Atari ST vs. Amiga

[oky2000]

Also your comment about Apple's presentation/style...I find their latest efforts an exercise in style over function....as koolkitty states the latest keyboards are a classic example of this...maybe they look cool but they are atrocious to use. In a world where Dell manages to make ultra low profile laptop keyboards for their XPS range that feel BETTER than most Desktop PC keyboards Apple has given us something that feels like an Oric 1 or Jupiter Ace from 1981!

 

I'd be the first to admit that everything Apple touches doesn't automatically become gold (so no fanboy membership card for me). I found the hockey puck mouse and the new aluminum keyboards atrocious, but most of the time they mange to get it right. The new MagicMouse is absolutely wonderful, I may have to trade in my MS Intellimouse

 

If I had some more free time, I'd whip up a little PS/2 to USB AVR to use my 1984 IBM type M keyboard... still the best keyboard ever.

 

From earlier machines like the Mac II (huge pig ugly machine like the A2000) to the mid 90s all in one machines on 040/PPC (Performa?) to the whole mouse mouse button (very annoying and a bit weird) to the latest iMacs (just an LCD monitor with a drive stuck in the side and some rubbish keyboard) Apple have always been style over function...just like Sinclair imposed their design ideals and inflicted it on their users Apple do the same.

 

Model M is a bit clicky for me, I much prefer the Amiga 2000 and Mega STE keyboard to type on, personal choice though

 

I beg to differ.

 

Amiga OS4.1 does everything Windows 7/Vista or OS X does....but here is a snippet of 3 things none of those other 2 OS's can do.

 

Reboot from desktop to full shut down to restart back to a useable desktop = 5 seconds!

Everything runs in RAM, there is no stupid chugging on the hard drive every.

Drag and drop files into a command line input window. (so you can type the text to extra an LHA file like 'LHA X ' then drag the file icon you want to extract into the DOS/SHELL prompt!

 

And that is all on a machine with just 900mhz, 1gb RAM and a lowly Radeon 9200 video card. Try running any other OS in that spec and see how frustrated you get. Even with 3Gb of RAM and 2ghz dual core CPU there are times when opening a window for 'my computer' feels like I am using a Pentium MMX 166 and windows 98 on 8mb of RAM.

 

Progress? What progress? We are going backwards, even with a cash starved outfit developing OS4 it still trumps anything money can buy or can be downloaded for x86 hardware of today simple as that

 

IF you could buy an AmigaONE motherboard right now I would be first in the queue and for the same price as for a quad core x86 motherboard with 4gb of RAM and Vista DVD....but you can't so there you are, proof that even today after being dead for 1 1/2 decades Amiga is still the best OS you can get....shame there is no bloody hardware to buy to run it on

if it has anything in common with the original o/s then it's still godawful. That was the main thing that was crappy about the amiga and also what made it hard to sell.

 

 

Yeh because Mac OS1 and Windows 1.1+DOS were so much superior, as was waiting weeks for you 1st Word Plus document to scroll up and down on a non-blitter ST.....

 

People who think Amiga OS was not cutting edge in 1986 either had no clue or were fanboys....if it's so rubbish why is pre-emptive multitasking only recent in the PC/Mac world with any kind of efficiency? (still inferior to OS4 so nothing has changed since 1986 onwards...Mac/Windows/Gem were always the poor cousin to Amiga OS)

Actually I am talking from a consumer standpoint. And those dos versions you named and mac as well were much earlier. St and mac were much easier to use and made much more sense to the novice vs dos cli or amiga comicbook and kickstart. This has nothing to do with silly esoteric technical aspects that mean little to nothing unless you are a hobbyist. The real world and most sales involved as user who just wanted to do cool things and work in an easy way. That is what made the Commodore o/s slappeed onto an atari project so hard to sell. The hardware was mostly fine.That is why the bulk of Amigas sold were the A500. Dont have to deal with the o/s much to play games and it was priced right. Nothing wrong with the tech aspect if you are a hobbyist and it suits you,just a harder sell. At the time of A500 most (not all) only wanted it for games and we sold many many for just that purpose. I personally like it as a games box.No slight meant at all! Games are good! AsI mentioned before,95% of software we sold for all platforms were games.

