Atari 8bit is superior to the ST

[atariksi]

They should have left the A8 chips in the ST.

Perhaps they would have if the machine had been designed as a successor to the Atari 8-bit line, but it was in development prior to having any relation to Atari whatsoever. Still, even if Atari Inc had continued to exist and they eventually came out with a successor to the 8-bit line, I'm not sure backwards compatibility would be all that likely, the Amiga didn't carry the C64 chipset either. (not that wouldn't have necessarily been a good idea) I think we already discussed this before, but the best case for integrating the 8-bit hardware with the ST would have been adding the chipset onboard, relagating the 6502 to role as a coprocessor and perhaps make some use of other components. (system would likely have been clocked differently too, to match the A8 chipset, so the 68k might end up running at 7.16 MHz) POKEY would have been a nice addition, if the 8-bit I/O hardware could be used as well (for more than compatibility), you might start to get a cost effective machine. (probably more capable in some ways than the ST, but neither as simple nor as cheap)

...

I wasn't talking about complex 6502 coprocessing which we discussed on another planet. Just memory map ANTIC/GTIA/PIA to the 68K memory space. I remember seeing all those TOS chips in one ST machine so perhaps toss the TOS (most of it) and replace with A8 chips to keep expenses down. Let TOS load from disk like A1000. A college co-op employee would know how to memory map the A8 chips to 68K memory space within a couple of weeks or so.

 

Compatibility is another discussion-- this is just a quick, easy, cheap solution.

 

No, it doesn't apply for Amiga since it has a lot of supporting hardware already.

 

Yes, but not horizontal resolution. (as vsync is variable)

 

You try to show 1280*1024 on an LCD with 1024*768 resolution and you'll see that both axes are limited even in RGB mode.

 

I meant a CRT... of course a digital display will have a finite resolution (fixed in fact), you'd need to downscale that immage to fit onto the smaller screen (like 1080i/p HD content displayed on a 1360x768 "1080i/p compatible" LCD HDTV -1080i will be worse as it's deinterlaced) Upscaling also results in a poorer immage though, ideally such a tv in my example you display 1280x720 video with in a window with a boarder such that the native resolution is used, not upscaled to fit the larger screen.

 

You can hook up LCD monitor using normal VGA connector which is analog. And argument is valid even for non-LCD monitors that won't work at certain resolutions and won't scale the image either so horizontal resolution plays a role.

[kool kitty89]

I wasn't talking about complex 6502 coprocessing which we discussed on another planet. Just memory map ANTIC/GTIA/PIA to the 68K memory space. I remember seeing all those TOS chips in one ST machine so perhaps toss the TOS (most of it) and replace with A8 chips to keep expenses down. Let TOS load from disk like A1000. A college co-op employee would know how to memory map the A8 chips to 68K memory space within a couple of weeks or so.

 

Compatibility is another discussion-- this is just a quick, easy, cheap solution.

 

No, it doesn't apply for Amiga since it has a lot of supporting hardware already.

 

OK, a different context than what I was thinking. I think the clock speed issue might still be there (if there weren't other interfacing issues with using those chips with the 68k), but that's not a huge change. Could ANTIC/GTIA be any use in combination with the ST shifter, or just limited to their own video modes?

 

 

 

You can hook up LCD monitor using normal VGA connector which is analog. And argument is valid even for non-LCD monitors that won't work at certain resolutions and won't scale the image either so horizontal resolution plays a role.

 

Yes, but LCDs have to scale the video regardless of using DVI vs VGA, it's the video scalar that limits it, not the LCD display (I have a 1024x768 GEM monitor that only goes down to 640x480, but a newer LCD monitor that supports 320x200 even), fixed frequency CRT monitors are also limited in that respec, and variable sync VGA monitors of course have limits as well (but tend to be much more flexitble than digital displays). We've got a 20" CRT VGA monitor (origianlly from a MAC workstation I think) that works fine with 320x200 (displaying correct, non-square pixels as well) and works fine up to 1440x1080 at least. (though it does not like interlacing at all, but that's expencted, 1080p works fine, 1080i does not)

[frogstar_robot]

Come on, a superior machine should be able to do anything from an inferior machine + MORE. And 160 isn't a limit either, you can do a 384*240 set up on Atari although colors are more restricted but the scrolling will be smoother. I picked 160 mode since many games use that mode, but even in this mode, you can do overscan and get 192*240 which is sufficient for many games. I am not comparing it to 320*200*16 but to full screen graphics modes. It has to handle all Atari full screen graphics modes at a faster or equal speed. It can't do the GTIA Gr.9 mode due to shading, it can't do scrolling of any modes at even close to A8 speeds, it can't do text modes either at same/faster speed than A8.

