The Tramiels

[+wood_jl]

That's also how modern VGA monitors will display it by default:

eBay Auction -- Item Number: 320526274539 (albeit in this case, it has the boarder all at the bottom)

 

Here's how my modern ($5/Goodwill) VGA monitor displays the ST monochrome, with one of those eBay cables:

 

[kool kitty89]

That's also how modern VGA monitors will display it by default:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ATARI-ST-VGA-MONITOR-ADAPTER-SOUND-LEAD-CABLE-/320526274539 (albeit in this case, it has the boarder all at the bottom)

 

Here's how my modern ($5/Goodwill) VGA monitor displays the ST monochrome, with one of those eBay cables:

 

No, I meant LCDs, not CRTs... CRTs you can make any aspect ratio you want (and easily on newer ones too -just go into the menu). For LCDs it's square pixels by default with a boarder, you need a video driver set to scale otherwise.

 

For a CRT (especially a modern CRT), simply go into the menu and adjust the overscan yourself. (that's how I get 1920x1080p in 16:9 on my 20" 4:3 CRT monitor )

So the question is: what's the default calibration and how easy is it to change it. (ie external POTs, menu, or opening the case to adjust the pots internally)

 

 

Oh, and I looked a bit closer on this: http://webspace.webring.com/people/tg/geosteve_99/ST-Mac.jpg and both are about 11% off from square in terms of aspect ratio. (ST very slightly more, closer to 12%, but both are about as far from square as the Genesis is on NTSC or PAL displays -NTSC is tall, PAL is wide)

Edited February 12, 2011 by kool kitty89

[Rybags]

LCDs don't give a 1:1 pixel mapping if you're using Analog input.

 

They do internal filtering for a "best fit", and also usually have similar adjustment available as per CRTs.

 

Try an LCD on a PC with VGA cable, even at native res it looks utter crap compared to DVI.

[kool kitty89]

The ~ 7.2 Mhz pixel clock used by A8/Amiga gives as near to square pixels as you're likely to get in PAL.

 

An 8 MHz pixel clock ala ST/C64 gives tall pixels.

Huh, I thought the C64 used a colorburst based clock like most other TV-oriented computers. (or others due to the cheap nature of 3.58 MHz oscillators)

 

Including border, you get around 336 x 256 visible pixels on an A8 PAL display. Doing the maths, a 4:3 aspect ratio means you should have 1.333 times as many pixels H vs V. 336/256 gives 1.3125. Pretty close to 1.333~ but slightly "fat" pixels although you'd never really notice it.

 

The ST/64 has considerable border space left/right. Vertically it will be identical. So, for argument's sake say 376 x 256 (using the clock speed difference as basis of that estimate). 376/256 gives 1.46875, which means noticably tall pixels, easily noticed.

Yes, if the boarder is like that, that's right. But WOW PAL has a lot of vertical overscan! Just 256 lines of 288/576i for the standard, that's WAY more than average (ie too much overscan) NTSC sets show about 224 lines (better sets show very close to 240 lines (480i) with the same PAR), so that's a huge gap compared to NTSC and means a less dramatic PAR difference than I expected. (there's a MUCH higher percentage of unused lines in PAL then with 256/312 vs 224/262, and again a much bigger difference from the "standard" 288 vs 240 lines)

 

From talking with some other PAL users in the past, I'd actually gotten the opposite impression, that average newer PAL sets showed about 272 lines or in some cases closer to 266 lines. (so 256 lines would leave a boarder . . . if that was the case)

 

But if it's really ~256 lines to the edge (as much as 224 lines is for NTSC), that's really close to perfect with 7.16/7.14 MHz. (the ST in PAL would still be closer than the Amiga on NTSC TVs though)

 

This info also changes my perception of MD/Genesis H40 (6.7 MHz dot clock) in PAL, it's actually closer to square in PAL than NTSC then vs ~7-9% off in both cases. (6.25 MHz should be pretty close to perfect for NTSC, at which you'd get ~298 visible pixels horizontally and 224 lines -or close to 320x240 with perfect overscan calibration, I think the N64 runs at that rate for 320x240 mode, not positive though -the Neo Geo is 6 MHz iirc, so also very close, various 5.37 MHz examples are a fair bit wide though)

[Rybags]

Look at the DVD standard... NTSC 480 lines / 2 = 240 gives just 16 missing, given 224 visible as you've quoted.

 

PAL = 576 / 2 = 288 gives 32 missing, given 256 as I quoted.

 

But it's all variable, with the old CRTs there were ones that didn't even show 240, others that showed over 270.

 

C64/ST don't use the colourburst clock - that's why they give the compressed looking screen horizontally, given they're displaying the same 320 pixels and same # of scanlines.

 

Also, you can't always do the calculations and get an exact result - most old gear did 262/312 scanlines but some including ST did 263/313 - not that it's a huge difference, but big enough to mess the calculations a bit... not to mention that the frame rates themselves aren't 50 and 60 either.

[kool kitty89]

LCDs don't give a 1:1 pixel mapping if you're using Analog input.

 

They do internal filtering for a "best fit", and also usually have similar adjustment available as per CRTs.

 

Try an LCD on a PC with VGA cable, even at native res it looks utter crap compared to DVI.