 

Like I said waiting 'forever' for 1st Word Plus to scroll up and down the screen was not 'elegant'. Mac OS barely changed for half a decade except to make it colourful, Windows 3.1 and 3.11 were using the same stupid interface up until 1995. If you don't like the menu headers/scrollbar arrows on Workbench from 1985...but to say it is unusable is a bit strange, it is simple to use, intuitive, multitasks (so you don't need to reboot if you decide you need a certain desk accessory like on GEM) and most importantly allows you to run a lo-res deluxe paint windows at the same time as a high res Word processor window. I know I have an IQ of 146 but still this is basic stuff! I suspect a BIAS and the Guru-meditation urban myth here

 

And as for DOS...even the C64 from 1982 had longer filenames compared to DOS in 1995

 

 

If you loved Gauntlet 1 on the ST then definitely seek out Gauntlet IV for the Genesis

 

Actually I don't have an ST, I'm just really interested in a lot fo this old electronics hardware (and games) in general, actually history in general as well (especially tech oriented -spent a while at a WWII aviation forum a couple years ago). Only Atari I've got is a VCS, losts of Nintendo stuf, my dad's TRS-80 Model II in storage, the Sega, an Xbox my cousins gave me, and a bunch of PC stuff. (lots of old hardware we've never gotten rid of, I've been tinking about building a win9x PC for gaming with games that don't work right/at all on modern OSs and some DOS games that don't work great in dosbox)

I really should explain more of this in my profile. Interesting to note that my dad was involved with projects for botht he Amiga and ST (I know he was involved with BASIC for both ST and Amiga, working at Metacomco I think), he was actually on UK TV at one point in the context of Atari Corp. (one of the tech guys at a computer in the background of some interveiw with Jack Tramiel I think)

 

I do have gauntlet on NES though, actually only picked that up a few months ago at good will. A lot more fun 2-player.

 

Ahh well it is better than the Arcade if you've ever played it...ST version of Gauntlet 1 being the best version of all ever produced

I have a shuttle PC loaded with just about every emulator (TI99/4A anyone? heh) and ROM out their, it's great and I use a wireless xbox360 pad with it so very easy to leave it sitting in the TV cabinet really.

[+DarkLord]

 

<snip>

 

(so you don't need to reboot if you decide you need a certain desk accessory like on GEM)

 

 

Just for the record, there are multiple ways to not have to do that.

[FastRobPlus]

Not sure what Oky2000 is talking about. I can barely remember desk accessories. I seem to remember they were little apps used by non-multitasking OSes. I think my ST had 10 of these on a cart, and my clone had something called Borland Sidekick.

The Amiga OS (or Windows or OSX) you just load the app you want. Unless you were playing an copy-protected arcade game - those normally locked the system.

[atarian63]

if it has anything in common with the original o/s then it's still godawful. That was the main thing that was crappy about the amiga and also what made it hard to sell.

With all due respoect, I can't understand why it is that you think this. Sure it had some room for improvement in it's earliest versions, but by 1.3 it was actually fairly decent, and 2.0 was a MASSIVE leap, and it's only improved by leaps and bounds from there.

 

While I concede that TOS/GEM does have some good points, the main one being fast booting to a GUI, I am yet to be convinced that it's lack of flexability and features (compared to Workbench) makes up for it, but that is one of the reasons I'm here, because I enjoy the work that those at Atari did back in the day, and would like to know more about the ST line, along with TOS and GEM.

 

The way I see it, a computer operating system is just a tool to get a job done, and it's a case of using the correct tool for the job. So for some jobs, the Atari machines running TOS/GEM were the correct tools, for others, the Amigas running Kickstart/Workbench. Very much like a rake and a hammer, both great for a particular job, but not so great for the job the other tool is designed for.