 

Yes, a new machine should be more capable, and I certainly agree there, but I was commenting on the shift in discussion on ST vs A8 capabilities regardless of age difference. At their respective times of release, the A8 was far more inovative and advanced for sure....

If someone is going to go for the next generation Atari and owns an 8-bit and realizes that the new ST won't be capable of or less capable of most of ANTIC modes, scrolling, overscan, shades, joystick i/o, etc. why in the world would he consider it an "upgrade". I forgot to mention collision detection in my list.

 

 

 

I first saw an ST at my buddie's house. We futzed around with NeoChrome, Word Writer, and played StarGlider all night. I recognized it immediately as a very very different machine and didn't look for or care that it didn't have a one-to-one bullet point comparison list to the A8. I saw the drawing software, the game, and the desktop all doing things my 800XL wasn't doing. I didn't have a nifty (at the time) file-mangement gui that was integral to the system; I couldn't smoothly fly around in a hi-res 16 color wireframe world while shooting bad guys and didn't have anything remotely close to the WYSIWYG apps. I saw PLENTY that made one an upgrade over my A8.

 

These days I find more retrocomputing fun in an A8 but i was rightfully wowed by STs at the time.

[atariksi]

I wasn't talking about complex 6502 coprocessing which we discussed on another planet. Just memory map ANTIC/GTIA/PIA to the 68K memory space. I remember seeing all those TOS chips in one ST machine so perhaps toss the TOS (most of it) and replace with A8 chips to keep expenses down. Let TOS load from disk like A1000. A college co-op employee would know how to memory map the A8 chips to 68K memory space within a couple of weeks or so.

 

Compatibility is another discussion-- this is just a quick, easy, cheap solution.

 

No, it doesn't apply for Amiga since it has a lot of supporting hardware already.

 

OK, a different context than what I was thinking. I think the clock speed issue might still be there (if there weren't other interfacing issues with using those chips with the 68k), but that's not a huge change. Could ANTIC/GTIA be any use in combination with the ST shifter, or just limited to their own video modes?

 

...

Yeah, a cheap easy job would be to have ANTIC/GTIA run their own modes and switch to the other video separately. Of course, if they hired a few more co-op students they could genlock the ANTIC/GTIA modes onto the ST video output. That may also help them support genlocking. I'm sure there's some NTSC timing already there on the ST if they need the clocking for the A8 chips.

 

You can hook up LCD monitor using normal VGA connector which is analog. And argument is valid even for non-LCD monitors that won't work at certain resolutions and won't scale the image either so horizontal resolution plays a role.

 

Yes, but LCDs have to scale the video regardless of using DVI vs VGA, it's the video scalar that limits it, not the LCD display (I have a 1024x768 GEM monitor that only goes down to 640x480, but a newer LCD monitor that supports 320x200 even), fixed frequency CRT monitors are also limited in that respec, and variable sync VGA monitors of course have limits as well (but tend to be much more flexitble than digital displays). We've got a 20" CRT VGA monitor (origianlly from a MAC workstation I think) that works fine with 320x200 (displaying correct, non-square pixels as well) and works fine up to 1440x1080 at least. (though it does not like interlacing at all, but that's expencted, 1080p works fine, 1080i does not)

Well, the encoding side has to have a some frequency to encode the RGBs since they emulated the lower clocked video modes of CGA/EGA on VGA using scan-doubling and stretching to get them close to VGA bandwidth.

[kool kitty89]

OK, a different context than what I was thinking. I think the clock speed issue might still be there (if there weren't other interfacing issues with using those chips with the 68k), but that's not a huge change. Could ANTIC/GTIA be any use in combination with the ST shifter, or just limited to their own video modes?