I think it's HIGHLY dependent on the monitor in question. I've seen many cases where the native res is pixel perfect (including the VGA LCD units we've been using for the last ~6-7 years). Maybe newer monitors auto-scale like that, but all the ones I've tried default to square pixels if you've got an unscaled 640x400 source. (some can't scale below that though, including our old GEM monitors, it shown a blank screen if you try 320x240 or 320x200, I don't remember trying 320x400/480 though)

My current laptop does the same thing, though I had to disable the stupid "aspect fit" (or whatever) mode the video driver was forcing initially, now it's always square as it should be for most such options. (scaled on a program by program basis, but otherwise with boarders for anything that's not 1.6:1)

 

But back to VGA vs DVI, I've never seen quite what you describe. All VGA inputs to dedicated VGA (and even some mixed VGA/DVI) monitors look great via VGA or via component video adapted to VGA (have a converter). Hell, analog is the ONLY way to get a pixel-perfect image on some displays, especially HDTVs. WAY too many TVs won'y let you use HDMI/DVI at the real native resolution, especially 1365x768 ones (they tell the device that it's 1280x720 native)... the ONLY pixel perfect DVI res we could set up on our Sanyo set was 1024x768 (with pillarboxing), but VGA looks perfect in 1365x768. (totally pixel perfect, you can look right at it and make out all the pixels -which aren't all that small given it's a 32" display at 1365x768 -actually might be 1360x768, I forget)

 

But bottom line is that I haven't seen that issue of forced AA via a monitor (TONs of video driver related problems, but not on the monitor end). I've seen plenty with super blurry AA at nonnative resolutions, though even then it tends to be less as you get closer and closer to the native res.

 

 

I still prefer CRTs though . . . every time I use one (with proper contrast/color/scan calibration) I get spoiled when I go back to LCDs. (even the high-end LCDs on the ~2 year old Mac Pros at school can't compete with good CRT monitors -though they're getting closer at least, save for variable resolutions which are still a long way off compared to multi-sync CRTs)

 

A shame no HDTVs ever pushed VGA monitor quality CRT displays. (there might even be a market for high-end CRT HDTVs to this day if that were the case . . . albeit interlaced stuff would be really flickery on VGA quality low-persistence phosphor, so mainly good for progressive displays and deinterlaced stuff -a lot of bad deinterlacing out there too, the proer way to do it should be to combing each possible pair of fields for a 50/60 Hz progressive output -2 possible pairs for each field, just like on a true interlaced display: it's really hit and mis to find HD sets that do that even though a lot of lower end LCD SDTVs from a few years ago did just that and even perfectly detected 240p -which a fair amount of HD sets do, but far too many that don't; even stranger that it's often the cheaper HD sets that have much more flexible support -like Sanyo, which is one of the lower end brands now, though I think some Sony stuff is OK, Samsung is sometimes good for SD support, and I think Phillips is as well -a few even support 15 kHz sync through the VGA port )

Edited February 12, 2011 by kool kitty89

[kool kitty89]

So you have one, or you're getting one, or you're just arguing without warrant? How feasible is it for a company to manufacture a computer around? Is that the latest thing, then, we're all going to abandon our PCs and Macs and get PPC Amigas? Or is it just a fringe/novelty computer, kind of like the similarly novel Atari Coldfire Project? Yeah, novelty computers. The effect of either will be so negligible to the market, it's ridiculous to cite them in any meaningful argument. What is your point in bringing up the Amiga OS/PPC computer, unless you plan on ditching your Mac for one?

Except for a handful of people who still use their Amigas (or ST/Falcon based machines even) for regular computer tasks. Far less common than PC users sticking to Win98SE or 2000 (both of which have some pretty nice patches and expansions after offcial support was dropped). I know a couple people running win98SE as their main OS (or "supercharged win9x") though more that use win2k. (and obviously a ton who have XP -which is still more efficient and less bloated any 32 or 64-bit vista/7 and more compatible, not sure about 64-bit XP though, but otherwise the main reason to switch to 7 is for 64-bit use or because it's pre-installed and you don't want to deal with transferring a license -the case with my 32-bit vista laptop, though in hindsight I wish I'd transferred by XP license... at least vista/7 32-bit supports DOS shell windows still)

 

Heh, it seems like MS's OSs are most stable and useful just as they're getting close to being discontinued. (in the cases of better OSs at least . . . I don't know anyone who prefers using Win95 -or older- to 98SE, or ME for that matter over 98SE or 2000 -or XP for that matter, unless it's a machine that's really nto well suited to XP's bloat, or at least the post SP1 bloat)

[Lynxpro]

At least the Amiga OS has been updated since Commodore's demise. Damn good OS to. Was the first OS to have pre-emptive multitasking as well as other features. If I am not mistaken Hyperion had partnered with another company to make a PPC computer running Amiga OS about a year ago. Not sure what the status of that is. Guess it's been a while since I have been on the Amiga boards. The main point is that the Amiga OS has evolved into a modern OS that is actually feasible for a company to manufacture a computer around.

 

 

There's no reason AmigaOS couldn't emulate the route Apple went with MacOS [X]. They need to cut the cord and transition it to being a layer sitting atop BSD. But the diehards would say "that's not Amiga like!"

 

 

 

Yep, and if Atari Inc had been more aggressive marketing it, not only would Atari have been better known as a computer company (or rather the broad, multidivision company they truly were and NOT just a game company), but they'd also have had far greater success in market saturation with the A8 line. (of course, they needed to cater to the US and EU/UK markets separately)

 

 

Atari Inc. spent a fortune on commercials for the XL line of computers. Alan Alda wasn't cheap and I can remember as a kid seeing Atari computer commercials all the time during prime time television [when I wasn't playing my 2600]. Even then, Alda seemed friendly and trustworthy, unlike George Plimpton and his Intellivision commercials which made him look like a douchebag.

 

 

 

Yes, and Atari WAS already a computer company, it just hadn't marketed that side of things well enough under Atari Inc to have it definitively ingrained in the public. (one of Warner's shortcomings)

 

 

 

That wasn't Atari's or Warner's shortcomings; it was the American general publics fault to fail to recognize that Atari was more than just videogames. Atari Inc. advertised the computer line well, unlike Tramiel's Atari Corp that advertised at 3am in most cases.

[flashjazzcat]

Here's how my modern ($5/Goodwill) VGA monitor displays the ST monochrome, with one of those eBay cables:

 

I have to say that looks great. Never tried an ST on a CRT VGA monitor before (just LCDs and an Atari mono monitor).

[SpaceDice2010]

At least the Amiga OS has been updated since Commodore's demise.

 

At least? What's the argument you're attempting with "at least?"

 

Damn good OS to

 

So you're using it, then? That's how you know that Amiga OS4 (or whatever they're up to now) is good? I thought you were using a Mac. If you're not using Amiga OS4, then how do you know it's so good?

