users. Lets confuse their brand loyalty mix them together just for his own amusement.

[Ganky Ghost]

Your whole mac premise is wrong again. You could not have a Spectre GCR made without mac roms available, since you would not be able to GET the current 1989 mac roms then it makes no sense to compare 89 specs. Also most mac software in 89 was available to use in a mac plus, the newer models had the old mac modes but not much for color support software or faster cpu's.so, your specs etc are no relevant to the arguement that the St was faster. It was faster than the mac is was design to emulate. It still amazes me that people paid the amount of money they did for those things, they were incredibly overpriced.

 

What Mac premise? You said that Spectre GCR was 10% faster than a "real Mac". You later revised your position to say that Spectre GCR was 20% faster than a "real Mac". So I asked a simple question: Which "real Mac" was it faster than? There were a lot of Macintosh models on the market when the Spectre GCR was released. Which Mac ROMs were available in 1989 is not relevant. What's relevant is whether you could run Macintosh software faster on a "real Mac" in 1989 or on an Atari ST with a Spectre GCR cartridge. The simple fact of the matter is that, in 1989 when the Spectre GCR was released by Dave Small, you could run native Macintosh software faster on a real Macintosh computer.

 

As far as I recall, all older Macintosh software ran just fine on the newer 68030 based Macintosh computers with no compatibility issues and with tremendous speed increases. Compatibility issues didn't crop up until the migration from System 6 to System 7 and the introduction of the first 68040 Macintosh models.

[Ganky Ghost]

So asking for an Amiga sub-forum on an Atari board is viewed as normal then?

 

It's not really that far out of the question. This forum places a lot of emphasis on gaming gear, due, I suppose, to the very nature of the old Atari company and it's history in the gaming market. i.e., The company was born with a game (Pong) and died with a game console (Jaguar). There's probably little doubt in anyone's mind that the old Amiga computers from Commodore were pretty decent gaming rigs. The other factor that lends some credibility to the question/suggestion of adding an Amiga subforum is the fact that the Amiga, just like everything from Atari, is retro technology from the eighties and nineties. I would guess these to be the reasons why the OP hasn't been flamed, and has actually found some support among the Atariage faithful.

[atarian63]

Your whole mac premise is wrong again. You could not have a Spectre GCR made without mac roms available, since you would not be able to GET the current 1989 mac roms then it makes no sense to compare 89 specs. Also most mac software in 89 was available to use in a mac plus, the newer models had the old mac modes but not much for color support software or faster cpu's.so, your specs etc are no relevant to the arguement that the St was faster. It was faster than the mac is was design to emulate. It still amazes me that people paid the amount of money they did for those things, they were incredibly overpriced.

 

What Mac premise? You said that Spectre GCR was 10% faster than a "real Mac". You later revised your position to say that Spectre GCR was 20% faster than a "real Mac". So I asked a simple question: Which "real Mac" was it faster than? There were a lot of Macintosh models on the market when the Spectre GCR was released. Which Mac ROMs were available in 1989 is not relevant. What's relevant is whether you could run Macintosh software faster on a "real Mac" in 1989 or on an Atari ST with a Spectre GCR cartridge. The simple fact of the matter is that, in 1989 when the Spectre GCR was released by Dave Small, you could run native Macintosh software faster on a real Macintosh computer.

 

As far as I recall, all older Macintosh software ran just fine on the newer 68030 based Macintosh computers with no compatibility issues and with tremendous speed increases. Compatibility issues didn't crop up until the migration from System 6 to System 7 and the introduction of the first 68040 Macintosh models.

Wrong again, you just aren't getting it, reread my statement also the 20% number comes from a different person, we are talking about the most common Mac. Mac Plus, you know, the one that had the most software in 1989 since it had been around since 85 or 86.

 

The real fact is that a stock ST was 1986/87 manufacture was faster than a Mac plus. Also there was Magic Sac prior to that, also faster. Add the St's larger screen and it was a better experience.

Maybe you should be on a Mac forum somewhere.

This is ATARIage

Edited December 14, 2008 by atarian63

[MEtalGuy66]

Ok. noone is arguing that the ST wasnt cheap..

 

MIDI made up for inferior sound? I guess an atari 8-bit with a MIDI-MATE is equivelant to an ST sound-wise then. A MIDI interface (even in the 80s) took about $1.50 worth of parts to implement (minus connectors, cables, and software of course).. the ST had some fine MIDI software on it. Noone can deny that. But so did the MAC.. And the AMIGA.. Both of which had native sound chips that crapped all over the ST..