 

...

Yeah, a cheap easy job would be to have ANTIC/GTIA run their own modes and switch to the other video separately. Of course, if they hired a few more co-op students they could genlock the ANTIC/GTIA modes onto the ST video output. That may also help them support genlocking. I'm sure there's some NTSC timing already there on the ST if they need the clocking for the A8 chips.

So the 8-bit's chips would only be useful for their own video modes (and possibly overlaying with ST video with genlock)? They couldn't contribute other things to the ST hardware (adding to the value and replacing some ST support chips), I/O if nothing else. Could ANTIC have been used in conjunction with the ST's video shifter or would they not be able to interface or, hypothetically, could it have been possible (and practical) to design a bitmap display controller for the ST which could be driven (or at least assisted) by ANTIC. (I'd think enhancing ANTIC/GTIA themselves probably wouldn't have been very practical due to the loss of many Atari Inc enginerres who could have facilitated such a task)

 

Well, the encoding side has to have a some frequency to encode the RGBs since they emulated the lower clocked video modes of CGA/EGA on VGA using scan-doubling and stretching to get them close to VGA bandwidth.

 

Would VGA mode 13h be included with the lower clocked video modes of CGA and EGA?

Edited December 9, 2009 by kool kitty89

[+remowilliams]

I first saw an ST at my buddie's house. We futzed around with NeoChrome, Word Writer, and played StarGlider all night. I recognized it immediately as a very very different machine and didn't look for or care that it didn't have a one-to-one bullet point comparison list to the A8. I saw the drawing software, the game, and the desktop all doing things my 800XL wasn't doing. I didn't have a nifty (at the time) file-mangement gui that was integral to the system; I couldn't smoothly fly around in a hi-res 16 color wireframe world while shooting bad guys and didn't have anything remotely close to the WYSIWYG apps. I saw PLENTY that made one an upgrade over my A8.

 

These days I find more retrocomputing fun in an A8 but i was rightfully wowed by STs at the time.

Totally agree.

[atariksi]

OK, a different context than what I was thinking. I think the clock speed issue might still be there (if there weren't other interfacing issues with using those chips with the 68k), but that's not a huge change. Could ANTIC/GTIA be any use in combination with the ST shifter, or just limited to their own video modes?

 

...

Yeah, a cheap easy job would be to have ANTIC/GTIA run their own modes and switch to the other video separately. Of course, if they hired a few more co-op students they could genlock the ANTIC/GTIA modes onto the ST video output. That may also help them support genlocking. I'm sure there's some NTSC timing already there on the ST if they need the clocking for the A8 chips.

So the 8-bit's chips would only be useful for their own video modes (and possibly overlaying with ST video with genlock)? They couldn't contribute other things to the ST hardware (adding to the value and replacing some ST support chips), I/O if nothing else. Could ANTIC have been used in conjunction with the ST's video shifter or would they not be able to interface or, hypothetically, could it have been possible (and practical) to design a bitmap display controller for the ST which could be driven (or at least assisted) by ANTIC. (I'd think enhancing ANTIC/GTIA themselves probably wouldn't have been very practical due to the loss of many Atari Inc enginerres who could have facilitated such a task)

...

I am not talking about enhancing GTIA/ANTIC. Just like on Amiga and PCs, you can have multiple video cards-- this would be similar. So the ST modes work or GTIA/ANTIC modes work. That's considered integration since you would access both via 68000. Better than switching monitors like they do for monochrome 640*400. And PIA of course would replace the current slow ikbd-based joystick interface. Of course, genlocking would allow both videos at the same time but that would make things more complicated and not a few days job.

 

Well, the encoding side has to have a some frequency to encode the RGBs since they emulated the lower clocked video modes of CGA/EGA on VGA using scan-doubling and stretching to get them close to VGA bandwidth.

 

Would VGA mode 13h be included with the lower clocked video modes of CGA and EGA?

 

They have certain set frequencies for various Standard VGA modes.

