Atari 8bit is superior to the ST

[atariksi]

You screwed up and can't even admit it. I wonder what a psychologist would say about that?

 

They would diagnose one showing this symptom as delusional. However, there are too many different categories of psychological problems this attribute falls under to make a clear diagnosis from this thread...

 

I can't help but wonder if the man behind the atariksi mask actually debates like this in real-life, and in turn, wonder how many times his face has been introduced to other people's fists--over the course of his life--if the prior fact is true...

 

Take you biased fantatical bullcrap elsewhere. You don't even understand his contradictory views-- which I just showed.

[atariksi]

atariksi, look at post #1038 in the thread

 

This is my original post...

Sorry, but you also claimed 8-bit won't do it. In fact you said it several times and I requoted to you one instance a posts ago.

 

Besides, not accepting something does not make it true. Acceptance doesn't require fact.

A person can accept that UFOs exist. Doesn't mean they do, doesn't mean they don't.

It's just your view of the world.

...

Yeah, the fact is 8-bit can do DTP if you can understand the technicalities involved. But you don't have a fixed mind.

 

My post was on the poll which states the 8 bit surpasses the ST at everything.

See my original post above. Exactly how many times have I repeated this now and you still try to change things around?

...

You have SAID everything in both sides. A complete totality. That's why I said-- make up your mind.

 

 

You only comment on what you know? Is that why you brought all sorts of things into the discussion that have nothing to do with the topic?

...

You did. You brought IIGS into the discussion. Go re-read your posts. I only replied to you introducing them into the topic. Get a life. You have NO IDEA what you are rambling about while being a hypocrite and accusing others. Go show off your bullcrap IIGS and DTP stuff to someone who is confused like you.

 

You screwed up and you should apologize. I don't give a crap about your straw-man arguments and self-contradictory views. Rest of your rubbish deleted.

[atariksi]

<snip>

I think these types threads are ridiculous. People on here are not comparing just the 800/XL/XE to ST/STe/TT, they are comparing these systems to everything else and finding another excuse to continue the Atari vs Commodore CRAP. I just pointed out when the 8-Bit (400/800) was released om 1978 it was ahead of almost everything else. Faster CPU, better graphics, than the Apple II, Commodore Pet, TRS80, etc.

<snip>

And that I totally agree with.

I just get sick of some of the outlandish claims that the Atari 8 bit can do anything, or are superior at everything.

I'm sure they leap tall buildings in a single bound too.

I should have never spoken up and let reality get in the way of passionate fanboyism.

 

PROOF that you used the word fanboy. Learn to read.

[PeteD]

 

You did. You brought IIGS into the discussion. Go re-read your posts. I only replied to you introducing them into the topic. Get a life. You have NO IDEA what you are rambling about while being a hypocrite and accusing others. Go show off your bullcrap IIGS and DTP stuff to someone who is confused like you.

 

You screwed up and you should apologize. I don't give a crap about your straw-man arguments and self-contradictory views. Rest of your rubbish deleted.

 

Rambling!!!? Frankly I find that an offensive personal attack!

 

 

Pete

[atariksi]

Here's another quote from you where you declared that even with 14Mhz 65816 and upgraded graphics, you'll be short of memory (didn't read my remark and went rambling). Here also you introduce your IIGS.

 

I don't think you can say 8-bit computers can't do it. It's a software issue-- if you target a 128K+ Atari or one with big secondary storage, I'm sure it can be done. ST given its higher resolution would be better at it although it's clumsy to use monochrome monitor for 640*400 and 640*200 for color. I'm sure EGA at the time with it's 640*350*16 would be a better option.

Yes I can say that. They don't have the memory, they don't have the speed, they don't have the storage capacity, etc...

Even with a 14MHz 65816 and upgraded graphics you'll be short of speed, short of memory, and short of storage space.

I'm not trying to bust your chops here, it's just the way it is.

I have a IIgs that is faster than the Atari 8 bit, has better graphics for DTP, a mass storage device, 4 MB RAM, etc...

and I wouldn't even think of doing more than simple page layout stuff on it.