 

As far as A1000s being "unfinished" you mustve quit actively trying to sell amigas or stocking them (or something) really early on.. Because I never saw one with problems.. That may have been an issue for the first six months or so they were being sold. I dunno. I never saw one or even heard of one that was faulty from the factory. And as far as the early STs just needing chip pins "retensioned" thats total bullshit. Maybe you fixed a large percentage of them that way.. I can tell you for certain that I measured large numbers of actual motherboard circuits (with the chips pulled out) in excess of 100 ohms on many machines.. and then SHOWED the owner of the machine the shit solder joints responsible with a magnifier before getting the "OK" to fix them. I BOUGHT most of my first Amiga system with money from nothing BUT resoldering/rebuilding flakey ST/XE boards from that era. Occasionally Id fix a melted down 1050 or do 1meg/4meg ST ram upgrade, or 256k XL upgrade.. but MOSTLY it was "unflaking" atari hardware that was made from about late 84 to 86. There was quite a long span of time in the early "trameil years" when they built absolute junk.. Fixed some AMIGA stuff too. mostly worn-out/misalligned floppy drives and blown CIAs.. Worked on some Apple stuff too. I didnt have a job at the time. I was in highschool, and living with my dad. His field was avionics and he had some pretty nice equipment for those days.. But between user-group people, BBS people, and people I met through those people, I stayed damn busy doing repairs/upgrades. More often than not, I had so much of other peoples gear stacked in my room that you couldn't get in and out the door, and he used to get pissed and threaten to throw it all out at the curb... And to THIS DAY he refers to atari as "Atrashi". hahah...

 

 

 

As far as the falcon being cheap, I dont care how cheap it was. It was a weak piece of crap for its time. I knew people using full 32-bit A3000s, A500/A2000s with 32bit accelerator cards, 32-bit Macs, etc. YEARS before the falcon was released. The DSP driven sound is nice.. But my point is that no matter how good of a value it was at $2,000.00, it would have still been a good value, and ALSO been a decent competitor performance-wise at $2500.00 with some extra bus lines (and additional custom logic to maintain/allow 16bit ST compatability if desired.) In fact, if you read the atari history websites, thats exactly what engineers had originally planned for the machine before ATARI "cheaped out" on the production model.

[atarian63]

Ok. noone is arguing that the ST wasnt cheap..

 

MIDI made up for inferior sound? I guess an atari 8-bit with a MIDI-MATE is equivelant to an ST sound-wise then. A MIDI interface (even in the 80s) took about $1.50 worth of parts to implement (minus connectors, cables, and software of course).. the ST had some fine MIDI software on it. Noone can deny that. But so did the MAC.. And the AMIGA.. Both of which had native sound chips that crapped all over the ST..

 

As far as A1000s being "unfinished" you mustve quit actively trying to sell amigas or stocking them (or something) really early on.. Because I never saw one with problems.. That may have been an issue for the first six months or so they were being sold. I dunno. I never saw one or even heard of one that was faulty from the factory. And as far as the early STs just needing chip pins "retensioned" thats total bullshit. Maybe you fixed a large percentage of them that way.. I can tell you for certain that I measured large numbers of actual motherboard circuits (with the chips pulled out) in excess of 100 ohms on many machines.. and then SHOWED the owner of the machine the shit solder joints responsible with a magnifier before getting the "OK" to fix them. I BOUGHT most of my first Amiga system with money from nothing BUT resoldering/rebuilding flakey ST/XE boards from that era. Occasionally Id fix a melted down 1050 or do 1meg/4meg ST ram upgrade, or 256k XL upgrade.. but MOSTLY it was "unflaking" atari hardware that was made from about late 84 to 86. There was quite a long span of time in the early "trameil years" when they built absolute junk.. Fixed some AMIGA stuff too. mostly worn-out/misalligned floppy drives and blown CIAs.. Worked on some Apple stuff too. I didnt have a job at the time. I was in highschool, and living with my dad. His field was avionics and he had some pretty nice equipment for those days.. But between user-group people, BBS people, and people I met through those people, I stayed damn busy doing repairs/upgrades. More often than not, I had so much of other peoples gear stacked in my room that you couldn't get in and out the door, and he used to get pissed and threaten to throw it all out at the curb... And to THIS DAY he refers to atari as "Atrashi". hahah...

 

However the main midi machine for alot of musicians at the time was the ST or MAC, not the Amiga.