[kool kitty89]

I am not talking about enhancing GTIA/ANTIC. Just like on Amiga and PCs, you can have multiple video cards-- this would be similar. So the ST modes work or GTIA/ANTIC modes work. That's considered integration since you would access both via 68000. Better than switching monitors like they do for monochrome 640*400. And PIA of course would replace the current slow ikbd-based joystick interface. Of course, genlocking would allow both videos at the same time but that would make things more complicated and not a few days job.

 

OK, sorry, I was rambling with the enhancment comment. However, I was thinking more in line with ANTIC possibly being able to work in conjunction with the ST's video controller, I wouldn't think the current ST Shifter would be at all suitable for this, but perhaps the ST's video display controller could have been designed with that in mind. (assuming of course, that the Shifer's development hadn't already progressed significantly by the time Tramiel acquired Atari consumer and formed Atari Corp.)

[atariksi]

Come on, a superior machine should be able to do anything from an inferior machine + MORE. And 160 isn't a limit either, you can do a 384*240 set up on Atari although colors are more restricted but the scrolling will be smoother. I picked 160 mode since many games use that mode, but even in this mode, you can do overscan and get 192*240 which is sufficient for many games. I am not comparing it to 320*200*16 but to full screen graphics modes. It has to handle all Atari full screen graphics modes at a faster or equal speed. It can't do the GTIA Gr.9 mode due to shading, it can't do scrolling of any modes at even close to A8 speeds, it can't do text modes either at same/faster speed than A8.

 

Yes, a new machine should be more capable, and I certainly agree there, but I was commenting on the shift in discussion on ST vs A8 capabilities regardless of age difference. At their respective times of release, the A8 was far more inovative and advanced for sure....

If someone is going to go for the next generation Atari and owns an 8-bit and realizes that the new ST won't be capable of or less capable of most of ANTIC modes, scrolling, overscan, shades, joystick i/o, etc. why in the world would he consider it an "upgrade". I forgot to mention collision detection in my list.

 

 

 

I first saw an ST at my buddie's house. We futzed around with NeoChrome, Word Writer, and played StarGlider all night. I recognized it immediately as a very very different machine and didn't look for or care that it didn't have a one-to-one bullet point comparison list to the A8. I saw the drawing software, the game, and the desktop all doing things my 800XL wasn't doing. I didn't have a nifty (at the time) file-mangement gui that was integral to the system; I couldn't smoothly fly around in a hi-res 16 color wireframe world while shooting bad guys and didn't have anything remotely close to the WYSIWYG apps. I saw PLENTY that made one an upgrade over my A8.

 

These days I find more retrocomputing fun in an A8 but i was rightfully wowed by STs at the time.

 

You may see it worthwhile to upgrade, but I wouldn't want to give up 8-bit features to go for the ST. And things you point out were merely showing 68000 processor power and better resolution nothing big. Its better to upgrade to a more capable hardware which were available at the time. And as far as PCs go, upgrading meant it was capable of doing what your existing PCs did and more as long as you click on "Continue" when you try to install your old software in new PCs and get the message: "This software HAS NOT passed Microsoft authenticity blah blah. Try at your own risk. (I.e, DO NOT PRESS CONTINUE, get the Microsoft version or wait for one to come out."

[atariksi]

I am not talking about enhancing GTIA/ANTIC. Just like on Amiga and PCs, you can have multiple video cards-- this would be similar. So the ST modes work or GTIA/ANTIC modes work. That's considered integration since you would access both via 68000. Better than switching monitors like they do for monochrome 640*400. And PIA of course would replace the current slow ikbd-based joystick interface. Of course, genlocking would allow both videos at the same time but that would make things more complicated and not a few days job.

 

OK, sorry, I was rambling with the enhancment comment. However, I was thinking more in line with ANTIC possibly being able to work in conjunction with the ST's video controller, I wouldn't think the current ST Shifter would be at all suitable for this, but perhaps the ST's video display controller could have been designed with that in mind. (assuming of course, that the Shifer's development hadn't already progressed significantly by the time Tramiel acquired Atari consumer and formed Atari Corp.)

 

It's a nice trick that they used the processor power with the shifter to get stuff like Spectrum 512, but the Amiga does the same w/o using so much CPU power (via the Copper). So that's better-- to have it done by the hardware. Now that I think about it, even the A8 mode of Graphics 11 is undoable on ST since you can reuse the palette like 7 times across one scanline whereas ST would be limited to like 48 colors.