 

Was the first OS to have pre-emptive multitasking as well as other features.

 

Yawn. Who doesn't know that? I'll use your own line "All the issues that you raised were addressed by the marketplace over 20 years ago."

 

If I am not mistaken Hyperion had partnered with another company to make a PPC computer running Amiga OS about a year ago. Not sure what the status of that is. Guess it's been a while since I have been on the Amiga boards. The main point is that the Amiga OS has evolved into a modern OS that is actually feasible for a company to manufacture a computer around.

 

So you have one, or you're getting one, or you're just arguing without warrant? How feasible is it for a company to manufacture a computer around? Is that the latest thing, then, we're all going to abandon our PCs and Macs and get PPC Amigas? Or is it just a fringe/novelty computer, kind of like the similarly novel Atari Coldfire Project? Yeah, novelty computers. The effect of either will be so negligible to the market, it's ridiculous to cite them in any meaningful argument. What is your point in bringing up the Amiga OS/PPC computer, unless you plan on ditching your Mac for one?

 

You're just grasping for straws in all directions, rather than address the well-placed criticism of your highly-opinionated charge that the ST was "horrible" simply because it wasn't what YOU had, rather than any quantifiable criticism, which you've amply demonstrated complete impotence in manufacturing. Chill pill taken. Now answer the questions.

 

You get really emotional about your Atari. In reply to "and your point is.." I believe that at one point that I said the Gem that the ST used was not a great OS imho. And even under Atari it was not updated anywhere near as much as it could have. Was just pointing out when someone mentioned about how the new Commodore was really a step backwards (I agree) that at least one of the bright spots in Amiga history (the OS) has been actually moving forward and had continued development. No more. No less. No need to get emotional or have a break down. I will be more careful when I post and take your possible thoughts into account. Don't want to hurt your feelings...

[SpaceDice2010]

A properly adjusted ST with mono monitor should have had square pixels as well (with a bit of a vertical boarder) and significantly higher resolution: hell, even on normal PAL TVs, you'd have nearly perfect square pixels in 320x200 mode. (that's oen thing the Amiga couldn't do early on, only interlace if you wanted more than 200-256 lines -the latter only in the flickerier 50 Hz PAL resolutions)

 

 

Can you explain how?

??? An 8 MHz dot clock (320 wide mode) is very close to what PAL (50 Hz vsync 15.6 kHz Hsync) needs for square pixels with standard calibration, they'll be a little bit tall normally, but barely. Amiga (and A8/C64/etc in 7.16 MHz dot mode) is the opposite, very slightly wide pixels in PAL. (ideal square pixels is ~7.5 MHz)

In NTSC, they're all way, way off from square without custom calibration: you'd need to ajust the V/H overscan to get the PAR (pixel aspect ratio) you want, and some monitors only did that internally (ie opening the case), others didn't.

With an SD (15 kHz) monitor at NTSC spec, you'll have tall pixels for the Amiga and ST (taller for ST), and also a considerable boarder on all sides (it should be a 320x200 window while the screen is actually showing 224 lines -or closer to 240 in some cases- and either ~382 pixels wide or ~342 pixels wide for Amiga with NTSC calibration)

CGA is identical to Amiga in that respect. (320 wide is 7.16 MHz, 640 is 14.3 MHz)

 

With custom calibration you could have square pixels, or a screen that is stretched exactly to the edge with almost 0 overscan. You can't get 720x200/400i on the Amiga withotu custom calibration since normal NTSC (or PAL) calibration would have much of those 720 pixels in overscan. (at 14.3 MHz, you'd have a max of ~684 pixels visible with normal calibration)

 

 

Some older TVs had external pots (on the back usually) to adjust the overscan (talking 60s and 70s TVs here, maybe early 80s), and many monitors do, most newer TVs offer it in the service menu. I'm not sure what the Amiga and ST had to offer on average, but I know some had the POTs internally. A lot of PC monitors had external knobs (and later digital menus) to adjust the overscan manually. (especially multi-sync monitors where it's a necessity)

 

 

You see a ton of ST and Amiga monitors calibrated way off from NTSC or PAL spec, more like manually adjusted PC monitors where you fill to the edge of the screen. (a normally calibrated monitor should have a pretty massive boarder on the ST or Amiga -like on a TV)

There's also a lot of Amiga software that assumes something roughly like 320x200 stretched to 320x240 (.83:1 PAR), which would obviously look very wrong for PAL users, rather like this image with square pixels: http://toastytech.com/guis/wb_10.gif

 

 

The high-res monitors are totally separate from the SD calibration though, but in any case, this random example seems pretty close to square:

http://www.jeffn.com/vintage/sm124.jpg

 

That's also how modern VGA monitors will display it by default:

eBay Auction -- Item Number: 320526274539 (albeit in this case, it has the boarder all at the bottom)

 

Hmm, actually, if this is anything to go by, average ST calbibration is closer to square than the Mac monitor.

http://webspace.webring.com/people/tg/geosteve_99/ST-Mac.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So in the end, it's really up to the monitor you've got and/or if you're willing to open it up if it doesn't have scan adjustment pots externally.

You could even have square pixels with 640x200 (amiga, ST, CGA, EGA, etc), but that would mean a pretty short display (huge letterboxing), something like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Arachne_CGA_Mode.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hell, the Apple II and IIGS could easily have square pixels if calibrated as such, at least in the 280x192/320x200 mode (in PAL, they'd be almost perfectly square as-is, like the A6/C64/Amiga in 320 wide res mode).

 

But these are not perfectly square pixels. When I do my math I am getting close to a 15% deviation from square. The original 9" black and white Mac was designed with square pixels in mind. I think it was the VGA standard that gave PCs square pixels in the late 80's/eary 90's. Not sure on the date on that one.