 

As far as the falcon being cheap, I dont care how cheap it was. It was a weak piece of crap for its time. I knew people using full 32-bit A3000s, A500/A2000s with 32bit accelerator cards, 32-bit Macs, etc. YEARS before the falcon was released. The DSP driven sound is nice.. But my point is that no matter how good of a value it was at $2,000.00, it would have still been a good value, and ALSO been a decent competitor performance-wise at $2500.00 with some extra bus lines (and additional custom logic to maintain/allow 16bit ST compatability if desired.) In fact, if you read the atari history websites, thats exactly what engineers had originally planned for the machine before ATARI "cheaped out" on the production model.

[atarian63]

Ok. noone is arguing that the ST wasnt cheap..

 

MIDI made up for inferior sound? I guess an atari 8-bit with a MIDI-MATE is equivelant to an ST sound-wise then. A MIDI interface (even in the 80s) took about $1.50 worth of parts to implement (minus connectors, cables, and software of course).. the ST had some fine MIDI software on it. Noone can deny that. But so did the MAC.. And the AMIGA.. Both of which had native sound chips that crapped all over the ST..

 

As far as A1000s being "unfinished" you mustve quit actively trying to sell amigas or stocking them (or something) really early on.. Because I never saw one with problems.. That may have been an issue for the first six months or so they were being sold. I dunno. I never saw one or even heard of one that was faulty from the factory. And as far as the early STs just needing chip pins "retensioned" thats total bullshit. Maybe you fixed a large percentage of them that way.. I can tell you for certain that I measured large numbers of actual motherboard circuits (with the chips pulled out) in excess of 100 ohms on many machines.. and then SHOWED the owner of the machine the shit solder joints responsible with a magnifier before getting the "OK" to fix them. I BOUGHT most of my first Amiga system with money from nothing BUT resoldering/rebuilding flakey ST/XE boards from that era. Occasionally Id fix a melted down 1050 or do 1meg/4meg ST ram upgrade, or 256k XL upgrade.. but MOSTLY it was "unflaking" atari hardware that was made from about late 84 to 86. There was quite a long span of time in the early "trameil years" when they built absolute junk.. Fixed some AMIGA stuff too. mostly worn-out/misalligned floppy drives and blown CIAs.. Worked on some Apple stuff too. I didnt have a job at the time. I was in highschool, and living with my dad. His field was avionics and he had some pretty nice equipment for those days.. But between user-group people, BBS people, and people I met through those people, I stayed damn busy doing repairs/upgrades. More often than not, I had so much of other peoples gear stacked in my room that you couldn't get in and out the door, and he used to get pissed and threaten to throw it all out at the curb... And to THIS DAY he refers to atari as "Atrashi". hahah...

 

The main midi machine of the day was Mac then ST and hardly any Amiga.

We sold Amigas throughout the life of the machine and the A1000 as I said before seemed well made but loads of returns and failures, not c64 levels but pretty bad.

I think your statement about chips is BS, I did this for a living, and was a dealer. More often that not the problem was the loose chip issue.

The retension issue was fact, I have no idea where you are coming from, ST's did occasionally come in totally dead, often due to external p/s issues with the 520ST. Sometimes the interal on the 1040 but very few.We seldom had any issues with the ST's other than the loose chip issue. Spent tons of time doing solder on ram upgrades and basically never had a failure, yeah it was cheaply made, often after opening a machine more than once the screw holes in the plastic would be stripped and had the occasional KB chip on the bottom of the KB fail but overall good. The A500 was much better though I would agree, CIA chips from hot plugging things, agnus on occasion and less craching due to O/s improvements. Also yes the XE stuff was fairly bad, kinda like C64, had many bad KB mylars and just dead boards. At he time St came out we werent doing much 8 bit anymore, it had kind of died and many had moved on to the ST.On amiga however, we had heat issues, some power supply issues

 

 

As far as the falcon being cheap, I dont care how cheap it was. It was a weak piece of crap for its time. I knew people using full 32-bit A3000s, A500/A2000s with 32bit accelerator cards, 32-bit Macs, etc. YEARS before the falcon was released. The DSP driven sound is nice.. But my point is that no matter how good of a value it was at $2,000.00, it would have still been a good value, and ALSO been a decent competitor performance-wise at $2500.00 with some extra bus lines (and additional custom logic to maintain/allow 16bit ST compatability if desired.) In fact, if you read the atari history websites, thats exactly what engineers had originally planned for the machine before ATARI "cheaped out" on the production model.