 

Besides, one of the main selling points I've seen in this thread time and time again for the ST is price, now that price is no longer an issue, these machines should be compared on their own merits in my opinion.

 

Pleast note I don't consider the ST "crap", I'm willing and eager to learn more about it and it's advantages, I'm not a blind fanboy of the Amiga, just at this point in time I have yet to be convinced that the ST was a better machine.

 

Just like some here might be quick to tell me to actually use a particular application on an ST, for those who think the Amiga is "crap", I urge you to try out programs such as Personal Paint, Photogenics, Wordworth and Final Writer, just to name a few, on a more recent Amiga setup, such as an Amiga 1200 with some fast RAM and Workbench 3.x. After you've done that (please, for more then 5 minutes), THEN decide what you really think, rather then just writing off the whole line due to experiences you had many years ago on very early revisions of the OS.

 

If someone who thinks the Amiga system was so bad, then this will either confirm this in their minds, or, gasp, they might even see why some of us would rather use this system over a 'modern PC'.

 

And if anyone wants to suggest what I should try on an ST to show me it's advantages, I'm happy to give it a go

Because I owned a computer company (and still do) and sold both systems from day one. Had to deal with the general public daily and that is what they were saying. The general public did not like it. Did not like Kickstart/WB and later WB. It only took off when sold as a game system i.e A500. We seldom sold other items for it or much productivity. Totally games so it was being used as a console.To sell it as an actual pc for home use when compared to the ST it was at a disadvantage. Not only because of ease of use,wb load but also the crappy default display. The ST was crisp and clear even at low res. The amiga always looked fuzzy. Fine for games but otherwise customer in general didn't like it. Systems used for actual work or video work etc comprised far less than 10% of sales.Also as things progressed in chipset and o/s the machine would not run many popular games,the main reason to own an amiga. Atari did it too with TT and Falcon.

As for apps, that was where the St did much better, better DTP,better display to do DTP, music etc. Fewer customers were into the graphics,video or art programs that dominated amiga. Cool and powerful as they were, toaster and video dev,were just too small of a market to help it much and had less interest from the general public than DTP and music.Again less of a reason to purchase. There were companies and individuals that did as they had a need for a tool/system to do that kind of work and I was only too happy to sell them.

I write it off now as it's a dead system(like ST) and contains no profit for anyone. Kind of a too little and so greatly too late as far as the o/s. Fine for a hobby box, I use my A8 in this way but for something real,marketable now.. nope, buy a pc or mac.

To me it was always the "meager" or "Ameoba" as the sales staff called it. Great hardware,cruddy o/s(but powerful),hard to sell.

Personally I have had and sold many of them myself. Makes a good console but I always tired of it quickly. I have personally owned an A1000,A500,A600,A1200,A2000.I just recently dumped my CD32 as it is total crap. Even with the floppy added and kb adapter. Flacky thing. On my St's I have owned very nearly every model and have always had at least one on hand. Presently 3 Mega4 and 1 Mega2. Falcon did not cut it for me, nice and the o/s was nice however same as amiga upper models game compatibility was a problem. Mine was a C-lab falcon. Sold it.

[kool kitty89]

Because I owned a computer company (and still do) and sold both systems from day one. Had to deal with the general public daily and that is what they were saying. The general public did not like it. Did not like Kickstart/WB and later WB. It only took off when sold as a game system i.e A500. We seldom sold other items for it or much productivity. Totally games so it was being used as a console.To sell it as an actual pc for home use when compared to the ST it was at a disadvantage. Not only because of ease of use,wb load but also the crappy default display. The ST was crisp and clear even at low res. The amiga always looked fuzzy. Fine for games but otherwise customer in general didn't like it. Systems used for actual work or video work etc comprised far less than 10% of sales.

 

What specicifically about the OS and GUI (besides the color scheme) was such a turn-off to prospective customers?

