Atari ST vs. Amiga

[oky2000]

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.

 

Not really, if you wanted to open a notepad, calculator and clock etc didn't matter what disk you booted with you could still run these utilities on the desktop and multitask them with a word processor/Database/spreadsheet etc....to keep these running with a word processor on the ST at the same time they had to be desk accessories. Most games trash all access to workbench to gain maximum bandwidth in the chipset (or so they think, Cinemaware games do not kill access to workbench but still manage to be some of the best games ever made in the 80s )

 

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).

 

I have three original Commodore Amiga monitors here, 1081, 1084S and 1084SD...of the three it is only the 1084SD that gives a soft image due to the anti-glare coating on the screen (the one that looks like the original 1081 sold with the A1000) when used with a scart cable even on a standard KVM-14U 14inch Sony Trinitron portable TV the image was pixel perfect and crystal clear on my 1st generation Amiga 1000 PAL machine ditto with RGB cables on the 108x monitors and CM8833 Phillips units too. The original Atari SC1224 monitor is only a 12" screen and has a massive border (which I adjusted out anyway) so given 2" smaller screen AND about 2" borders all round it's like comparing a 10" screen to a 14" screen, technically it is not any sharper but you may think it is sharper due to the smaller screen size via the ST RGB monitor connection. Neither machine had bad output, I have about 7 ST models here and 1 of almost every Amiga and neither has any difference in output video quality. I know NTSC sucks balls but here in the UK with an RGB signal and superior PAL colour fidelity BOTH machines produce a crisp image. Neither is really capable of showing 640x200 fonts that clearly but that is a technical issue with standard monitor/TV dot pitch of the 80s not either machine. Thomson made the best monitors for Atari, rarely see them though but I had one of those on load whilst my SC1224 was being repaired and I really liked it at the time for Neochrome/Degas work.

 

Anyway....anyone who knew anything about picture quality would have purchased said Sony Trinitron 14 TV and SCART cable, any other choice for circa 250 pounds in the UK was just an idiots 'false choice' Nothing can compare with those tubes and they were identical in quality to the standard Trinitron monitors

[atarian63]

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.

 

Not really, if you wanted to open a notepad, calculator and clock etc didn't matter what disk you booted with you could still run these utilities on the desktop and multitask them with a word processor/Database/spreadsheet etc....to keep these running with a word processor on the ST at the same time they had to be desk accessories. Most games trash all access to workbench to gain maximum bandwidth in the chipset (or so they think, Cinemaware games do not kill access to workbench but still manage to be some of the best games ever made in the 80s )

 

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).

 

I have three original Commodore Amiga monitors here, 1081, 1084S and 1084SD...of the three it is only the 1084SD that gives a soft image due to the anti-glare coating on the screen (the one that looks like the original 1081 sold with the A1000) when used with a scart cable even on a standard KVM-14U 14inch Sony Trinitron portable TV the image was pixel perfect and crystal clear on my 1st generation Amiga 1000 PAL machine ditto with RGB cables on the 108x monitors and CM8833 Phillips units too. The original Atari SC1224 monitor is only a 12" screen and has a massive border (which I adjusted out anyway) so given 2" smaller screen AND about 2" borders all round it's like comparing a 10" screen to a 14" screen, technically it is not any sharper but you may think it is sharper due to the smaller screen size via the ST RGB monitor connection. Neither machine had bad output, I have about 7 ST models here and 1 of almost every Amiga and neither has any difference in output video quality. I know NTSC sucks balls but here in the UK with an RGB signal and superior PAL colour fidelity BOTH machines produce a crisp image. Neither is really capable of showing 640x200 fonts that clearly but that is a technical issue with standard monitor/TV dot pitch of the 80s not either machine. Thomson made the best monitors for Atari, rarely see them though but I had one of those on load whilst my SC1224 was being repaired and I really liked it at the time for Neochrome/Degas work.