[Rybags]

assuming of course, that the Shifer's development hadn't already progressed significantly by the time Tramiel acquired Atari

 

Given the complexity of the original ST's graphical capabilities, I'd imagine someone could have engineered it in a single afternoon.

 

Actually, Shifter only does part of the work... IIRC Glue actually fetches the data.

 

Disregarding higher resolution and bigger palette, the ST's graphics are primitive in comparison to the 8-bitter.

[ataridano]

I read this a ways back in the thread, but it had me thinking. It was said that the ST wasn't the best computer at the time (I don't mean that in a bad way) but was very good for the price and did most of the things that people wanted to do. The ST was our first computer and I remember doing word processing, some games, a couple printer programs. Would an upgraded A8 (w/ an XEP80 and maybe a MIO?) be similar in price and capabities at the time? I guess I'm assuming that an XE was cheaper than a ST in the 80s, how much extra A8 "stuff" could you get w/ the extra $??

[FastRobPlus]

At XE could do the things you describe, but I doubt someone shopping for an ST would have been considering an XE (or C64) as an alternative. They would have been looking at expensive Macs and 8088 systems, and deciding that the ST was easy (like a Mac) and cheap (like a clone.)

 

This entire thread is silly. You can't argue that the Atari was more capable for word procssing or art or whatnot than an ST. You can probably argue that the Atari was better at being an Atari than the ST. The XE shared some DNA with the Atari video game consoles and even some DNA with the other Atari's coin op systems. The ST was very un Atari-like. It's an Atari in name and logo only.

[atariksi]

assuming of course, that the Shifer's development hadn't already progressed significantly by the time Tramiel acquired Atari

 

Given the complexity of the original ST's graphical capabilities, I'd imagine someone could have engineered it in a single afternoon.

 

Actually, Shifter only does part of the work... IIRC Glue actually fetches the data.

...

I'm actually looking for the cycle-by-cycle analysis of this DMA cycles/line but haven't seen any documents.

 

Disregarding higher resolution and bigger palette, the ST's graphics are primitive in comparison to the 8-bitter.

 

Even the palette is more of a trade-off than an ST advantage-- 64 colors @8 shades or 16 colors @16 shades. I would take the latter. In fact I would take 8 colors @64 shades-- makes digitizing videos and photos easier. I suppose you can spatially dither the colors as eye is more sensitive to the luminance.

[+DarkLord]

The ST was very un Atari-like. It's an Atari in name and logo only.

 

You do realize that for a very large number of people, the ST was the first

computer they ever owned, right?

 

With that in mind, don't you think that for them, "Atari" and "ST" will forever

be linked in their minds?

 

I've got a Jaguar, a Lynx, Mega ST4, Falcon 060, STacy, and an 800XL... No way,

no how would I ever look at any of these machines and say that's not an Atari.

 

Do you think die-hard Commodore 64 owners look at the Amiga and say that's not a

Commodore machine - it might have the badge and logo but its not Commodore!

 

Just curious...

[FastRobPlus]

The ST was very un Atari-like. It's an Atari in name and logo only.

 

You do realize that for a very large number of people, the ST was the first

computer they ever owned, right?

 

With that in mind, don't you think that for them, "Atari" and "ST" will forever

be linked in their minds?

 

I've got a Jaguar, a Lynx, Mega ST4, Falcon 060, STacy, and an 800XL... No way,

no how would I ever look at any of these machines and say that's not an Atari.

 

 

 

And for a far greater number of people Terminal Reality's new game Ghostbusters will be the first Atari product they ever owned.

 

An Atari logo on the box does not mean it's a true Atari product, just that the current company named Atari released it. Might as well have said Infogrammes or JTS on the box.

[+DarkLord]

 

And for a far greater number of people Terminal Reality's new game Ghostbusters will be the first Atari product they ever owned.

 

An Atari logo on the box does not mean it's a true Atari product, just that the current company named Atari released it. Might as well have said Infogrammes or JTS on the box.

 

You didn't answer my question...