 

And the fuzzy video was just from the standard composite monitors, right? The amiga offered either a standard composite monitor (similar to using a TV other than the ability to adjust the scan/display -better than a TV with RF only for sure) or more expensive RGB monitor (don't remember if it output Y/C -S-video- in which case, some higher end TVs and C64 monitors would be useful for a better picture than composite)

With the ST, of course, offering the monochrome monitor as the cheaper option (not as useful for games) or the more expensive RGB monitor. (iirc some STs didn't offer composite video output either)

[atarian63]

Because I owned a computer company (and still do) and sold both systems from day one. Had to deal with the general public daily and that is what they were saying. The general public did not like it. Did not like Kickstart/WB and later WB. It only took off when sold as a game system i.e A500. We seldom sold other items for it or much productivity. Totally games so it was being used as a console.To sell it as an actual pc for home use when compared to the ST it was at a disadvantage. Not only because of ease of use,wb load but also the crappy default display. The ST was crisp and clear even at low res. The amiga always looked fuzzy. Fine for games but otherwise customer in general didn't like it. Systems used for actual work or video work etc comprised far less than 10% of sales.

 

What specicifically about the OS and GUI (besides the color scheme) was such a turn-off to prospective customers?

 

And the fuzzy video was just from the standard composite monitors, right? The amiga offered either a standard composite monitor (similar to using a TV other than the ability to adjust the scan/display -better than a TV with RF only for sure) or more expensive RGB monitor (don't remember if it output Y/C -S-video- in which case, some higher end TVs and C64 monitors would be useful for a better picture than composite)

With the ST, of course, offering the monochrome monitor as the cheaper option (not as useful for games) or the more expensive RGB monitor. (iirc some STs didn't offer composite video output either)

No the fuzzy video was on an amiga rgb monitor, compared with an ST monitor sitting next to it (we displayed they side by side for a head to head comparison),there was no comparison as both ST monitors were much sharper. It took to much time to get amiga up and running. Also the GUI just wasn't as nice and simple as the ST. Remember at the time the average joe was comparing a ttl video/cga color pc or a Mac to the the ST. We showed the St with the Color and Mono monitors. Initially with 2 St's set up(one for each type of monitor) and later in time with a monitor master switch and one ST.

The common complaint was that it was harder to use and had a non professional cartoon look to it. The cartoon comment was one we frequently heard. Occasionally there would be an Amiga hobbyist who would show or try to convince prospective customers how great it was.Dropping into cli for anything (though nice to have) was a detriment as those familiar with ms-dos saw that it was different and confusing in that you had gui and cli on the system. Seldom did thier salesmanship work and usually confused the customer into not buying anything. You must remember at this time everything was a learning curve. People liked easy and of course cheap. ST had a much more Mac like appearance and a low price. Easy sales.

On a side note A1000 when played with by customers would almost always guru in short order. This was in the early days of the Amiga however it did not help to sell it when the customer could not mess with it for long without a crash.

(yes we changed out the display unit several times).

[desiv]

No the fuzzy video was on an amiga rgb monitor, compared with an ST monitor sitting next to it (we displayed they side by side for a head to head comparison),there was no comparison as both ST monitors were much sharper.

 

<deleted text>

 

This wouldn't end well, so I deleted it before I posted..

 

Let's just say I don't agree, and believe that the phrase "no comparison" is inaccurate. You obviously had a pro-Atari customer base (nothing wrong with that), and we need to figure that in.

 

The local computer store in my area (called "Users Corner", I miss that place) sold both Atari and Amiga, but their customer base was pro-Amiga. They would have different results than what you saw...

 

I think the atmosphere of the store (owner/staff/other customer's preferences) can make a big difference on how people react.

 

I'm not denying your experiences; I'm just denying that they are a true representation of anything quantifiable other than a small market sample, as are mine....

 

desiv

Edited December 14, 2009 by desiv

[Crazyace]

The quality of the original Atari RGB monitor was pretty amazing - I really wanted one, and had to settle for wiring my ST into an Amstrad CPC monitor ( resistor legs poked into the ST directly due to the difficulty in obtaining the stupid plug for the monitor connector )

 

I remember using a really cool word processor on the ST that dumped GEM, and just gave WYSIWYG on a full 640x400 screen - can't remember the name though, but it was really smooth and fast.