Once you start doing layers and trutype fonts and photos the memory drops by the wayside *hundreds* of K at a time.

Rescaling a color photo of any size and number of colors would bring an 8 bit to it's knees.

 

Desktop Publishing on the ST was actually ahead of the PC at that time.

Frankly, EGA wasn't that great for it either. The Palette of EGA and the slow ISA buss made it pretty ugly to deal with.

VESA local buss and VGA made a huge difference.

BTW, this is a thread titled "Atari 8bit is superior to the ST"... not Atari ST vs PC.

 

CAD work is something else I wouldn't do on the 8 bit but the ST might do the job. I did some board layout work on the Amiga and a 25MHz 68030 wasn't bad. I wouldn't want to autoroute a large board on it though. A place I worked at had autorouting as an overnight job on a fast 486.

On the 8 bit you could do real simple cad stuff but load up a bunch of part libraries, devices with lots of pins or drawings with lots of detail and you'd take forever just to draw once even if you had the memory.

[oky2000]

In Europe...as a home machine....PC was nowhere in the DOS days....not until early 90s was it an acceptable choice (the time games were becoming VGA (ie NOT pathetic worse than C64 palette of EGA)

 

I'd say 6-bit RGB has definite advantages over the C64's palette, not universal of course -just as the 8-bit vs ST's palette... (the CGA/EGA/VGA default 16-color palettes are a separate issue)

...

Correct, if you study color spaces (and you can actually write your own transform like I did), you can see that many RGB values correspond to almost identical colors (visually) in other color spaces like YCrCb. So that can be used as a form of compression while at the same time proving how A8 palette is superior. I.e., it's not just as simple as 512>256. As I said, only a mentally deranged lunatic or biased person would disagree with this research.

 

1. The A8 started with 128 colours and LATER 256 colours were added....same as the ST and STE going from 512 to 4096.

 

2. The method of generating those 128 or 256 colours gives many obscure shades (like 16 shades of purple) but then only maybe 4 or 5 flesh tones....whereas on the ST like I said because YOU pick the way the colour is mixed via 3x 9bit R,G,B registers it is a lot more realistic. A colour palette exists to replicate colours in the real world, and in this case the ST will always win.

 

Clearly computer artists the world over who also preferred the ST's palette mixing setup to 256 arbitrary colours are not lunatics and nor am I so...........

 

Also @kitty my knowledge of EGA PC graphics used for games comes down to 16 colours, same as the C64, those 16 colours you can use however are very dubious in their saturation levels and look garish, and for whatever reason the C64 graphics (colour, not resolution of course before any anal nerd corrects me) in Defender of the Crown just look prettier than the PC EGA ones...despite both systems being 16 colour palette. The ST and Amiga obviously is far superior to EGA and two years ahead.

 

And for those people saying the colour saturation is too low on the C64 output erm...have you tried using a standard S-Video Y/C cable and adjusting your TV controls to your liking...JUST LIKE WHEN WATCHING A TV PROGRAM OR FILM ON IT

[atariksi]

I did explain to you why I don't have a 256-color paletted picture; the Photoshop that I use maps it using some linear distance formula although manually I can see that A8 palette contains the colors that fit better. As I said, the industry that deals with chroma/luminance (as in JPG/MPG/etc.) will take the luminance over the chroma at even bigger ratios of chroma loss than the ST palette vs. A8 palette.

 

Sorry chroma loss is a compression artifact ( and it's to do with resolution ) - so you're not really talking about pallettes. ( If you want to bring resolution into it we could just resample the parrot picture to be 4 times coarser in X )

Anyway the picture I'm more interested in is your monochrome 160x240x16 colour one ( non interlaced ) - or was that a photoshop as well?

 

It's not to do with resolution. You basically assume chroma is similar in entire 4*4 area although in reality it can be a completely different color. But you don't do that for luminance. So your point doesn't make sense. ST RGB palette is easier to use, but not optimal for visually uniform regions as other color spaces.

 

As I said, Photoshop has problems with mapping to A8's color space for some reason. Perhaps, there's some plug-in to fix it.