 

The main midi machine of the day was Mac then ST and hardly any Amiga.

We sold Amigas throughout the life of the machine and the A1000 as I said before seemed well made but loads of returns and failures, not c64 levels but pretty bad. Also with the crappy o/s that crashed people would return them and could not be shown or convinced it was o.k., but they had mulched the packaging so back to the distributor it went.

I think your statement about chips is BS, I did this for a living, and was a dealer. More often than not the problem was the loose chip issue.

The retension issue was fact, I have no idea where you are coming from, ST's did occasionally come in totally dead, often due to external p/s issues with the 520ST.There were some manufactiring issues on the very early machine but they were doa out of the box. Sometimes the internal on the 1040 but very few.We seldom had any issues with the ST's other than the loose chip issue. Spent tons of time doing solder on ram upgrades and basically never had a failure, yeah it was cheaply made, often after opening a machine more than once the screw holes in the plastic would be stripped and had the occasional KB chip on the bottom of the KB fail but overall good. The A500 was much better though I would agree, CIA chips from hot plugging things, agnus on occasion and less crashing due to O/s improvements. Also yes the XE stuff was fairly bad, kinda like C64, had many bad KB mylars and just dead boards. At the time St came out we weren't doing much 8 bit anymore, it had kind of died and many had moved on to the ST.On Amiga however, we had heat issues, some power supply issues, floppy drive issues.

We sold A2000's and they had about a 10% bad rate right out of the box and the A3000 was worse, though nice looking. We did a couple A4000,s and no problems, skipped CDTV and CD32. I have one and the CD32 is not much better made than a Tramiel XE.

We always called them Ameoba's or meagers, or commode a dores. The employees sold them but really didn't care for them.

I don't entirely disagree with you on the falcon, we sold few of them. What do you expect from Jack Tramiel.. The original St was groundbreaking, I remember being excited to read the stuff from Jerry Pournelle in Compute I think. He just loved it. We used to Post his reviews in the store. On the falcon again,It was too little to late except for those that were the Atari loyalists. Amiga was dying as well at the time at least for us. Most had moved on to Pc's with the advent of VGA and SoundBlaster/Adlib.

On the Falcon we are talking about a company with limited resources and I really don't think it would have mattered by then at least here in the US. We already had a hard time getting what we needed in ST's as most supply and support was already moved to the european market.

[MEtalGuy66]

Ok, well I guess we'll have to agree to agree that the other is full of shit.. Because theres no way in hell your gonna convince me that early STs had anything resembling descent PCB assembly quality after the number of hours Ive spent "unfucking" their factory solder job on circuit at a time, testing & then retesting..

 

 

As far as A2000s & A3000s being 10% bad out of the box, I suspect that to be an outright lie as well.. Never seen one that even comes close to the shittiness of build quality of the early STs..

edit:

Actually, Im not gonna say that isnt true. i dont know what your experience was at your retail outlet.. 100% of the machines ive worked on actually made it into the hands of the public... And the 'ST DROP TEST' was a fairly well known ATARI SERVICE "inside joke" from what I gathered..

 

 

As far as the ST being "ground breaking"... Heh. This forum doesnt have facilities to express how hard Im laughing at that statement.

 

Yeah I admit that in ADDITION to making it 32bit, ATARI should have released the falcon 2 years earlier if they truly wanted to be competitive on the performance front with Apple & Commodore..

Edited December 14, 2008 by MEtalGuy66

[DamageX]

loose chips was an Amiga issue... it was caused by speed bumps in the Commodore parking lot at West Chester

[MEtalGuy66]

The main midi machine of the day was Mac then ST and hardly any Amiga.

Hmm. I knew quite a few more musicians using AMIGAs than STs. The school I attended used Macs for the electronic music class, but the Teacher owned an ST. He alwayse said he wiished he could afford one of the macs the school used for MIDI.. But then again, he couldnt afford the keyboards they used either.

 

All of the MIDI musicians I knew personally preferred the AMIGA because not only could they compose music that sounded awesome on their keyboard, but they could then sample the relevant instruments into the amiga and use a tracker to make a 4 or 8 voice digital version to distribute via floppy or over BBSes. And it would work on peoples machines who werent musicians and therefor did not own any musical instruments/equipment.

 

electronic music is not my area so I cant comment on who had better software.. ive heard some pretty amazing midi sequences that were done on the AMIGA though. Like I said, from the hardware standpoint, MIDI takes next to nothing to do...