 

Anyway....anyone who knew anything about picture quality would have purchased said Sony Trinitron 14 TV and SCART cable, any other choice for circa 250 pounds in the UK was just an idiots 'false choice' Nothing can compare with those tubes and they were identical in quality to the standard Trinitron monitors

I do remember thomson monitors on the St with a custom cable. Yes, looked pretty good.

My point is not that it is the monitor. It's not. It's the Amiga. It always looks cartoony (no insult) and fuzzy on whatever display.

[atarian63]

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.

 

Not really, if you wanted to open a notepad, calculator and clock etc didn't matter what disk you booted with you could still run these utilities on the desktop and multitask them with a word processor/Database/spreadsheet etc....to keep these running with a word processor on the ST at the same time they had to be desk accessories. Most games trash all access to workbench to gain maximum bandwidth in the chipset (or so they think, Cinemaware games do not kill access to workbench but still manage to be some of the best games ever made in the 80s )

 

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).

 

I have three original Commodore Amiga monitors here, 1081, 1084S and 1084SD...of the three it is only the 1084SD that gives a soft image due to the anti-glare coating on the screen (the one that looks like the original 1081 sold with the A1000) when used with a scart cable even on a standard KVM-14U 14inch Sony Trinitron portable TV the image was pixel perfect and crystal clear on my 1st generation Amiga 1000 PAL machine ditto with RGB cables on the 108x monitors and CM8833 Phillips units too. The original Atari SC1224 monitor is only a 12" screen and has a massive border (which I adjusted out anyway) so given 2" smaller screen AND about 2" borders all round it's like comparing a 10" screen to a 14" screen, technically it is not any sharper but you may think it is sharper due to the smaller screen size via the ST RGB monitor connection. Neither machine had bad output, I have about 7 ST models here and 1 of almost every Amiga and neither has any difference in output video quality. I know NTSC sucks balls but here in the UK with an RGB signal and superior PAL colour fidelity BOTH machines produce a crisp image. Neither is really capable of showing 640x200 fonts that clearly but that is a technical issue with standard monitor/TV dot pitch of the 80s not either machine. Thomson made the best monitors for Atari, rarely see them though but I had one of those on load whilst my SC1224 was being repaired and I really liked it at the time for Neochrome/Degas work.

 

Anyway....anyone who knew anything about picture quality would have purchased said Sony Trinitron 14 TV and SCART cable, any other choice for circa 250 pounds in the UK was just an idiots 'false choice' Nothing can compare with those tubes and they were identical in quality to the standard Trinitron monitors

I do remember thomson monitors on the St with a custom cable. Yes, looked pretty good.

My point is not that it is the monitor. It's not. It's the Amiga. It always looks cartoony (no insult) and fuzzy on whatever display. Not sure if it is the default video mode or what.

Over the years I have hooked both machines up to my NEC XV29 (15khz,29" display) ST still looks sharp, Amiga still looks fuzzy or maybe soft and undefined is more what I am saying,except the WB request screen.

[+wood_jl]

The original Atari SC1224 monitor is only a 12" screen and has a massive border (which I adjusted out anyway) so given 2" smaller screen AND about 2" borders all round it's like comparing a 10" screen to a 14" screen, technically it is not any sharper but you may think it is sharper due to the smaller screen size via the ST RGB monitor connection.

 

I don't remember a border on my [JVC] SC1124. I had the monochrome monitor too, and there was a HUGE - laughably HUGE - border on that one. I thought there was a problem, but I saw the same on other SM124s. Not sure if others adjusted it out, but I wish I would have.

[atarian63]

The original Atari SC1224 monitor is only a 12" screen and has a massive border (which I adjusted out anyway) so given 2" smaller screen AND about 2" borders all round it's like comparing a 10" screen to a 14" screen, technically it is not any sharper but you may think it is sharper due to the smaller screen size via the ST RGB monitor connection.

 

I don't remember a border on my [JVC] SC1124. I had the monochrome monitor too, and there was a HUGE - laughably HUGE - border on that one. I thought there was a problem, but I saw the same on other SM124s. Not sure if others adjusted it out, but I wish I would have.