 

and so that means (going by your logic) that nothing released Amiga-wise, after the orginal Commodore corp folded (or heck, even after every management change) is truly a Commodore product...

 

Hmm....

[FastRobPlus]

 

And for a far greater number of people Terminal Reality's new game Ghostbusters will be the first Atari product they ever owned.

 

An Atari logo on the box does not mean it's a true Atari product, just that the current company named Atari released it. Might as well have said Infogrammes or JTS on the box.

 

You didn't answer my question...

 

and so that means (going by your logic) that nothing released Amiga-wise, after the orginal Commodore corp folded (or heck, even after every management change) is truly a Commodore product...

 

Hmm....

 

Correct!

[kool kitty89]

The ST was very un Atari-like. It's an Atari in name and logo only.

 

You do realize that for a very large number of people, the ST was the first

computer they ever owned, right?

 

With that in mind, don't you think that for them, "Atari" and "ST" will forever

be linked in their minds?

 

I've got a Jaguar, a Lynx, Mega ST4, Falcon 060, STacy, and an 800XL... No way,

no how would I ever look at any of these machines and say that's not an Atari.

 

Do you think die-hard Commodore 64 owners look at the Amiga and say that's not a

Commodore machine - it might have the badge and logo but its not Commodore!

 

Just curious...

 

Hmm, it's definitely an Atari Corp. product, though it very well could have been the TTL ST had Tramiel not acquired Atari Inc. consumer. (and instead invested capital in TTL, marketing, manufacturing capabilities, etc) Even if Atari Inc had stayed, the 7800 wouldn't have been "Atari" in that respect either... (not being designed internally) Whether or not the 7800 was more "Atari like" or not. (neither were the Lynx or Jaguar in that sense, they were 2nd/3rd parites working with Atari Corp.) Then there's asking whether Atari Games was "really Atari" either, all I can say is that prior to Midway Acquiring Atari Games and Atari Corp being sold off, both were pretty "Atari" still, granted both were distinct from the original Atari Inc with some portions of that company persisting to some degree.

 

But that's getting pretty philosophical.

 

 

And hell, the ST may be Commodore like in the sense of a cheap, streamlined system, but it's just as much a mismach compared to the C64 as it is to the A8-bit line. (both being far more game oriented) Then again, perhaps the ST would have had some other features if MOS engineers had played a significant role in development.

Edited December 10, 2009 by kool kitty89

[FastRobPlus]

The ST was very un Atari-like. It's an Atari in name and logo only.

 

You do realize that for a very large number of people, the ST was the first

computer they ever owned, right?

 

With that in mind, don't you think that for them, "Atari" and "ST" will forever

be linked in their minds?

 

I've got a Jaguar, a Lynx, Mega ST4, Falcon 060, STacy, and an 800XL... No way,

no how would I ever look at any of these machines and say that's not an Atari.

 

Do you think die-hard Commodore 64 owners look at the Amiga and say that's not a

Commodore machine - it might have the badge and logo but its not Commodore!

 

Just curious...

 

Hmm, it's definitely an Atari Corp. product, though it very well could have been the TTL ST had Tramiel not acquired Atari Inc. consumer. (and instead invested capital in TTL, marketing, manufacturing capabilities, etc) Even if Atari Inc had stayed, the 7800 wouldn't have been "Atari" in that respect either... (not being designed internally) Whether or not the 7800 was more "Atari like" or not. (neither were the Lynx or Jaguar in that sense, they were 2nd/3rd parites working with Atari Corp.) Then there's asking whether Atari Games was "really Atari" either, all I can say is that prior to Midway Acquiring Atari Games and Atari Corp being sold off, both were pretty "Atari" still, granted both were distinct from the original Atari Inc with some portions of that company persisting to some degree.

 

But that's getting pretty philosophical.

 

 

And hell, the ST may be Commodore like in the sense of a cheap, streamlined system, but it's just as much a mismach compared to the C64 as it is to the A8-bit line. (both being far more game oriented) Then again, perhaps the ST would have had some other features if MOS engineers had played a significant role in development.

 

You can argue for the Amiga being a Commodore or Atari, you can tell the C64 is a Commodore, and you can tell the XL is an Atari. The ST is always the odd one out. But I like the idea of calling it the TTL ST!