[SpaceDice2010]

 

So you have one, or you're getting one, or you're just arguing without warrant? How feasible is it for a company to manufacture a computer around? Is that the latest thing, then, we're all going to abandon our PCs and Macs and get PPC Amigas? Or is it just a fringe/novelty computer, kind of like the similarly novel Atari Coldfire Project? Yeah, novelty computers. The effect of either will be so negligible to the market, it's ridiculous to cite them in any meaningful argument. What is your point in bringing up the Amiga OS/PPC computer, unless you plan on ditching your Mac for one?

 

You're just grasping for straws in all directions, rather than address the well-placed criticism of your highly-opinionated charge that the ST was "horrible" simply because it wasn't what YOU had, rather than any quantifiable criticism, which you've amply demonstrated complete impotence in manufacturing. Chill pill taken. Now answer the questions.

 

Once again, sorry for calling the ST a horrible computer. It is my opinion. I just didn't like GEM at all. Sorry it hurt your feelings.

 

As for the Amiga. Amiga OS4 is actually a pretty capable modern OS. So a box developed around it would not be for just novelty. Here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaOne_X1000

 

And a shot of Amiga OS 4.1

[SpaceDice2010]

At least the Amiga OS has been updated since Commodore's demise. Damn good OS to. Was the first OS to have pre-emptive multitasking as well as other features. If I am not mistaken Hyperion had partnered with another company to make a PPC computer running Amiga OS about a year ago. Not sure what the status of that is. Guess it's been a while since I have been on the Amiga boards. The main point is that the Amiga OS has evolved into a modern OS that is actually feasible for a company to manufacture a computer around.

 

 

There's no reason AmigaOS couldn't emulate the route Apple went with MacOS [X]. They need to cut the cord and transition it to being a layer sitting atop BSD. But the diehards would say "that's not Amiga like!"

 

 

 

That is very true. And it may just be done one day. As I said, the Amiga is a damn good OS and it did make the transition to a PPC platform. What it really needs is exactly what you said imho.

[+wood_jl]

You get really emotional about your Atari.

 

HA HA HA! Nice try. (Sorry, but the only emotion have have in regards to you is laughter.) Here you go again, attepmting to dodge the questions. Instead, you're taking an attempt at being Sigmund Freud. Hey Sig, once again, WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER THE QUESTIONS? Is that too emotional for you? Tears on your pillow, no doubt?

 

 

In reply to "and your point is.." I believe that at one point that I said the Gem that the ST used was not a great OS imho. And even under Atari it was not updated anywhere near as much as it could have. Was just pointing out when someone mentioned about how the new Commodore was really a step backwards (I agree) that at least one of the bright spots in Amiga history (the OS) has been actually moving forward and had continued development. No more. No less

 

Yes, and what does the fact that AmigaOS is still used (on the aforementioned novelty computer/no real numbers) have to do with the comparison between the ST and Mac in 1985? Just obfuscation/grasping for straws. The Mac OS didn't multitask back then, but the Amiga did - so you switch to it? Way to stick to an issue, man. Did you own an Amiga? DO you own an Amiga? Are you going to ditch your Mac for a PPC Amiga? If not, then why are you bringing this up, and what does this have to do with anything? It's just silly.

 

No need to get emotional or have a break down. I will be more careful when I post and take your possible thoughts into account. Don't want to hurt your feelings...

 

Frankly, my dear boy, I'm not emotional. If I were to be, other than the aforementioned emotion of laughter, the only other emotion I can apply here is pity. What a pitiful discussion. After blowing off about Harvard (unless it's a lie), I had high expectations of you (hence I am wondering now); should I not? You must have been a liberal arts major, and probably were not on the Debate Club, and it's painfully obvious you wouldn't have succeeded there, but it probably would have been good training for you.)

 

You're neither capable of hurting my feelings, nor engaging in a meaningful debate. We were comparing the ST to your 1980's Mac. You claimed the ST was "horrible." You have been asked, **repeatedly** to present some quantifiable evidence as to why it was horrible. I'm open to it. I'm not emotional about it. You can't. I suggested that what would make a computer "horrible" is that (once again, see if you can pay attention this time, Harvard Boy) it be (1) overpriced, (2) underperforming, and (3) unreliable. I stated that it's fine for something to be NOT YOUR PREFERENCE, but that doesn't mean it's "horrible." I tried to draw that distinction to you, but you either won't acknowledge (I suspect) or you don't understand (hardly worthy of Harvard material now, eh?).

 

Once again, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. And do take this suggestion to heart: Refrain from the laughable (sorry, that's an emotion) attempts at psycho-babble. You're really not good at it. HA HA HA.

[SpaceDice2010]

No need to get personal. But hey, whatever. I did not and still do not like the version of GEM that the Atari St used. I thought then and still think to this day it is a horrible OS. How many times do I need to say that? Ok one more time - I believe that GEM is a horrible OS. Here even again, I do not like GEM. Want me to say it again? Ok. I don't like the GEM on the ST. Exactly what did you not understand? Hell. I hated ME and Vista as well. All three were horrible OSes imho. Do you get why I don't like the ST now? You can also add the fact that about seven years ago I bought an St with about 200+ game discs and after going through about 1/2 the discs I gave up as I felt even as a games machine it was pretty weak. My friend had Dungeon Master back in the day and I loved that game. But of the 100 or so discs that I put in the computer I can say I much prefer the A8 line as a gaming platform.

 

Believe what you want about where I went to school and what I majored in. I don't really care whatsoever.

 

The ONLY reason I even brought up AmigaOS was in response to a post by Lynxpro or someone else. What does it have to do with the Mac. Nothing.

 

And to answer your question. Yeah. I did own an Amiga. Bought an Amiga 1200 as a game machine back in the day. It was a decent gaming platform. And the AGA graphics was pretty damn impressive at the time.

 

Did I answer your questions?

 

I suggested that what would make a computer "horrible" is that (once again, see if you can pay attention this time, Harvard Boy) it be (1) overpriced, (2) underperforming, and (3) unreliable. I stated that it's fine for something to be NOT YOUR PREFERENCE, but that doesn't mean it's "horrible."

 

I believe that I said imho. imho = in my humble opinion. Since you gave me three choices, I would say that GEM was an under-performing OS. Get it now? In how many posts have I said that I do not like GEM?