[+wood_jl]

The quality of the original Atari RGB monitor was pretty amazing - I really wanted one, and had to settle for wiring my ST into an Amstrad CPC monitor ( resistor legs poked into the ST directly due to the difficulty in obtaining the stupid plug for the monitor connector )

 

You must be thinking about the first "Atari SC1224" monitor - the one REALLY made by JVC, with the curved top/back grille over the tube and the push-button power button on front. Those were totally awesome! They really made the ST display look spectacular, after a generation of people using fuzzy TVs through RF connections for their display. I even remember ONE dude who used one of those with his Amiga 1000 back in the day; obviously with an adapter cable. I wish there was a way to hook one of those to an 8-bit (Atari or Commodore).

 

However, it wasn't long until "SC1224" monitors were cheap-ass Goldstar pieces of shit. Typical Tramiel move. Any semblance of quality must be dealt with appropriately (eliminated) and replaced with el-cheapo crap, in the relentless pursuit of saving 2-cents, even if it shortchanges the company's reputation down the road. Must have been about the time they changed to Chinon (we used to call them "shit-on") floppy drives.

[kool kitty89]

 

You must be thinking about the first "Atari SC1224" monitor - the one REALLY made by JVC, with the curved top/back grille over the tube and the push-button power button on front. Those were totally awesome! They really made the ST display look spectacular, after a generation of people using fuzzy TVs through RF connections for their display. I even remember ONE dude who used one of those with his Amiga 1000 back in the day; obviously with an adapter cable. I wish there was a way to hook one of those to an 8-bit (Atari or Commodore).

 

The C64 and 8-bit (at least the later models) supported s-video at least (although I think they used the composite signal for chroma except the C64C iirc with separate chroma), so you could get a pretty nice immage on a Y/C monitor. (or later use an adaptor with a TV with s-video support or get a crisp B/W -luma only- signal via composte input) With a good RF modualtion (and/or good TV, some had excellent AFT, really elliminated the RF noise) you could get something almost equal to composite and in luma/BW mode, a nice, crisp picture. (switching to B/W mode on the 2600 even can help with a few games using small text/characters)

[atarian63]

No the fuzzy video was on an amiga rgb monitor, compared with an ST monitor sitting next to it (we displayed they side by side for a head to head comparison),there was no comparison as both ST monitors were much sharper.

 

<deleted text>

 

This wouldn't end well, so I deleted it before I posted..

 

Let's just say I don't agree, and believe that the phrase "no comparison" is inaccurate. You obviously had a pro-Atari customer base (nothing wrong with that), and we need to figure that in.

 

The local computer store in my area (called "Users Corner", I miss that place) sold both Atari and Amiga, but their customer base was pro-Amiga. They would have different results than what you saw...

 

I think the atmosphere of the store (owner/staff/other customer's preferences) can make a big difference on how people react.

 

I'm not denying your experiences; I'm just denying that they are a true representation of anything quantifiable other than a small market sample, as are mine....

 

desiv

sorry, I'll have to disagree. I had this feedback from distribution and from manufacturers(software companies)Also at trade shows this was the general view. I am not saying there werent odd places such as where you are or what you experienced but Columbus was more the norm.

No comparison is exactly accurate, did you look (not trying to be smart here), it's really not subjective, very obvious. Mac customers used to point it out all the time, they had no horse in that race.

The oveall experience thing really wasnt our case, business is for money and we were happy to sell what the customer wanted. The more the better. The customer chose ST until A500 came out and ST's were hard to get.We were doing nearly 4mill per year in Atari/Commodore for the most part. Yes the Bulk was Atari and software, that should be a pretty could indicator in an area that is a well known product test market.