Yes, an internal adjust would get it very close to the edge. Extra nice especially with Magic Sac and other mac emulators etc.

[frogstar_robot]

The original Atari SC1224 monitor is only a 12" screen and has a massive border (which I adjusted out anyway) so given 2" smaller screen AND about 2" borders all round it's like comparing a 10" screen to a 14" screen, technically it is not any sharper but you may think it is sharper due to the smaller screen size via the ST RGB monitor connection.

I don't remember a border on my [JVC] SC1124. I had the monochrome monitor too, and there was a HUGE - laughably HUGE - border on that one. I thought there was a problem, but I saw the same on other SM124s. Not sure if others adjusted it out, but I wish I would have.

Yes, an internal adjust would get it very close to the edge. Extra nice especially with Magic Sac and other mac emulators etc.

 

I just lived with it back in the day. I'm a lot braver these days about getting inside equipment but if I had any idea that all I had to do was tweak a couple of pots then I would have been there. Those borders were at least an inch all the way around. WTF was Atari thinking?

Edited December 16, 2009 by frogstar_robot

[oky2000]

I do remember thomson monitors on the St with a custom cable. Yes, looked pretty good.

My point is not that it is the monitor. It's not. It's the Amiga. It always looks cartoony (no insult) and fuzzy on whatever display.

 

I can assure you that you're wrong, I used to do pixel art for some dev group that went bust before 1 game was released with my A1000 and A2000 machines, I had perfect eyesight (reading every letter on every line of an eye chart from top to bottom inclusive regularly) and there was zero difference between the RGB analogue output of an ST and an Amiga....RF modulators may not be as equal but then I've never needed to use one as any TV from 1985 onwards of a reputable quality had RGB SCART as standard. @320x256 you could easily pick out individual pixels on both my 520STM and Amigas with no difference.

 

edit: are you using the VGA<-->25pin Dplug adaptor for your monitor?

 

Around 1990 I noticed that newer Sony TV's no longer had 100% convergance over the entire screen including the corners so had to switch to a 16" Mitsubishi TV/Monitor to restore 100% accuracy on the screen, being a trained TV electrician convergance annoys the hell out of me, there is no need and it was simple cost cutting by most TV tube makers around 1990 (to coincide with the massive drop in prices of TVs no doubt compared to video monitors like the pro-reel range etc)

Edited December 16, 2009 by oky2000

[oky2000]

The original Atari SC1224 monitor is only a 12" screen and has a massive border (which I adjusted out anyway) so given 2" smaller screen AND about 2" borders all round it's like comparing a 10" screen to a 14" screen, technically it is not any sharper but you may think it is sharper due to the smaller screen size via the ST RGB monitor connection.

 

I don't remember a border on my [JVC] SC1124. I had the monochrome monitor too, and there was a HUGE - laughably HUGE - border on that one. I thought there was a problem, but I saw the same on other SM124s. Not sure if others adjusted it out, but I wish I would have.

 

I adjusted the borders out on my current SM124 and SC1224 monitors, just change the V-stretch and H-stretch dials

[kool kitty89]

Around 1990 I noticed that newer Sony TV's no longer had 100% convergance over the entire screen including the corners so had to switch to a 16" Mitsubishi TV/Monitor to restore 100% accuracy on the screen, being a trained TV electrician convergance annoys the hell out of me, there is no need and it was simple cost cutting by most TV tube makers around 1990 (to coincide with the massive drop in prices of TVs no doubt compared to video monitors like the pro-reel range etc)

 

By convergence, do you mean the amount of the display going into overscan. (with 100% convergence being a display calibrated for zero overscan?)