 

So we can end this tit for tat and you don't have a heart attack, I will say it as clearly as I can -

 

It is my humble opinion that the ST line was a horrible computer system. I did not like the OS that the computer used at all, GEM. I found the keyboard to be a very weak link in the system. The computer did not run any of the software that I wanted to use at the time. Once again, this is my opinion and may or may not reflect this community or the buying public at the time.

 

Woof! Now you are on my ignore list.

[SpaceDice2010]

 

 

Yes, and what does the fact that AmigaOS is still used (on the aforementioned novelty computer/no real numbers) have to do with the comparison between the ST and Mac in 1985? Just obfuscation/grasping for straws. The Mac OS didn't multitask back then, but the Amiga did - so you switch to it? Way to stick to an issue, man. Did you own an Amiga? DO you own an Amiga? Are you going to ditch your Mac for a PPC Amiga? If not, then why are you bringing this up, and what does this have to do with anything? It's just silly.

 

 

As I said, it has nothing to do with the Mac vs. ST. However when people talk about Tramiel and the ST there usually pops up the name Amiga or Commodore. I am going from memory here and not looking back at previous posts. I believe that someone mentioned that new computers were coming under the Commodore name. Someone else I believe correctly pointed out that they are vaporware and pretty meaningless, which I agree with.

 

Did I do any harm by mentioning that even though the Commodore/Amiga name is getting butchered (as posted earlier) that at least the Amiga OS has continued to be developed into a somewhat modern OS? I personally find it interesting that an OS that is over 25 years old is still being developed considering Commodore folded in the mid 90's.

 

I find a lot to like in the AmigaOS -

 

http://amigaweb.net/index.php?function=amigaos

 

Here is a really good video to see how the Amiga OS has evolved -

 

Would I buy a computer that runs it? Probably. I really liked the Amiga as a gaming platform and there are some kicks ass games for it. And being able to have a somewhat modern OS as well would only seal the deal. I would drop $500 on a machine that ran Amiga OS 4.1 Hell yeah. And it wouldn't be just for "novelty".

[+wood_jl]

No need to get personal. But hey, whatever. I did not and still do not like the version of GEM that the Atari St used. I thought then and still think to this day it is a horrible OS. How many times do I need to say that? Ok one more time - I believe that GEM is a horrible OS. Here even again, I do not like GEM. Want me to say it again? Ok. I don't like the GEM on the ST. Exactly what did you not understand?

 

I understand that. It's a shallow analysis that computer is "horrible" because YOU personally don't like it. Got it? One more time, if it's not YOUR preference, it's not horrible. Got it? If you're going to make an highly-opinionated charge (which you may) that something is absolutely horrible, be prepared to qualify and quantify that. Simply stated, when you come charging into an Atari forum and declare Ataris "horrible," you should be prepared to back your esteemed opinion, regardless of its dubious validity. You did expect that, no? You are in an Atari forum, right? You expected to find Atari users here, right? You're not surprised to encounter differing opinions, right? You're not surprised to spark a debate when making critical, highly-opinionated charges about Ataris in an Atari forum, right?

 

Hell. I hated ME and Vista as well. All three were horrible OSes imho. Do you get why I don't like the ST now?

 

Still not getting it, are you? I don't take issue with the fact that you don't like it. You get that now, don't you? The entire point I was trying to make was that just because YOU don't like something, it's not horrible. Got it now?

 

Believe what you want about where I went to school and what I majored in. I don't really care whatsoever.

 

Sorry for having higher expectations of a Harvard graduate, since this is a pretty simple distinction I was trying to raise, in the above paragraph, and all throughout this exchange. You're the one who interjected your alma mater. You do expect me to have higher expectations based on that, don't you? Certainly, it's not likely I'd have the opposite, right?

 

Did I answer your questions?

 

Sort of. But you still don't seem to get it that just because it's not YOUR preference, it doesn't suck in an absolute sense.

 

So we can end this tit for tat and you don't have a heart attack, I will say it as clearly as I can -

 

Awww, thanks for the concern. But you're (once again, Sig Freud) trying to pick up on some alleged "excitement" that simply isn't there. This is entertainment, lad. I'm not excited. There's little you can do to excite me, but you can entertain. There's not much good on TV or I'd be watching it.

 

It is my humble opinion that the ST line was a horrible computer system. I did not like the OS that the computer used at all, GEM. I found the keyboard to be a very weak link in the system. The computer did not run any of the software that I wanted to use at the time. Once again, this is my opinion and may or may not reflect this community or the buying public at the time.

 

I disliked the early Mac OS. I disliked the tiny, black and white screen. I disliked the castrated keyboard and one-button mouse. I disliked the floppy with no eject button. I disliked the price. It sucked ass as a gaming rig. Would I buy one? No. The ST bested it in almost every category, at a fraction of the price. And here's the difference between you and I: Do I think the original Mac was a "horrible" computer? Hell no. It was pretty good at what it was used for, and I did use it for that, at school. The only problem is that it wasn't MY CHOICE, but that didn't make it horrible. Just because some bozo doesn't like something, doesn't make it horrible. What kind of self-centered swagger is that, I ask you?

 

Woof! Now you are on my ignore list.

 

Here's some emotion for you: I'm all broken up about that. Boo hoo!

Edited February 12, 2011 by wood_jl

[sunspot42]

Yet their "inferior product at razor thin margins" (which started shipping a year a half after the Mac was introduced in January '84), managed to help bring Atari Corp. out of very serious debt they had inherited and in to the black within another year.

 

Atari was back in the black largely due to cost cutting, not skyrocketing revenues. Atari did make a little money off of the STs for a little while, but they were ultimately stomped by Apple, Nintendo and the clones. They'd have been better off concentrating their efforts on maintaining their 70% of the videogame market, which turned out to be vastly more lucrative than the cheap Mac knockoff market.

 

 

WTF? The 1200XL was the opposite direction of the cost-cut XE models.