 

We always called them Ameoba's or meagers, or commode a dores.

Yeah thats nice..

My favorite is

Crappy Old Machine Made Of Defective Or Redundant Electronics

 

Atari Made It Go Away

 

Another Trameil Attempt Recycling ICs Second Try

 

Ha ha...

 

My point is that my dad to this day still remembers how shitty the ataris were, and how many hours I fought with them, and MAINLY how many STs he usually had to step over to get in my room. And thats why the "atrashi" name stuck... He doesnt make comments like that about other brands..

[atarian63]

Ok, well I guess we'll have to agree to agree that the other is full of shit.. Because theres no way in hell your gonna convince me that early STs had anything resembling descent PCB assembly quality after the number of hours Ive spent "unfucking" their factory solder job on circuit at a time, testing & then retesting..

 

 

As far as A2000s & A3000s being 10% bad out of the box, I suspect that to be an outright lie as well.. Never seen one that even comes close to the shittiness of build quality of the early STs..

edit:

Actually, Im not gonna say that isnt true. i dont know what your experience was at your retail outlet.. 100% of the machines ive worked on actually made it into the hands of the public... And the 'ST DROP TEST' was a fairly well known ATARI SERVICE "inside joke" from what I gathered..

 

 

As far as the ST being "ground breaking"... Heh. This forum doesnt have facilities to express how hard Im laughing at that statement.

 

Yeah I admit that in ADDITION to making it 32bit, ATARI should have released the falcon 2 years earlier if they truly wanted to be competitive on the performance front with Apple & Commodore..

I am expecting that your take on this is an outright lie..again I did this as the owner and dealer for both these systems.10% was probably about right on those.We ordered a bunch in for a local graphics company to use as story boards. They were very upset that so many were bad, almost killed the deal and those things werent cheap! We spent alot of employee time returning dead or bad early Amiga's more so that St's though it certainly could have been better. You are skipping the fact that the early Amiga was just not ready for Prime time. kickstart, then workbench.. people hated it and returned them in fairly large numbers. Not to mention bad power supplies and the like. General customer dissatisfaction. The A500 was about the rate of deads that PC's were at the time, maybe 3-5% not too bad.

 

Yes I remember the old DROP TEST joke, we even did it for a customer that brought one in to ask about it. It was a good way to see if you had the loose chip problem, much easier to ask if it was giving bombs or failing to load or doing a random crash. Reseat and nearly all were ready to go. I will say the 1st run w/o rom and the early rom machines just had too much flex (i.e. cheap) but it was an easy fix. We bought a bunch of returns from a Distrubutor in Philly. Atari at the time gave a 10% discount to cover defectives. So that meant they counld not send them back to Atari. I was buying them for $20 to $40 each and selling them (520St for $179) after we fixed the loose chip problem. It was great.That is not to say there were no deads, there were and I would agree with you that the dead ones really did have board issues.Very bad in fact as you describe, but there were not alot of them it the returns batch. Not to long after that though they got a handle on the problem. I remember seeing 520 and some 1040 models with a 4 point metal clip that went around the MMU and Glue sockets that would hold the chip firmly in place. That seemed to have done the trick as we seldom saw the problem much after that.

 

Have your own opinion, Compute and Jerry Pournelle would disagree, As do I. We sold them 3 to one over the amiga at least until A500 and Atari STE were out. Amiga did better later as they continued to innovate but both were getting killed by ever cheaper and more common PC's.

[atarian63]

The main midi machine of the day was Mac then ST and hardly any Amiga.

Hmm. I knew quite a few more musicians using AMIGAs than STs. The school I attended used Macs for the electronic music class, but the Teacher owned an ST. He alwayse said he wiished he could afford one of the macs the school used for MIDI.. But then again, he couldnt afford the keyboards they used either.

 

All of the MIDI musicians I knew personally preferred the AMIGA because not only could they compose music that sounded awesome on their keyboard, but they could then sample the relevant instruments into the amiga and use a tracker to make a 4 or 8 voice digital version to distribute via floppy or over BBSes. And it would work on peoples machines who werent musicians and therefor did not own any musical instruments/equipment.

 

electronic music is not my area so I cant comment on who had better software.. ive heard some pretty amazing midi sequences that were done on the AMIGA though. Like I said, from the hardware standpoint, MIDI takes next to nothing to do...

 

We always called them Ameoba's or meagers, or commode a dores.