I've heard PAL TVs were (and are?) much better in this respect than NTSC ones, although that may be in part due to the higher vertical resolution (any content using 240p/480i lines will not overscan regardless, though things using the full 288p/576i may, horizontal overscan being a bit of a different issue though). With the Amiga/ST at normal 200 lines, even with cheaper TVs, the full (vertical) scan should have been visible (ecept some really old/cheap ones showing only ~192/384i lines opposed to the more common 224/448i lines on newer sets), again horizontal overscan being a different issue. (I'd assume those computers compensated for that though, otherwise text/graphics would constantly be getting cropped from the sides)

Of course, one could manually adjust the display with the service controls (or service menu with the case of many newer sets) to remove overscan. (and with modern TVs in 16:9 compressed mode, there's only horizontal overscan to worry about anyway)

[atarian63]

I do remember thomson monitors on the St with a custom cable. Yes, looked pretty good.

My point is not that it is the monitor. It's not. It's the Amiga. It always looks cartoony (no insult) and fuzzy on whatever display.

 

I can assure you that you're wrong, I used to do pixel art for some dev group that went bust before 1 game was released with my A1000 and A2000 machines, I had perfect eyesight (reading every letter on every line of an eye chart from top to bottom inclusive regularly) and there was zero difference between the RGB analogue output of an ST and an Amiga....RF modulators may not be as equal but then I've never needed to use one as any TV from 1985 onwards of a reputable quality had RGB SCART as standard. @320x256 you could easily pick out individual pixels on both my 520STM and Amigas with no difference.

 

edit: are you using the VGA<-->25pin Dplug adaptor for your monitor?

 

Around 1990 I noticed that newer Sony TV's no longer had 100% convergance over the entire screen including the corners so had to switch to a 16" Mitsubishi TV/Monitor to restore 100% accuracy on the screen, being a trained TV electrician convergance annoys the hell out of me, there is no need and it was simple cost cutting by most TV tube makers around 1990 (to coincide with the massive drop in prices of TVs no doubt compared to video monitors like the pro-reel range etc)

I can assure you that you are wrong. I am talking about Amiga on amiga 1080 1080s 1084s take your pick. Being trained on monitors and most electronic systems in the military as well as having done repairs on hundred fof monitors through the years. It was the amiga not the monitor. Side by side,not close to an St. The St was crisp and sharp, the amiga output was not. It's not the monitor at all, the amiga color setup brightness etc gave a way to soft appearance. Customers pointed it out ALL the time when selecting a machine.

[FastRobPlus]

 

I can assure you that you're wrong, I used to do pixel art for some dev group that went bust before 1 game was released with my A1000 and A2000 machines, I had perfect eyesight (reading every letter on every line of an eye chart from top to bottom inclusive regularly) and there was zero difference between the RGB analogue output of an ST and an Amiga....RF modulators may not be as equal but then I've never needed to use one as any TV from 1985 onwards of a reputable quality had RGB SCART as standard. @320x256 you could easily pick out individual pixels on both my 520STM and Amigas with no difference.

 

No SCART in the North America, but your are correct in that the Amiga's RGB output was very good. The same 16-color 320x200 image would have looked identical on the ST/Amiga if both were output to the same monitor.

[oky2000]

I do remember thomson monitors on the St with a custom cable. Yes, looked pretty good.

My point is not that it is the monitor. It's not. It's the Amiga. It always looks cartoony (no insult) and fuzzy on whatever display.

 

I can assure you that you're wrong, I used to do pixel art for some dev group that went bust before 1 game was released with my A1000 and A2000 machines, I had perfect eyesight (reading every letter on every line of an eye chart from top to bottom inclusive regularly) and there was zero difference between the RGB analogue output of an ST and an Amiga....RF modulators may not be as equal but then I've never needed to use one as any TV from 1985 onwards of a reputable quality had RGB SCART as standard. @320x256 you could easily pick out individual pixels on both my 520STM and Amigas with no difference.

 

edit: are you using the VGA<-->25pin Dplug adaptor for your monitor?