 

I said use the 1200XL's case, or a similar design, in conjunction with further cost-reduced hardware. The 1200XL looked a heck of a lot more professional than the XEs ever did (or the early STs, for that matter), and coordinated with the existing line of peripherals. Integrate a drive - which would have likely been far cheaper than the 800XL / 1050 drive combo Atari was pushing - and you'd have a slick machine to rival the far more expensive Apple //c for hundreds of dollars less.

 

 

What??? 1987/88 was more or less the peak of the ST, and any apparent decline in the US was probably more due to the surge in European demand taking precedence.

 

Yes, and even at their peak they were a niche player moving less than a million units a year. Compare and contrast with the C64, which by that point in its lifetime was moving millions a year.

 

There's a reason why the Tramiels spent very little money expanding the STs post-1987 or thereabouts - because it was clear they wouldn't see much return on their investment. At the time as an ST user I found this very frustrating, but in hindsight it makes sense. The STs were a closed box, rushed to market, sporting hardware and an OS that were both extremely difficult to expand upon without shattering software compatibility (a real problem since the STs didn't have a lot of software to begin with). Expanding that platform was an extremely costly proposition, especially when it was clear other platforms - especially the PC - were declining into the price range any new ST models would be forced to occupy.

 

 

And they were selling millions of STs a year

 

Atari never sold "millions" of STs a year. I doubt they ever sold much more than 500,000 units a year, and I believe only one model - the original 520ST - moved more than a million units in its entire history.

 

 

No advantages over the Mac? The Mac was (1) EXPENSIVE, (2) had a tiny screen, (3) had a black and white screen, (4) had an RS-422 serial port for hard drives - laughably slow.

 

The Mac might have been EXPENSIVE, but as the old article noted, cheap didn't sell. What the Mac had that the ST never got was a strong library of business and other productivity software, a vastly superior OS, much higher-quality hardware, better retail support and infinitely better manufacturer support. Yeah, it had a tiny screen, but so did monochrome STs, which in spite of their 12" size shipped with enormous black borders making them not terribly larger than the Mac's display (though of higher resolution). STs did offer color, but at much lower resolutions, which required a separate monitor. Not really comparable. As for hard drives, less than 6 months after the 520ST became available Apple shipped the Mac Plus, which sported an almost-standard SCSI port (the standard itself hadn't been quite finalized yet) - making it far easier to add a hard drive to than Atari's oddball DMA port - plus a full meg of SIMM-based memory and an 800KB floppy drive. The Plus was expensive as all heck, but then it felt like it too, with extremely high build quality and a fantastic keyboard.

 

The Macs practically marketed themselves. The STs looked and felt cheap in comparison, and given the Atari badge folks didn't take them seriously. They weren't seen by consumers as an inexpensive Macintosh - they were seen as a ridiculously costly Commodore 64. That might not have been a fair assessment, but quality counts and the first few models of the ST never really felt like a quality product. By the time they shipped a system in '87 that didn't feel substandard - the Megas - they were already trailing far behind the Macintosh in terms of capabilities and - especially - software. The SE with its optional built-in hard drives was out, as was the impressive (but expensive) Macintosh II. PCs had advanced tremendously, and Atari also had to contend with the Amiga 2000, which represented a real upgrade from the A1000 (especially in terms of expandability) and the A500 (which began to eat the 1040ST's lunch).

 

What Atari unfortunately discovered was that many of the people who were willing to spend $1,000 on a computer were willing to spend $2,500 on a computer perceived as better, with access to more software. What they also discovered was that there wasn't much of a market for a $700 computer that looked and felt a bit like an overgrown C64, no matter how hard it tried to pass itself off as a Macintosh. People on a budget continued to opt for the far-cheaper C64 and C128 (or for Atari's own XEs), educators continued to buy Apple //'s, businesses bought PC's and students, universities and creative professionals opted for Macs. Atari successfully produced a machine for which there was no market.

 

 

Not to mention they'd have lot the huge market they had in Europe on top of that. (the dominant 16-bit computer on the market up to the Amiga getting an edge at the end of the 80s)

 

The dominant 16-bit computer in Europe was the PC, same as it was here. Atari's STs - especially the 520 and 1040 - were substantially more successful in Europe (especially Germany) than they were in America, but Atari's heyday in terms of ST units sold lasted about 2 years ('86 - '88) and ended when the Amiga 500 ate their low-end lunch. They never successfully expanded beyond their cheap 68000 based platform, their computer sales never recovered and indeed I don't think they ever could have, because the STs were never successful enough with paying customers to induce a lot of third party software development, and Atari never made enough money off of them to engage in the kind of hardware development you got from Apple (or even Commodore, for that matter).

 

 

And then Windows 3.0 and 3.1 rolled along, pretty much rendering the ST and Amigas totally obsolete.

 

Have you ever used an ST before? Windows didn't eclipse TOS 1.0 in functionality and ease until Windows 95, 10 years after the ST debuted.

 

Windows 3.0 had an enormous and inescapable functionality advantage over GEM/TOS - it was compatible with the vast majority of MS-DOS software! It may or may not have been as easy to use as GEM, but it certainly looked a lot better on 640*480 256 color displays - something which all of the STs lacked at that point - and was far more usable on PCs which by that point were pretty much all shipping with internal hard drives. Atari was way, way behind the curve in making hard drives available as standard equipment, and that's likely part of what killed them.

[sunspot42]

As I've said, I think the Tramiels made a bad move sticking with their plan to release a Mac knockoff after they bought Atari. They should have concentrated their attentions on Atari's existing 8-bit platform and on getting some successor to the 2600 out the door (7800, revised 5200, whatever).