Yeah thats nice..

My favorite is

Crappy Old Machine Made Of Defective Or Redundant Electronics

 

Atari Made It Go Away

 

Another Trameil Attempt Recycling ICs Second Try

 

Ha ha...

 

My point is that my dad to this day still remembers how shitty the ataris were, and how many hours I fought with them, and MAINLY how many STs he usually had to step over to get in my room. And thats why the "atrashi" name stuck... He doesnt make comments like that about other brands..

Those were really good, never heard them back then, I am sure we would have used them. Sadly neither one made it. I think I would have preferred either over the pc's. The industry changed from the fun hobbyist customer to the"I need one for work customer". Needless to say the"I need one for work customer" was a real pain in the ass as they werent excited about it like the hobbyist and it was a long time before the the games caught up to Amiga or St. Nice colors but Arcade games were quite awhile on. Not to mention those days were very exciting. Today.. the pc for me is just a tool, like a hammer or screwdriver. Another commodity. We sell em by the boatload, and who cares. Another boring PC. The main coolness in each generation now is "does the same thing only faster". That's why I still do the old 8-bit and consoles.

I can grab a laptop or pc of flat screen from the warehouse any old time, but I am much more excited when I see a new Atari product here. Pac man collection comes to mind!

Edited December 14, 2008 by atarian63

[+Sauron]

I loved the Atari ST series, but having said that, you just cannot compare the build quality of the low end ST models to any Amiga model. The A500 was simply a study in how to build a cheap yet sturdy and reliable computer. I knew plenty of ST and Amiga owners, and I don't know of a single Amiga owner who had any kind of hardware problem with their systems. However, I know very few (as in none) 520 or 1040ST owners who did not have to do the "4 inch drop" at one point or another.

 

The Falcon was a nifty computer, but yes, it was too little too late. It was seriously hindered in the performance area, but keep in mind that Atari meant for it to be the low end model of their new line of computers. It's too bad they never got around to releasing their Falcon040 using the Jag's video hardware.

[dwhyte]

loose chips was an Amiga issue... it was caused by speed bumps in the Commodore parking lot at West Chester

 

Have you watched "The Deathbed Vigil" in full? That was nothing more than a rumor started by a Commodore employee with a nice sports-car that was pissed at the facilities department for putting speed-bumps in the West Chester parking lot...

[MEtalGuy66]

I loved the Atari ST series, but having said that, you just cannot compare the build quality of the low end ST models to any Amiga model. The A500 was simply a study in how to build a cheap yet sturdy and reliable computer. I knew plenty of ST and Amiga owners, and I don't know of a single Amiga owner who had any kind of hardware problem with their systems. However, I know very few (as in none) 520 or 1040ST owners who did not have to do the "4 inch drop" at one point or another.

 

The Falcon was a nifty computer, but yes, it was too little too late. It was seriously hindered in the performance area, but keep in mind that Atari meant for it to be the low end model of their new line of computers. It's too bad they never got around to releasing their Falcon040 using the Jag's video hardware.

 

 

AHEMMM.. Thanks for backing me up, sauron.. I could (but wont) give names of at least 30-50 previous ST owners in the southeastern PA area that will say the same thing.. Some later became AMIGA owners... Some stayed with the ST...

[Ganky Ghost]

Wrong again, you just aren't getting it, reread my statement also the 20% number comes from a different person, we are talking about the most common Mac. Mac Plus, you know, the one that had the most software in 1989 since it had been around since 85 or 86.

 

Pretending to be right doesn't make you right. You didn't say that the ST was 20% faster than the most common Mac. You said that the ST and Spectre GCR was faster than a real Mac. Which isn't true in any way, shape, or form. And there's no difference between software made for the Mac Plus and the SE/30. They all run the same software. So I don't know where you're getting this "the one that had the most software" stuff from. Saying that there's a difference between Macintosh software for the Mac Plus and the Mac II is like saying that there's a difference between software for the 800XL and the 65XE.

 

The real fact is that a stock ST was 1986/87 manufacture was faster than a Mac plus. Also there was Magic Sac prior to that, also faster. Add the St's larger screen and it was a better experience.

 

Well, in that case, there's something you need to know about Macintosh software that was written specifically for computers like the Mac Plus -- The software was designed for the small screen and couldn't take advantage of larger screens. If you'd ever run System 6 software written for the compacts on the modular Macs with screens of 640x480 resolution you would know that.