 

Around 1990 I noticed that newer Sony TV's no longer had 100% convergance over the entire screen including the corners so had to switch to a 16" Mitsubishi TV/Monitor to restore 100% accuracy on the screen, being a trained TV electrician convergance annoys the hell out of me, there is no need and it was simple cost cutting by most TV tube makers around 1990 (to coincide with the massive drop in prices of TVs no doubt compared to video monitors like the pro-reel range etc)

I can assure you that you are wrong. I am talking about Amiga on amiga 1080 1080s 1084s take your pick. Being trained on monitors and most electronic systems in the military as well as having done repairs on hundred fof monitors through the years. It was the amiga not the monitor. Side by side,not close to an St. The St was crisp and sharp, the amiga output was not. It's not the monitor at all, the amiga color setup brightness etc gave a way to soft appearance. Customers pointed it out ALL the time when selecting a machine.

 

Then you either deal with a lot of blind charities or are talking nonsense

 

Had you commented on the actual difference in proportional size of the pixels between both machines I might have listened to a future reply, but as far as RGB output goes BOTH machines are just as readable in lo-res and just as unreadable in med-res on a standard PAL/NTSC resolution tube

 

(the ST's lo-res pixels are a taller aspect ratio ie 20% taller.....which is why the buggy in buggy boy looks different between ST/Amiga...because they used the same graphics for both!)

[oky2000]

 

I can assure you that you're wrong, I used to do pixel art for some dev group that went bust before 1 game was released with my A1000 and A2000 machines, I had perfect eyesight (reading every letter on every line of an eye chart from top to bottom inclusive regularly) and there was zero difference between the RGB analogue output of an ST and an Amiga....RF modulators may not be as equal but then I've never needed to use one as any TV from 1985 onwards of a reputable quality had RGB SCART as standard. @320x256 you could easily pick out individual pixels on both my 520STM and Amigas with no difference.

 

No SCART in the North America, but your are correct in that the Amiga's RGB output was very good. The same 16-color 320x200 image would have looked identical on the ST/Amiga if both were output to the same monitor.

 

Component connector in the USA I am guessing yes?

[+DarkLord]

Then you either deal with a lot of blind charities or are talking nonsense

 

Had you commented on the actual difference in proportional size of the pixels between both machines I might have listened to a future reply, but as far as RGB output goes BOTH machines are just as readable in lo-res and just as unreadable in med-res on a standard PAL/NTSC resolution tube

 

(the ST's lo-res pixels are a taller aspect ratio ie 20% taller.....which is why the buggy in buggy boy looks different between ST/Amiga...because they used the same graphics for both!)

 

I'd have to side with the others. I had an A1000 with the 1084 monitor. Compared to my SC1224 (and it is the JVC model), it was definitely fuzzier. Now whether or not it was the A1000, or the 1084, I don't know. But it was surely so. To be fair, I'll note that the 1084 was slightly bigger (offset somewhat by adjusting the SC1224's screen internally), and had stereo connectors.

[Gunstar]

Then you either deal with a lot of blind charities or are talking nonsense

 

Had you commented on the actual difference in proportional size of the pixels between both machines I might have listened to a future reply, but as far as RGB output goes BOTH machines are just as readable in lo-res and just as unreadable in med-res on a standard PAL/NTSC resolution tube

 

(the ST's lo-res pixels are a taller aspect ratio ie 20% taller.....which is why the buggy in buggy boy looks different between ST/Amiga...because they used the same graphics for both!)

 

I'd have to side with the others. I had an A1000 with the 1084 monitor. Compared to my SC1224 (and it is the JVC model), it was definitely fuzzier. Now whether or not it was the A1000, or the 1084, I don't know. But it was surely so. To be fair, I'll note that the 1084 was slightly bigger (offset somewhat by adjusting the SC1224's screen internally), and had stereo connectors.

 

I have a 1084S(the Atari SC1435 is the same monitor internally too, by the way) and two SC1224's. I've had an Amiga, Sega Genesis and Atari Jaguar hooked up to the 1084S, and the ST and Jaguar hooked up to the SC1224's and the ST and Jag look much sharper on the SC1224 than the Jag and others do on my 1084S. But I was never sure either if this was just due to the size difference or not. But from my above experience, I'd say it's probably the monitor and not the computers/systems causing the display to be less sharp on my 1084S. I prefer my 1084S over my SC1224's though becuase of the multiple inputs it has, with the SC1224 I only have RGB.