 

That having been said, I do think the STs could have been more successful - and possibly even survived - if they'd made a few design changes to their initial model. For starters, if you're gonna make a Mac clone make it a true clone. Do it monochrome only, put it in a similar one-piece case made out of quality plastic and sell it with a nice, full-sized keyboard. Include all those spiffy ports - RS-232, Centronics, MIDI, joystick - that the 520 came with, and for God's sake use a standard SCSI port so people can hook up standard hard drives. Use a double-sided floppy and 512KB of RAM. Instead of that useless cartridge port, include some kind of internal bus slot. Push it out the door for around $1200, and advertise it as "twice the computer for half the price". I think it would have made a much bigger splash than the 520ST did, it would have gotten them much more attention from business users (especially in Europe) and educators (easy to setup), it would have been much easier to manage logistically (only one SKU to sell - no separate monitors and drives to fiddle with, let alone all those cables), and likely cheaper to produce. Get it out the door in the fall of '85, and spend some cash on quality marketing for the holidays.

 

Follow it up the next year with a 1MB model and optional 20MB internal hard drive. By '87 they needed to get a color model out the door with a 68020 and 2MB of RAM, priced at around $2,000. Atari could have pitched the ST line as the Volkswagen Beetle of computers. I think they would have caused Apple no end of difficulties, they would have attracted substantial developer interest and might have made a go of it at least into the '90s as a successful independent platform.

[svenski]

 

The dominant 16-bit computer in Europe was the PC, same as it was here. Atari's STs - especially the 520 and 1040 - were substantially more successful in Europe (especially Germany) than they were in America, but Atari's heyday in terms of ST units sold lasted about 2 years ('86 - '88) and ended when the Amiga 500 ate their low-end lunch. They never successfully expanded beyond their cheap 68000 based platform, their computer sales never recovered and indeed I don't think they ever could have, because the STs were never successful enough with paying customers to induce a lot of third party software development, and Atari never made enough money off of them to engage in the kind of hardware development you got from Apple (or even Commodore, for that matter).

 

Where do you get that from? The PC didn't really take off in Europe until the early nineties and how can you say there wasn't plenty of third party support? There was a shed load more stuff available for the ST and the Amiga than the Mac. Mac owners were sort of in the same corner as Archimedes owners , always complaining about the lack of new releases.

Edited February 13, 2011 by svenski

[SpaceDice2010]

Yet their "inferior product at razor thin margins" (which started shipping a year a half after the Mac was introduced in January '84), managed to help bring Atari Corp. out of very serious debt they had inherited and in to the black within another year.

 

Atari was back in the black largely due to cost cutting, not skyrocketing revenues. Atari did make a little money off of the STs for a little while, but they were ultimately stomped by Apple, Nintendo and the clones. They'd have been better off concentrating their efforts on maintaining their 70% of the videogame market, which turned out to be vastly more lucrative than the cheap Mac knockoff market.

 

 

WTF? The 1200XL was the opposite direction of the cost-cut XE models.

 

I said use the 1200XL's case, or a similar design, in conjunction with further cost-reduced hardware. The 1200XL looked a heck of a lot more professional than the XEs ever did (or the early STs, for that matter), and coordinated with the existing line of peripherals. Integrate a drive - which would have likely been far cheaper than the 800XL / 1050 drive combo Atari was pushing - and you'd have a slick machine to rival the far more expensive Apple //c for hundreds of dollars less.

 

 

What??? 1987/88 was more or less the peak of the ST, and any apparent decline in the US was probably more due to the surge in European demand taking precedence.

 

Yes, and even at their peak they were a niche player moving less than a million units a year. Compare and contrast with the C64, which by that point in its lifetime was moving millions a year.

 

There's a reason why the Tramiels spent very little money expanding the STs post-1987 or thereabouts - because it was clear they wouldn't see much return on their investment. At the time as an ST user I found this very frustrating, but in hindsight it makes sense. The STs were a closed box, rushed to market, sporting hardware and an OS that were both extremely difficult to expand upon without shattering software compatibility (a real problem since the STs didn't have a lot of software to begin with). Expanding that platform was an extremely costly proposition, especially when it was clear other platforms - especially the PC - were declining into the price range any new ST models would be forced to occupy.

 

 

And they were selling millions of STs a year

 

Atari never sold "millions" of STs a year. I doubt they ever sold much more than 500,000 units a year, and I believe only one model - the original 520ST - moved more than a million units in its entire history.

 

 

No advantages over the Mac? The Mac was (1) EXPENSIVE, (2) had a tiny screen, (3) had a black and white screen, (4) had an RS-422 serial port for hard drives - laughably slow.

 

The Mac might have been EXPENSIVE, but as the old article noted, cheap didn't sell. What the Mac had that the ST never got was a strong library of business and other productivity software, a vastly superior OS, much higher-quality hardware, better retail support and infinitely better manufacturer support. Yeah, it had a tiny screen, but so did monochrome STs, which in spite of their 12" size shipped with enormous black borders making them not terribly larger than the Mac's display (though of higher resolution). STs did offer color, but at much lower resolutions, which required a separate monitor. Not really comparable. As for hard drives, less than 6 months after the 520ST became available Apple shipped the Mac Plus, which sported an almost-standard SCSI port (the standard itself hadn't been quite finalized yet) - making it far easier to add a hard drive to than Atari's oddball DMA port - plus a full meg of SIMM-based memory and an 800KB floppy drive. The Plus was expensive as all heck, but then it felt like it too, with extremely high build quality and a fantastic keyboard.

 

The Macs practically marketed themselves. The STs looked and felt cheap in comparison, and given the Atari badge folks didn't take them seriously. They weren't seen by consumers as an inexpensive Macintosh - they were seen as a ridiculously costly Commodore 64. That might not have been a fair assessment, but quality counts and the first few models of the ST never really felt like a quality product. By the time they shipped a system in '87 that didn't feel substandard - the Megas - they were already trailing far behind the Macintosh in terms of capabilities and - especially - software. The SE with its optional built-in hard drives was out, as was the impressive (but expensive) Macintosh II. PCs had advanced tremendously, and Atari also had to contend with the Amiga 2000, which represented a real upgrade from the A1000 (especially in terms of expandability) and the A500 (which began to eat the 1040ST's lunch).