[PeteD]

I did explain to you why I don't have a 256-color paletted picture; the Photoshop that I use maps it using some linear distance formula although manually I can see that A8 palette contains the colors that fit better. As I said, the industry that deals with chroma/luminance (as in JPG/MPG/etc.) will take the luminance over the chroma at even bigger ratios of chroma loss than the ST palette vs. A8 palette.

 

Sorry chroma loss is a compression artifact ( and it's to do with resolution ) - so you're not really talking about pallettes. ( If you want to bring resolution into it we could just resample the parrot picture to be 4 times coarser in X )

Anyway the picture I'm more interested in is your monochrome 160x240x16 colour one ( non interlaced ) - or was that a photoshop as well?

 

It's not to do with resolution. You basically assume chroma is similar in entire 4*4 area although in reality it can be a completely different color. But you don't do that for luminance. So your point doesn't make sense. ST RGB palette is easier to use, but not optimal for visually uniform regions as other color spaces.

 

As I said, Photoshop has problems with mapping to A8's color space for some reason. Perhaps, there's some plug-in to fix it.

 

For "visually uniform regions", read "squares"

 

I haven't used PS for any of my pictures but an algorithm I've spent quite a while tweaking SPECIFICALLY for A8 remapping.

 

As I'm no doubt still being ignored my repetitions of these points are obviously not sinking in..

 

 

 

Pete

Edited January 5, 2010 by PeteD

[andym00]

It's not to do with resolution. You basically assume chroma is similar in entire 4*4 area although in reality it can be a completely different color. But you don't do that for luminance. So your point doesn't make sense. ST RGB palette is easier to use, but not optimal for visually uniform regions as other color spaces.

 

As I said, Photoshop has problems with mapping to A8's color space for some reason. Perhaps, there's some plug-in to fix it.

 

You should let Adobe know that.. I'm sure they'd be interested to know there's a very unique palette that breaks their colour reduction algorithms.. In the past I've found Adobe developers to be very helpful when there's a problem and if you provide them with the right information and without sounding like a loon too much, you'll likely end up having one of the programmers pop-up in your inbox in no time, wanting to fix it..

 

Anyway, please do let us know what he says

Edited January 5, 2010 by andym00

[Crazyace]

As I said, Photoshop has problems with mapping to A8's color space for some reason. Perhaps, there's some plug-in to fix it.

 

What's photoshop got to do with the A8?

[PeteD]

As I said, Photoshop has problems with mapping to A8's color space for some reason. Perhaps, there's some plug-in to fix it.

 

What's photoshop got to do with the A8?

 

Well the rest of us don't have one of atariksi's magical scanners for the A8 that can import any image and make it look exactly how the photograph does (honestly, it's all there in RAM, the massively expanded RAM, it's just the A8 can't display it), so we have to settle for 2nd best, being an industry standard image app with a broken remap function.

 

Shame with all this A8 hardware and experience there's no way to get an image back from the A8 to the PC. If onnnnly there was some way to connect the two machines together.

 

 

 

Pete

[Crazyace]

It's not to do with resolution. You basically assume chroma is similar in entire 4*4 area although in reality it can be a completely different color. But you don't do that for luminance.

I think you need to read up again - subsampling chroma is effectively low pass filtering the colour, or 'dropping the resolution'

[PeteD]

You basically assume chroma is similar in entire 4*4 area although in reality it can be a completely different color. But you don't do that for luminance. So your point doesn't make sense.

 

 

Does that even make any sense?

 

YUV != chroma/lum, not in the sense you're trying to make out there. You can alter the luminance of something and change it's shade but you can't change it's colour. You can however change the Y of a pixel and change it's chroma. BUT that's YUV as a function again, not a fixed palette as the A8 is.

 

Only one person in that post not making sense.

 

 

Pete

Edited January 5, 2010 by PeteD

[JamesD]

I saw this after the other post so they are out of order.

 

I PROVED you can't read! It wasn't an insult. I specifically wrote A8s with 128K+ RAM or big secondary storage and you went and claimed it doesn't have memory and other inapplicable trash.