 

But, this is the part where you say that some of the old Mac software could use larger screens at greater resolutions. And I would agree with you whole heartedly. Then I would point out that the software you were referring to could also use the larger screens of the faster Macs... Which provided millions more colors at much greater resolutions. So your argument is ridiculous either way you slice it. In summary:

 

Mac software was not machine specific.

 

Mac software was either written for the smaller screen or it wasn't. So the ST's "larger screen" offered absolutely no advantage over a "real Mac" which could drive multiple monitors at greater resolutions with true 24 bit color.

 

I've been an ST user in the past. I've been a Mac user in the past. I was an ST user for less than a year because I couldn't tolerate the machine. I was a Mac user from the day I first set eyes on a Classic II (A compact Mac with a nine inch monochrome screen, by the way) until pretty much the present. I haven't bothered with Mac OS X; I moved to Linux instead. I have never found the ST to offer a better experience than anything.

 

Maybe you should be on a Mac forum somewhere.

This is ATARIage

 

I'm here for the 8-bit, not the ST. I've already said that I don't like the ST and I don't step foot inside the ST forum. This is the 8-bit section. Oh, and I'm not a Mac user anymore. I use Linux now.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Ganky Ghost

[+Sauron]

Well, in that case, there's something you need to know about Macintosh software that was written specifically for computers like the Mac Plus -- The software was designed for the small screen and couldn't take advantage of larger screens. If you'd ever run System 6 software written for the compacts on the modular Macs with screens of 640x480 resolution you would know that.

 

It sounds to me like you never used Specter GCR. I used to run Specter GCR on my 1040ST, and never had a problem with any Mac software that was supposedly resolution-specific outside of the very few Mac games that existed. Compared to the Mac Classics at my school, my 1040ST w/ monochrome monitor did indeed offer better screen real-estate for programs like Pagemaker or MS Word. No one is saying that a 1040ST w/ Specter GCR would outperform a Mac Quadro, but compared to the absolute baseline Mac, a 1040ST w/ Specter GCR for a while was certainly a better deal.

[Ganky Ghost]

It sounds to me like you never used Specter GCR. I used to run Specter GCR on my 1040ST, and never had a problem with any Mac software that was supposedly resolution-specific outside of the very few Mac games that existed. Compared to the Mac Classics at my school, my 1040ST w/ monochrome monitor did indeed offer better screen real-estate for programs like Pagemaker or MS Word. No one is saying that a 1040ST w/ Specter GCR would outperform a Mac Quadro, but compared to the absolute baseline Mac, a 1040ST w/ Specter GCR for a while was certainly a better deal.

 

This is the part that I'm arguing. You're comparing the ST's 12" monitor to the Mac's 9" monitor. In your arguments, you're suggesting that there were no other Mac's available but the Mac's with the 9" screens. And that's just not the case. The point is that any Macintosh software that could take advantage of a larger screen, like MS Word or Pagemaker, on the ST could ALSO take advantage of a larger screen on a Mac. I almost bought a Macintosh Plus with an external 20" monitor from a print shop once.

 

And if you want to go back to what Atarian said, he said the MAC AT THE TIME. Let me go back and get his post. Hold on a second.... Okay, here it is:

 

The current model mac at the time was the mac plus. SO the ST was faster, had a larger screen, could run mac software Via Spectre GCR, was cheaper, looked nicer. Why else did the press back then call it the Jackintosh. It was so great. The mac people hated it. We loved it!

The current model Mac at the time was the mac plus. So the ST was faster, had a larger screen, could run mac software Via Spectre GCR, was cheaper, looked nicer.

 

We've already established that Spectre GCR was released in 1989. The current model Macintosh computers in 1989 were:

 

Macintosh Plus

Macintosh SE

Macintosh SE/30

Macintosh II

Macintosh IIx

Macintosh IIcx

Macintosh IIci

 

All of the Macintosh computers listed above were "current" in 1989 when the Spectre GCR was released. Every single one of them could drive larger monitors than the 9" monitor included with the Plus, SE, and SE/30. The Macintosh II, IIx, IIcx, and IIci did NOT have builtin monitors and could drive multiple monitors simultaneously.

 

Of all of the CURRENT model Macs in 1989, only the Plus and the SE used a 68000 processor. Everything else used a 68020 processor or a 68030 processor. So of the seven Macintosh models that were current in 1989, five of them would have outdone the ST hands down in terms of processing ability and speed. Color is not really relevant because the ST couldn't do the Mac in color anyway, but everything from the SE/30 through to the IIci did color very well -- we're talking 8-bit color at a bare minimum, that's 256 colors on screen at a time.