 

What Atari unfortunately discovered was that many of the people who were willing to spend $1,000 on a computer were willing to spend $2,500 on a computer perceived as better, with access to more software. What they also discovered was that there wasn't much of a market for a $700 computer that looked and felt a bit like an overgrown C64, no matter how hard it tried to pass itself off as a Macintosh. People on a budget continued to opt for the far-cheaper C64 and C128 (or for Atari's own XEs), educators continued to buy Apple //'s, businesses bought PC's and students, universities and creative professionals opted for Macs. Atari successfully produced a machine for which there was no market.

 

 

Not to mention they'd have lot the huge market they had in Europe on top of that. (the dominant 16-bit computer on the market up to the Amiga getting an edge at the end of the 80s)

 

The dominant 16-bit computer in Europe was the PC, same as it was here. Atari's STs - especially the 520 and 1040 - were substantially more successful in Europe (especially Germany) than they were in America, but Atari's heyday in terms of ST units sold lasted about 2 years ('86 - '88) and ended when the Amiga 500 ate their low-end lunch. They never successfully expanded beyond their cheap 68000 based platform, their computer sales never recovered and indeed I don't think they ever could have, because the STs were never successful enough with paying customers to induce a lot of third party software development, and Atari never made enough money off of them to engage in the kind of hardware development you got from Apple (or even Commodore, for that matter).

 

 

And then Windows 3.0 and 3.1 rolled along, pretty much rendering the ST and Amigas totally obsolete.

 

Have you ever used an ST before? Windows didn't eclipse TOS 1.0 in functionality and ease until Windows 95, 10 years after the ST debuted.

 

Windows 3.0 had an enormous and inescapable functionality advantage over GEM/TOS - it was compatible with the vast majority of MS-DOS software! It may or may not have been as easy to use as GEM, but it certainly looked a lot better on 640*480 256 color displays - something which all of the STs lacked at that point - and was far more usable on PCs which by that point were pretty much all shipping with internal hard drives. Atari was way, way behind the curve in making hard drives available as standard equipment, and that's likely part of what killed them.

 

You pretty much nailed it imho. As I said before in the US the Atari was known as a games company. I don't see how the ST line changed that brand all that much. This basically sums it up as far as the US is concerned...

 

What Atari unfortunately discovered was that many of the people who were willing to spend $1,000 on a computer were willing to spend $2,500 on a computer perceived as better, with access to more software. What they also discovered was that there wasn't much of a market for a $700 computer that looked and felt a bit like an overgrown C64, no matter how hard it tried to pass itself off as a Macintosh. People on a budget continued to opt for the far-cheaper C64 and C128 (or for Atari's own XEs), educators continued to buy Apple //'s, businesses bought PC's and students, universities and creative professionals opted for Macs. Atari successfully produced a machine for which there was no market.

 

You are right, cheap does not always sell. If Atari wanted a piece of the Mac market in the US they would have been better off giving the ST a new form factor. Make it a pizza box with a real keyboard. Add $500 to the price so they could spend money on advertising to businesses and afford a real sales force for the market.

[SpaceDice2010]

 

The dominant 16-bit computer in Europe was the PC, same as it was here. Atari's STs - especially the 520 and 1040 - were substantially more successful in Europe (especially Germany) than they were in America, but Atari's heyday in terms of ST units sold lasted about 2 years ('86 - '88) and ended when the Amiga 500 ate their low-end lunch. They never successfully expanded beyond their cheap 68000 based platform, their computer sales never recovered and indeed I don't think they ever could have, because the STs were never successful enough with paying customers to induce a lot of third party software development, and Atari never made enough money off of them to engage in the kind of hardware development you got from Apple (or even Commodore, for that matter).

 

Where do you get that from? The PC didn't really take off in Europe until the early nineties and how can you say there wasn't plenty of third party support? There was a shed load more stuff available for the ST and the Amiga than the Mac. Mac owners were sort of in the same corner as Archimedes owners , always complaining about the lack of new releases.

 

In the mid 80's+ this was just not true at all. Heck. Look at Excel, it came out on the Mac first. The Mac had a very strong software library, at least in the United States. The ST never had a strong library of mainstream titles.

[svenski]

In the mid 80's+ this was just not true at all. Heck. Look at Excel, it came out on the Mac first. The Mac had a very strong software library, at least in the United States. The ST never had a strong library or mainstream titles.

 

Which bit isn't true, that the PC wasn't the first dominant 16-bit computer?

 

How can you say the ST never had a strong library? That is just ridiculous.

 

And when it came to new releases, I can assure you that Mac owners used to complain about them being thin on the ground - and I'm talking Europe here, and when I say thin on the ground I mean compared to the ST and a larger extent the Amiga.

 

And what does Excel coming out first on the Mac prove?, it doesn't really prove anything does it, as you know.

[SpaceDice2010]

In the mid 80's+ this was just not true at all. Heck. Look at Excel, it came out on the Mac first. The Mac had a very strong software library, at least in the United States. The ST never had a strong library or mainstream titles.

 

Which bit isn't true, that the PC wasn't the first dominant 16-bit computer?

 

How can you say the ST never had a strong library? That is just ridiculous.

 

And when it came to new releases, I can assure you that Mac owners used to complain about them being thin on the ground - and I'm talking Europe here, and when I say thin on the ground I mean compared to the ST and a larger extent the Amiga.

 

And what does Excel coming out first on the Mac prove?, it doesn't really prove anything does it, as you know.

 

The part that was not true is

 

There was a shed load more stuff available for the ST and the Amiga than the Mac.

 

at least as far as the US was concerned. I guess you would have to define "stuff", but if you are talking about mainstream software that business users and education wanted in the United States the Mac had way more than the ST ever had. Business users bought computers to run programs like Excel. I am not joking, they really did. Go to a print shop with an ST disk in the 80's and see what they said at the time. I could go on and on...

[SpaceDice2010]

 

 

And what does Excel coming out first on the Mac prove?, it doesn't really prove anything does it, as you know.

 

It shows that companies took the Mac serious as a business machine and were willing to spend millions of dollars developing a product aimed at the business market on a Mac and millions more marketing the product.

 

I will agree with you that there was a point in time where Apple had trouble with developers creating software for the Mac, but by the time that happened the ST was long gone in the US.