Wow... you proved I can't read? I must be understanding this telepathically.

That would save me the time to reply if you could do that. But that feature also does not exist in you.

And another insult. ("also does not exist in you" < saying I can't read again)

...

Stop the false accusations and straw-man arguments. I just requoted you the passage which clearly shows you didn't read what I wrote (period).

And yet you leave out my response which shows I *was* responding you what you said.

I even brought up what I said in my reply and you STILL ignore what I say and reply to whatever you want.

 

You misunderstood, you were rude, you are still being rude, and I still don't think you get it.

 

Okay, so then I disagree with you. I claim you can do DTP on A8 as described above and before and in 8-bit Era as well and by time St was introduced.

Then we disagree and you "claim".

 

Rather than quote everything and go point by point I'll try to hit the key ramblings...

"ramblings"-- now that is actually a personal attack.

 

Rambling - to talk or write in a desultory or long-winded wandering fashion

 

Your messages go on and on.

You ignore what I say and have been saying insist you are right.

At times spend more time arguing you are right and insulting me than talking about the topic. (I can't read... remember that one)

You wanted to bring up the 8 bit era which had nothing to do with my post.

You brought up science projects... which I never mentioned.

You tried to turn it into an 8 bit vs IIgs thread.

Don't take it bad yet, you bring up sprites which is another prime example of something that has nothing to do with the topic.

I'm pretty sure I can find other examples of you wandering off topic if I go back through other posts but I think I've made my point.

 

BTW, you told someone they needed a brain in post 1200.

In post #1234 you tell someone to learn how to read.

I think you are well into the banning realm here and that was just what I happened to notice.

If I look at just your posts I'm sure they are filled with more of the same.

 

Insults, IIgs too late and didn't have enough ram standard, ST had 512K and no hard drive, Atari 8 bit had everything then, Atari 8 bit can do everything.

All sorts of crap deleted.

...

More straw-man arguments. I didn't say Atari 8 bit can do everything. Atari 8-bit can't fly to the moon.

Straw man you say? From post #1161:

Hello, you can write any application on A8 if you had the memory. I didn't say anything impossible. You can page the memory to a RAM drive if there's not enough standard memory. There's enough to have a scrolling 640*400 display in memory for the preview (probably can get away with less).

"You can write any application on the A8 if you had the memory." Your exact words. ANY APPLICATION!!!

Hmmm... wouldn't that include running a moon lander? I don't know... maybe the definition of ANY had changed.

The Atari is faster than what Apollo had so that might actually be possible though.

 

The 8 bit era has nothing to do with the topic. You tried to introduce it, I said it had nothing to do with it and you keep harping on it.

Forget the 8 bit era, it's not in the poll or my original post and now I've repeatedly said it.

...

That was haunting you from the other thread so that's why you wanted to argue that with me. I wouldn't be arguing ST vs. A8 if I limited stuff to 8-bit Era. It's self-contradictory. Oh yeah, I will only accept STs when Atari was in 8-bit Era.

You admit it's self contradictory... so why did you introduce it into the conversation? Post #1150

 

If it was haunting ME then why didn't I introduce it?

It was YOU that introduced it. Maybe it was haunting YOU!

 

 

The IIgs had a RAM expansion slot and a RAM board shipped at the same time as the IIgs. There were commercial RAM boards with more RAM than any hack upgrade I've seen for the Atari. Mine has 4MB and an IDE interface... but the entire thing is going further and further from the original post you replied to. I was allowing for a lot of extras by using the IIgs for comparison. 24 bit address buss, hard drive, faster CPU, better graphics for the purpose. Again... it's not about a comparison vs Atari 8 bit, just the most RAM I've seen on a 6502ish system, fast storage and fast CPU.

Forget the IIgs, picture your Atari with 512K or 1024K and a hard drive if you like because otherwise you won't shut up about the IIgs.

...

You said ST can do DTP and A8 can't. So why does it have to be 4MB RAM now? Does IIGS require 4MB to do DTP? That's pretty inefficient coding-- perhaps the wrote it in BASIC. They did have a 1MB on A800.