 

I apologize for taking your words literally, but say what you mean.

 

 

p.s. When I was in High School I only knew one Mac owner that hated the Mac and wanted an ST instead. Dave's old man was a lawyer and his mother was a teacher. They owned a Mac 512K, if memory serves. Those were the ones that had only a floppy drive. He hated the Mac because there was no games for it. He wanted an ST to play games. Not because the ST was a better computer.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Ganky Ghost

[atarian63]

It sounds to me like you never used Specter GCR. I used to run Specter GCR on my 1040ST, and never had a problem with any Mac software that was supposedly resolution-specific outside of the very few Mac games that existed. Compared to the Mac Classics at my school, my 1040ST w/ monochrome monitor did indeed offer better screen real-estate for programs like Pagemaker or MS Word. No one is saying that a 1040ST w/ Specter GCR would outperform a Mac Quadro, but compared to the absolute baseline Mac, a 1040ST w/ Specter GCR for a while was certainly a better deal.

 

This is the part that I'm arguing. You're comparing the ST's 12" monitor to the Mac's 9" monitor. In your arguments, you're suggesting that there were no other Mac's available but the Mac's with the 9" screens. And that's just not the case. The point is that any Macintosh software that could take advantage of a larger screen, like MS Word or Pagemaker, on the ST could ALSO take advantage of a larger screen on a Mac. I almost bought a Macintosh Plus with an external 20" monitor from a print shop once.

 

And if you want to go back to what Atarian said, he said the MAC AT THE TIME. Let me go back and get his post. Hold on a second.... Okay, here it is:

 

The current model mac at the time was the mac plus. SO the ST was faster, had a larger screen, could run mac software Via Spectre GCR, was cheaper, looked nicer. Why else did the press back then call it the Jackintosh. It was so great. The mac people hated it. We loved it!

The current model Mac at the time was the mac plus. So the ST was faster, had a larger screen, could run mac software Via Spectre GCR, was cheaper, looked nicer.

 

We've already established that Spectre GCR was released in 1989. The current model Macintosh computers in 1989 were:

 

Macintosh Plus

Macintosh SE

Macintosh SE/30

Macintosh II

Macintosh IIx

Macintosh IIcx

Macintosh IIci

 

All of the Macintosh computers listed above were "current" in 1989 when the Spectre GCR was released. Every single one of them could drive larger monitors than the 9" monitor included with the Plus, SE, and SE/30. The Macintosh II, IIx, IIcx, and IIci did NOT have builtin monitors and could drive multiple monitors simultaneously.

 

Of all of the CURRENT model Macs in 1989, only the Plus and the SE used a 68000 processor. Everything else used a 68020 processor or a 68030 processor. So of the seven Macintosh models that were current in 1989, five of them would have outdone the ST hands down in terms of processing ability and speed. Color is not really relevant because the ST couldn't do the Mac in color anyway, but everything from the SE/30 through to the IIci did color very well -- we're talking 8-bit color at a bare minimum, that's 256 colors on screen at a time.

 

I apologize for taking your words literally, but say what you mean.

 

 

p.s. When I was in High School I only knew one Mac owner that hated the Mac and wanted an ST instead. Dave's old man was a lawyer and his mother was a teacher. They owned a Mac 512K, if memory serves. Those were the ones that had only a floppy drive. He hated the Mac because there was no games for it. He wanted an ST to play games. Not because the ST was a better computer.

 

"All of the Macintosh computers listed above were "current" in 1989 when the Spectre GCR was released. Every single one of them could drive larger monitors than the 9" monitor included with the Plus"

 

So could the ST using any Multisync monitor of the day. 15Khz.

I stand by what I said though you try to mitigate it..You ignored the Magic Sac comment which came out in 87.

The current model mac at the time was the mac plus. SO the ST was faster, had a larger screen, could run mac software Via Spectre GCR, was cheaper, looked nicer. Why else did the press back then call it the Jackintosh. It was so great. The mac people hated it. We loved it!

I also knew some who had a mac, they were blindly loyal, but when Spectre GCR came out it drove them crazy. Apple paid attention at the time as well and tried to limit rom availability so they were taking notice.

Color is quite relevant as it is needed for the main reason people owned a system at the time. GAMES. We carried over 5000 sku's of software at that time. 95% appx was games!

Edited December 14, 2008 by atarian63