[atarian63]

The quality of the original Atari RGB monitor was pretty amazing - I really wanted one, and had to settle for wiring my ST into an Amstrad CPC monitor ( resistor legs poked into the ST directly due to the difficulty in obtaining the stupid plug for the monitor connector )

 

You must be thinking about the first "Atari SC1224" monitor - the one REALLY made by JVC, with the curved top/back grille over the tube and the push-button power button on front. Those were totally awesome! They really made the ST display look spectacular, after a generation of people using fuzzy TVs through RF connections for their display. I even remember ONE dude who used one of those with his Amiga 1000 back in the day; obviously with an adapter cable. I wish there was a way to hook one of those to an 8-bit (Atari or Commodore).

 

However, it wasn't long until "SC1224" monitors were cheap-ass Goldstar pieces of shit. Typical Tramiel move. Any semblance of quality must be dealt with appropriately (eliminated) and replaced with el-cheapo crap, in the relentless pursuit of saving 2-cents, even if it shortchanges the company's reputation down the road. Must have been about the time they changed to Chinon (we used to call them "shit-on") floppy drives.

Oh Yeah, The JVC was beautiful, the goldstar not nearly so nice,however the display was still much clearer than an amiga. Funny! Those Chinon drives. That was good, yes they were crap, heck even later on in pc's they were bad. Cant recall the other monitor Atari made, had the built in SS drive. It wasnt to bad,just really big!

The JVC had a video cable that was removable unlike the goldstar, sometimes when moving customers would squash the jvc video cable, it was hard to get a replacement.

[Thorsten Günther]

I remember using a really cool word processor on the ST that dumped GEM, and just gave WYSIWYG on a full 640x400 screen - can't remember the name though, but it was really smooth and fast.

 

Most probably that program was Signum! - it was a breakthrough ST application and gained massive popularity esp. among scientists and students due to its advanced formula printing and layout capabilities (much like modern word processors). The approach to "dump GEM" and the choice of pixel based fonts was shortsighted, though, as more and more ST compatible computers were either equipped with graphics cards or "small" graphics expansions like the "Autoswitch-Overscan" or "Pixel Wonder" - not to mention the TT030. This led to the downfall of Signum! in the early 1990s and to the rise of Papyrus (which still exists today in OSX and Windows versions) - a true "modern" word processor which easily works with vector fonts (provided a vector font capable GDOS like that contained in NVDI >=3.0 is installed) and was fully GEM compliant.

 

Thorsten

[Crazyace]

I remember using a really cool word processor on the ST that dumped GEM, and just gave WYSIWYG on a full 640x400 screen - can't remember the name though, but it was really smooth and fast.

 

Most probably that program was Signum! - it was a breakthrough ST application and gained massive popularity esp. among scientists and students due to its advanced formula printing and layout capabilities (much like modern word processors). The approach to "dump GEM" and the choice of pixel based fonts was shortsighted, though, as more and more ST compatible computers were either equipped with graphics cards or "small" graphics expansions like the "Autoswitch-Overscan" or "Pixel Wonder" - not to mention the TT030. This led to the downfall of Signum! in the early 1990s and to the rise of Papyrus (which still exists today in OSX and Windows versions) - a true "modern" word processor which easily works with vector fonts (provided a vector font capable GDOS like that contained in NVDI >=3.0 is installed) and was fully GEM compliant.

 

Thorsten

 

That's it - it was really good for equations.. and it looked nice on my MX80 , I switched to a DTP package later on though, as I could print the Postscript files on Apple laser printers.

( I remember how cheap the Atari Laser printer seemed when it came out - and how I can now buy a full colour laser for way less than my original MX80 dot matrix )

[desiv]

sorry, I'll have to disagree. I had this feedback from distribution and from manufacturers(software companies)Also at trade shows this was the general view. I am not saying there werent odd places such as where you are or what you experienced but Columbus was more the norm.

 

Well, as long as you're open minded and don't think that people who disagree with you must be from "odd places", then..

 

Oh, wait..

 

:-)

 

Hey, what I expected.. Take it easy..