[kool kitty89]

Of course, while the ST was being developed at TTL it was codenamed RBP (rock bottom price), though I kind of doubt that would have carried over to the commercial name. (unless they reused RBP to stand for something else)

[Willsy]

To me, the ST is superior in all ways, so I voted for that.

 

However, which machine is my *favourite*? Well, it's actually a TI-99/4A, but I'll restrict my post to the Atari's:

 

I was an 800XL owner as a kid in the depressed middle England in the mid 80's. I programmed the ass out of that thing. I learned an awful lot, and it was hard, as the Atari was not very popular in the UK; it was ZX Spectrum (I also had one of them), C64 or Amstrad CPC.

 

However, when I left school in 1986, I ended up selling STs for a living. They were real workhorses. Built like tanks and very reliable. My customers wanted computers for word-processing mainly. They were easy to sell.

 

I own a 520STe that has been upgraded to 4MB. It looks like a brand new machine. Beautiful. It is used as a MIDI console in my studio.

 

For me: The A8s are great, very innovative machines that hold many fond memories. The ST is a workhorse. Probably a comparison will help here: If you were a carpenter, you would completly rely on a good quality set of tools that you knew you could always depend on. The ST was that. As an early generation business machine, it ruled for a while.

 

I agree completely with the other comments though: The A8 really was a serious genius machine. Way ahead of its time. The ST was not. It was functional, did the job, was reliable and cheap. A business mans dream!

 

Games never interested me on the ST. I never like the look and feel of them. I prefer the A8 for games. But in the environment I was in, the ST was unbeatable at the time. The writing was on the wall when the Amiga 500 and 600 came out. At that point, Commodore had got the Amiga price way dowm, and there was little reason (for home buyers) to look at an ST. Business users wouldn't let an Amiga in the building, unless it was a 2000, 3000 or 4000 for video work

 

Peace

[Willsy]

Maybe a naive question, but is there a reason the ST didn't just use 2 POKEY chips for stereo audio? I remember some Atari Games 16 bit arcade games had a unique but pleasing sound due to the use of 2 or more POKEY chips. Would that have been to costly?

 

I think the reason is that the ST design was started *before* the main designer joined Atari. While he was still a Commodore employee. (He got the nod and wink from Tramiel). Therefore he would not have had access to Atari technical specs.

 

Have a read of Commodore: A company on the edge (or whatever it's called) - it is fascinating.

[atariksi]

Maybe a naive question, but is there a reason the ST didn't just use 2 POKEY chips for stereo audio? I remember some Atari Games 16 bit arcade games had a unique but pleasing sound due to the use of 2 or more POKEY chips. Would that have been to costly?

 

I think the reason is that the ST design was started *before* the main designer joined Atari. While he was still a Commodore employee. (He got the nod and wink from Tramiel). Therefore he would not have had access to Atari technical specs.

 

Have a read of Commodore: A company on the edge (or whatever it's called) - it is fascinating.

 

Doesn't the company you get fired from retain rights to any work you do for them? I guess then most of Amiga stuff should be considered Atari R&D and most of ST stuff should be considered Commodore R&D.

[atariksi]

I read this a ways back in the thread, but it had me thinking. It was said that the ST wasn't the best computer at the time (I don't mean that in a bad way) but was very good for the price and did most of the things that people wanted to do. The ST was our first computer and I remember doing word processing, some games, a couple printer programs. Would an upgraded A8 (w/ an XEP80 and maybe a MIO?) be similar in price and capabities at the time? I guess I'm assuming that an XE was cheaper than a ST in the 80s, how much extra A8 "stuff" could you get w/ the extra $??

 

The so-called "big" thing with ST was the higher resolution but the Mac already had like 512*342 B&W and PCs w/EGA cards at the time easily did 640*350 in color so ST's 640*200 in color and 640*400 in B&W wasn't such a new thing. I'm sure the reverse from what we were discussing could have been done-- incorporate a high-res. video chip into the existing XL/XE design outputting to a RGB monitor on top of the GTIA/ANTIC. Would be like a Apple IIc/e -> IIGS upgrade.