Actually, the word can't wasn't introduced until post #1088 and you were the one who said it, not me.

 

And after I tell you to forget the IIgs you still want to argue about there being something wrong with the IIgs making it an 8 bit vs IIgs aregument again. All while ignoring the reason for including it in the first place. Plus you are still arguing about can't instead of superior to the ST which wasn't the topic AT ALL.

 

More importantly, this wasn't about the existence of RAM expansions then or now. It was about size of RAM and speed. Remember me talking about the code size exploding, loop unrolling, running out of stack space, etc...?

Your program would be larger and slower than the ST version. It would require more RAM than the ST.

The ST program pretty much required a hard drive and more than 512K if you wanted to do much.

When your fonts are 100+K in size and even more RAM is required to scale them... 512K disappears really quickly.

If you wanted to use any of the expansion modules for the software, undo buffer, layers... all suck RAM and a professional system will have more than 1MB of RAM. Scaling and rotating true type or postscript fonts requires a lot of CPU power. Scaling and rotating a hi-res true color photo on a fast ST is challenging and sucks huge amounts of RAM. Doing it on a 6502... you are dreaming.

...

Are you sure they used true color photos and 100K+ fonts in DTP back then? Nonetheless, a RAM drive (as I mentioned) would help in case system RAM is low.

Sure am. I know because I knew a guy that was using an ST to run a DTP business on the side with his Atari store.

And how is having to swap memory in and out of a RAM drive going to do in the middle of something?

You've seen virtual memory slow down a PC, now guess what it's going to do to a sub 2MHz machine.

 

You aren't just writing *a* desktop publisher, you are writing a better desktop publisher than on ST and no limits were placed on the machines.

I'm saying you can't do it and prove it if you insist you can.

 

This isn't about a stripped down desktop publisher, it's not about hypothetically possible, it's about "surpasses the ST at Everything" as mentioned in the poll and my original post.

If it doesn't meet that criteria... that answer on the poll can't be true.

Well, make up your mind first. You're only discussing DTP possibilities currently. Your claim that it can't even be done on A8 has to be deal with first.

I quoted my first post for you and the world to see.

I gave the message number where YOU introduced can't.

I referred to the topic of the poll and the first post at least 20 times through this thread.

I brought up the features of Calamus and stated "Just so you have an idea what you are up against..." Post #1118

I tried to explain just how large it would be to do that, talked about add on modules, true type fonts, postscript fonts, etc...

I've repeatedly tried to tell you that you misread my posts.

You went on I don't know how many little tangents about sprites, IIgs vs 8 bit...

 

 

Elvis has left the building!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited January 5, 2010 by JamesD

[carmel_andrews]

well at least, going by the poll results the majority of us aren't insane

[PeteD]

well at least, going by the poll results the majority of us aren't insane

 

I think that number is rapidly diminishing. I can feel myself slipping the more of this thread I read

 

 

Pete

[atariksi]

It's not to do with resolution. You basically assume chroma is similar in entire 4*4 area although in reality it can be a completely different color. But you don't do that for luminance.

I think you need to read up again - subsampling chroma is effectively low pass filtering the colour, or 'dropping the resolution'

 

Your original resolution is 160*480 (let's say) and stays that way after the transform. You need help.

[atariksi]

I saw this after the other post so they are out of order.

 

I PROVED you can't read! It wasn't an insult. I specifically wrote A8s with 128K+ RAM or big secondary storage and you went and claimed it doesn't have memory and other inapplicable trash.

Wow... you proved I can't read? I must be understanding this telepathically.

That would save me the time to reply if you could do that. But that feature also does not exist in you.

And another insult. ("also does not exist in you" < saying I can't read again)

...

Stop the false accusations and straw-man arguments. I just requoted you the passage which clearly shows you didn't read what I wrote (period).

And yet you leave out my response which shows I *was* responding you what you said.

I even brought up what I said in my reply and you STILL ignore what I say and reply to whatever you want.

 

You misunderstood, you were rude, you are still being rude, and I still don't think you get it.