 

desiv

[FastRobPlus]

The quality of the original Atari RGB monitor was pretty amazing - I really wanted one, and had to settle for wiring my ST into an Amstrad CPC monitor ( resistor legs poked into the ST directly due to the difficulty in obtaining the stupid plug for the monitor connector )

 

You must be thinking about the first "Atari SC1224" monitor - the one REALLY made by JVC, with the curved top/back grille over the tube and the push-button power button on front. Those were totally awesome! They really made the ST display look spectacular, after a generation of people using fuzzy TVs through RF connections for their display. I even remember ONE dude who used one of those with his Amiga 1000 back in the day; obviously with an adapter cable. I wish there was a way to hook one of those to an 8-bit (Atari or Commodore).

 

However, it wasn't long until "SC1224" monitors were cheap-ass Goldstar pieces of shit. Typical Tramiel move. Any semblance of quality must be dealt with appropriately (eliminated) and replaced with el-cheapo crap, in the relentless pursuit of saving 2-cents, even if it shortchanges the company's reputation down the road. Must have been about the time they changed to Chinon (we used to call them "shit-on") floppy drives.

 

 

I brought my original SC1224 over to Redmond Cable and they engineered an Atari SC1224 -> Amiga RGB cable. I understand they sold a lot of these because the SC1224 was a nice monitor.

 

The one issue - many of them could not handle PAL (as in, the controls did not have the range to stop the screen from rolling). I had to give up the 1224 in favor of a 1080 because of this.

 

The 1080 was also a really nice monitor. There was a Magnavox monitor popular at the time that was really, really poor.

[+wood_jl]

The JVC SC1224 (LEFT) and the Goldstar (pronounced: goh-stah) (RIGHT)

 

 

 

Man, just seeing the JVC brings back memories of how much I liked it. I'm not sure, but I think that the Commodore 1701/1702 (not sure which is which anymore) was a JVC as well; perhaps someone can clarify. I used one of these with various Ataris for years and really loved it. The 1701/1702 was actually made in Japan and (I think) most of them still work!

[carmel_andrews]

What's an Amiga again...i think that company has gone through as many mgmt changes and owners as Atari has (if not more)

 

Other thing is, the amiga, as I recall only exists today as an OS platform rather then a hardware platform (i think the hardware itself disappeared shortly after the miggy went over to the PPC proccy)

 

Did Atari ever release the make and model of Monitor as shown on the original XE packaging (or was that just a proto)

 

I think the ST and compatibles (i.e. TT/Falcon etc) have morphed into somethings vastly removed from the original hardware (re TOS coldfire project) and the various TT/Falcon clones that have sprung up since Atari dropped out of hardware bk in 1993/4

[FastRobPlus]

What's an Amiga again...i think that company has gone through as many mgmt changes and owners as Atari has (if not more)

 

My favorite description of an Amiga: If it doesn’t have a keyboard garage, it’s not an Amiga. (I think attributed to R. J. Mical)

 

 

 

Did Atari ever release the make and model of Monitor as shown on the original XE packaging (or was that just a proto)

 

 

 

The XE never got a monitor, that one was a prototype.

 

By if you search the forums you’ll find folks who transferred a Commodore 1084 monitor into one of the Atari monitors cases (since they share the same tube and rear chassis) and made a Y/C Atari monitor.

[Gorf]

This thread is still going? Sheesh! 6 years and counting! DOH!

 

I 'd take my St over the amiga on a programming basis but I would not kick an Amiga off my desktop.

I disagree with the sound system though. The Ste line and beyond are far superior and the ST had REAL

midi ports from the start...not some stupid add-on to the uart port. That alone always gave an edge

to my ST over all the other, including Mac and PC as well. Heck, I did not feel the PC had anything

on an ST till Doom came along.

[+save2600]

Heck, I did not feel the PC had anything on an ST till Doom came along.

 

That's how I felt about the Amiga - and then we got Doom and Quake after that lol

[atarian63]

sorry, I'll have to disagree. I had this feedback from distribution and from manufacturers(software companies)Also at trade shows this was the general view. I am not saying there werent odd places such as where you are or what you experienced but Columbus was more the norm.