...

Stop the bullcrap about "he said what he meant that I didn't know when he said that...".

 

You are WRONG.

 

 

You brought up science projects... which I never mentioned.

Because I saw a8s doing better than ST.

 

You tried to turn it into an 8 bit vs IIgs thread....

I just proved you did that.

 

BTW, you told someone they needed a brain in post 1200.

In post #1234 you tell someone to learn how to read.

I think you are well into the banning realm here and that was just what I happened to notice.

...

Stop playing moderator. Moderator is smarter than you. Both of my remarks in post #1200 and $1234 are proven.

 

"You can write any application on the A8 if you had the memory." Your exact words. ANY APPLICATION!!!

Hmmm... wouldn't that include running a moon lander? I don't know... maybe the definition of ANY had changed.

The Atari is faster than what Apollo had so that might actually be possible though.

...

It's true, you can write the application.

 

You admit it's self contradictory... so why did you introduce it into the conversation? Post #1150

...

I thought you were sane enough to admit it but I guess I had to prove it was self-contradictory.

 

Go to go... perhaps I'll deal with your nonsense drivel later if need be.

[PeteD]

It's not to do with resolution. You basically assume chroma is similar in entire 4*4 area although in reality it can be a completely different color. But you don't do that for luminance.

I think you need to read up again - subsampling chroma is effectively low pass filtering the colour, or 'dropping the resolution'

 

Your original resolution is 160*480 (let's say) and stays that way after the transform. You need help.

 

Not sure what that's supposed to mean? Does he need help if it stays the same or doesn't? (not sure why I continue to ask questions, maybe one day you'll come out of hiding)

 

Lossy YUV doesn't change the PIXEL resoultion of an image but does change the CHROMA resolution of it, as you've said yourself that chroma isn't as important (ignoring for now that not important doesn't mean that having more of it doesn't make a difference such as some colours on the ST). That's still YUV as a function though.

 

More twists than a twisty turny thing...

 

 

Pete

Edited January 6, 2010 by PeteD

[JamesD]

Does Newsroom support layers, importing jpg files, and truetype fonts?

Did jpg file formats even exist back then.. I think not.

gif did... did it support that?

 

You are missing the point. You guys are saying a simple page mockup program that is little more than a later version of printmaster is a desktop publishing program. Newsroom was good for simple newsletters and stuff like that but it's not the same. If you want to do professional work the 8 bit just won't do it. At least some of the ST software could. That alone proves the 8 bit isn't better at everything. You just don't want to admit it.

 

I don't think you can say 8-bit computers can't do it. It's a software issue-- if you target a 128K+ Atari or one with big secondary storage, I'm sure it can be done. ST given its higher resolution would be better at it although it's clumsy to use monochrome monitor for 640*400 and 640*200 for color. I'm sure EGA at the time with it's 640*350*16 would be a better option.

 

Looks like you selective pick stuff to support your own views. Here's my reply to your claim "8 bit won't do it". Now you stated both, I agree but only a deluded fool would than go back and forth between two contradictory views. QED.

 

Look at the entire paragraph. I'm talking about existing software here. You are trying to take a sentence out of context.

 

"You are missing the point. You guys are saying a simple page mockup program that is little more than a later version of printmaster is a desktop publishing program. Newsroom was good for simple newsletters and stuff like that but it's not the same. If you want to do professional work the 8 bit just won't do it. At least some of the ST software could. That alone proves the 8 bit isn't better at everything. You just don't want to admit it."

[+wood_jl]

LOL!!!

 

This thread is kind of hilarious.

 

Both machines are great machines, but hey, let's not kid ourselves here. The ST is a nice, fast 16 bit computer. The 8 bitter isn't touching it for all but a few nice tricks.

 

Agreed!

 

I don't understand the comparison. Why are we picking on the ST? Why not A8 vs. 486DX2/66 or Corvette ZR1, for that matter? It's all equally pointless to compare and argue over the specs. What should matter is which you prefer, and then state the reasons why you prefer it. It's not necessary for everyone (or anyone) to agree with you, but it is interesting to see the reasons why you made your choice, even if your choice is not mine.