 

Well, as long as you're open minded and don't think that people who disagree with you must be from "odd places", then..

 

Oh, wait..

 

:-)

 

Hey, what I expected.. Take it easy..

 

desiv

Hold on, no insult intended, really enjoy hearing your take on things. Go on. Actually I would like to hear more from your area. Kind of interesting to hear. I am sure back in the wild days of early computing there are tons of areas which have your view or mine and probably others. In my area most store were PC based and thats what most people saw. We could not have survived without a niche which is what Amiga, Atari etc were. Too bad as they could have been much more.

[atarian63]

The quality of the original Atari RGB monitor was pretty amazing - I really wanted one, and had to settle for wiring my ST into an Amstrad CPC monitor ( resistor legs poked into the ST directly due to the difficulty in obtaining the stupid plug for the monitor connector )

 

You must be thinking about the first "Atari SC1224" monitor - the one REALLY made by JVC, with the curved top/back grille over the tube and the push-button power button on front. Those were totally awesome! They really made the ST display look spectacular, after a generation of people using fuzzy TVs through RF connections for their display. I even remember ONE dude who used one of those with his Amiga 1000 back in the day; obviously with an adapter cable. I wish there was a way to hook one of those to an 8-bit (Atari or Commodore).

 

However, it wasn't long until "SC1224" monitors were cheap-ass Goldstar pieces of shit. Typical Tramiel move. Any semblance of quality must be dealt with appropriately (eliminated) and replaced with el-cheapo crap, in the relentless pursuit of saving 2-cents, even if it shortchanges the company's reputation down the road. Must have been about the time they changed to Chinon (we used to call them "shit-on") floppy drives.

 

 

I brought my original SC1224 over to Redmond Cable and they engineered an Atari SC1224 -> Amiga RGB cable. I understand they sold a lot of these because the SC1224 was a nice monitor.

 

The one issue - many of them could not handle PAL (as in, the controls did not have the range to stop the screen from rolling). I had to give up the 1224 in favor of a 1080 because of this.

 

The 1080 was also a really nice monitor. There was a Magnavox monitor popular at the time that was really, really poor.

Yes there was, I think it was the magnavox 80 series with the analog knockout on the back open and the circuitry was there.

We did alot of closeout magnavox back then, people wanted the 80 series for c64 and 128 or Atari, some models had only the rgb section and composite section. I presently have a newer version of one of the last of the series setup on my N64.

Yeah they were poorly made, frequently had sticky or broken power buttons.

[atarian63]

The JVC SC1224 (LEFT) and the Goldstar (pronounced: goh-stah) (RIGHT)

 

 

 

Man, just seeing the JVC brings back memories of how much I liked it. I'm not sure, but I think that the Commodore 1701/1702 (not sure which is which anymore) was a JVC as well; perhaps someone can clarify. I used one of these with various Ataris for years and really loved it. The 1701/1702 was actually made in Japan and (I think) most of them still work!

That is true about 1702 monitors. I see them in the wild still, and most are still working. Didn't they get some award from an Atari mag back in the day for best monitor?

Reminds me there was a magnavox version of the Amiga 1080, it was a nice monitor. The squared off 80 series was something else though. Wasnt there a 1084s model (not the rounded edge 1084s,good monitor) that was not the original amiga monitor but the squared off type and actually a magnavox. Had red and blue type on the logo or model?

[kool kitty89]

Heck, I did not feel the PC had anything on an ST till Doom came along.

 

That's how I felt about the Amiga - and then we got Doom and Quake after that lol

 

Umm... WIng Commander perhaps?

Then again, the Amiga blitter might have been able to handel that had it been programmed for it -and halfbrite mode can come close to approximating 256 color VGA. (hell the Sega CD handeled the scaling well with its graphics ASIC, not sure how well the Amiga would have though)

The actual Amiga port was pretty poor, even on the 1200/CD32, requiring a considerably faster CPU to play smoothly. (pretty poor on the a PC with mimumum requirements as well -a 12 MHz 286 would be pretty awful for it)