 

I like using the A8 because:

 

1) It was my first system

2) It's easy and cheap get

3) You probably have several "monitors" in your house already, and another is cheap and available

4) It's easy to set up a "no floppies required" setup

5) One model - say 130XE - will run pretty much everything - very little worrying about ROM or OS versions, etc.

 

I like the ST, Amiga, and C64 as well, C64 also easy because of reasons #2,#3,#4,#5 above.

 

Who cares what the specs are?

[PeteD]

 

Stop playing moderator. Moderator is smarter than you.

 

 

Says the guy who right after a warning from Albert cries out "I've been personally insulted!! someone called me a rambler". If that's not an attempt to get someone banned I don't know what is.

 

 

Pete

[JamesD]

I saw this after the other post so they are out of order.

 

I PROVED you can't read! It wasn't an insult. I specifically wrote A8s with 128K+ RAM or big secondary storage and you went and claimed it doesn't have memory and other inapplicable trash.

Wow... you proved I can't read? I must be understanding this telepathically.

That would save me the time to reply if you could do that. But that feature also does not exist in you.

And another insult. ("also does not exist in you" < saying I can't read again)

...

Stop the false accusations and straw-man arguments. I just requoted you the passage which clearly shows you didn't read what I wrote (period).

And yet you leave out my response which shows I *was* responding you what you said.

I even brought up what I said in my reply and you STILL ignore what I say and reply to whatever you want.

 

You misunderstood, you were rude, you are still being rude, and I still don't think you get it.

...

Stop the bullcrap about "he said what he meant that I didn't know when he said that...".

 

You are WRONG.

 

And that is exactly the problem. You screwed up and can't admit it because you have some desire to be right all the time.

 

You brought up science projects... which I never mentioned.

Because I saw a8s doing better than ST.

And it still had noting to do with the topic no matter how many times you bring it up.

You are STILL ignoring the fact that the entire thread was about the poll and my first post.

You excerpt a sentence here or there that you can use and ignore everything else.

 

You tried to turn it into an 8 bit vs IIgs thread....

I just proved you did that.

LOL, I posted something as a basis for comparison vs the ST.

YOU tried to turn it into an 8 bit vs IIgs argument.

 

BTW, you told someone they needed a brain in post 1200.

In post #1234 you tell someone to learn how to read.

I think you are well into the banning realm here and that was just what I happened to notice.

...

Stop playing moderator. Moderator is smarter than you. Both of my remarks in post #1200 and $1234 are proven.

I don't have any idea how smart the moderator is so I can't tell if that is an insult or not.

You proved someone needs a brain and someone else needs to learn how to read?

You proving it doesn't mean it's not a personal attack.

 

"You can write any application on the A8 if you had the memory." Your exact words. ANY APPLICATION!!!

Hmmm... wouldn't that include running a moon lander? I don't know... maybe the definition of ANY had changed.

The Atari is faster than what Apollo had so that might actually be possible though.

...

It's true, you can write the application.

But in the post I quoted you said you didn't say that.

 

You admit it's self contradictory... so why did you introduce it into the conversation? Post #1150

...

I thought you were sane enough to admit it but I guess I had to prove it was self-contradictory.

 

Go to go... perhaps I'll deal with your nonsense drivel later if need be.

You were the one that introduced the argument about the 8-Bit Era.

I said limiting it to the 8 bit era contradicted including the ST and it didn't make sense.

 

There is nobody home in Whoville.

Edited January 6, 2010 by JamesD

[JamesD]

BTW, bullcrap has now been introduced into the topic.

[carmel_andrews]

In the stylee of Peter Snow (a BBC political pundit) it's going to be both machines are cool on their own....by a landslide

 

Atari ST to A8....your chips look hot

 

Atari 8bit to ST...You've a lot more hot chips then me

 

Mc Donalds attendant to an Atari geek.....Do you want chips with that

 

Ultimately...ATARI's rule and rulez, and everything else ...well, make up your own word

Edited January 6, 2010 by carmel_andrews