[Gunstar]

Then you either deal with a lot of blind charities or are talking nonsense

 

Had you commented on the actual difference in proportional size of the pixels between both machines I might have listened to a future reply, but as far as RGB output goes BOTH machines are just as readable in lo-res and just as unreadable in med-res on a standard PAL/NTSC resolution tube

 

(the ST's lo-res pixels are a taller aspect ratio ie 20% taller.....which is why the buggy in buggy boy looks different between ST/Amiga...because they used the same graphics for both!)

 

I'd have to side with the others. I had an A1000 with the 1084 monitor. Compared to my SC1224 (and it is the JVC model), it was definitely fuzzier. Now whether or not it was the A1000, or the 1084, I don't know. But it was surely so. To be fair, I'll note that the 1084 was slightly bigger (offset somewhat by adjusting the SC1224's screen internally), and had stereo connectors.

 

I have a 1084S(the Atari SC1435 is the same monitor internally too, by the way) and two SC1224's. I've had an Amiga, Sega Genesis and Atari Jaguar hooked up to the 1084S (via RGB), and the ST and Jaguar hooked up to the SC1224's and the ST and Jag look much sharper on the SC1224 than the Jag and others do on my 1084S. But I was never sure either if this was just due to the size difference or not. But from my above experience, I'd say it's probably the monitor and not the computers/systems causing the display to be less sharp on my 1084S. I prefer my 1084S over my SC1224's though becuase of the multiple inputs it has, with the SC1224 I only have RGB.

[FastRobPlus]

I was never a huge fan of any of the 1084 series. I much preferred the original 1080 version and the 2002. I saw some 1084 monitors that looked really poor.

 

You guys do realize that there were something like 20+ combinations of the 1084 monitor among at least 4 or 5 totally distinct models, right? And they all looked different, to the point where the tube, bezel, and even inputs varied from one to the next?

 

Saying that the “1084” was good or was bad is like saying “the Audi car” was good or was bad.

 

 

Snipped from Amiga Hardware Guide:

 

The 1084 and its variants (1084S, 1084ST, 1084S-P, 1084-P, 1084S-P2, 1084-D, 1084S-D) are all 15.75 kHz monitors. They do not handle AGA "double" screenmodes, nor will they display the deinterlaced output from the A2320 Amber board or the motherboard deinterlaced output on an A3000. However, they will show all normal 15.75 kHz displays, and many (most? all?) of the 1084 versions have a separate input for composite video.

 

The 1084 is a usually a variation of the Philips CM8833 monitor; the 1084S-D was made by Daewoo (as was the 1084D, probably). The display tubes used in these monitors were made by Orion, Toshiba, Hitachi, and Samsung.

Edited December 18, 2009 by FastRobPlus

[atarian63]

I do remember thomson monitors on the St with a custom cable. Yes, looked pretty good.

My point is not that it is the monitor. It's not. It's the Amiga. It always looks cartoony (no insult) and fuzzy on whatever display.

 

I can assure you that you're wrong, I used to do pixel art for some dev group that went bust before 1 game was released with my A1000 and A2000 machines, I had perfect eyesight (reading every letter on every line of an eye chart from top to bottom inclusive regularly) and there was zero difference between the RGB analogue output of an ST and an Amiga....RF modulators may not be as equal but then I've never needed to use one as any TV from 1985 onwards of a reputable quality had RGB SCART as standard. @320x256 you could easily pick out individual pixels on both my 520STM and Amigas with no difference.

 

edit: are you using the VGA<-->25pin Dplug adaptor for your monitor?

 

Around 1990 I noticed that newer Sony TV's no longer had 100% convergance over the entire screen including the corners so had to switch to a 16" Mitsubishi TV/Monitor to restore 100% accuracy on the screen, being a trained TV electrician convergance annoys the hell out of me, there is no need and it was simple cost cutting by most TV tube makers around 1990 (to coincide with the massive drop in prices of TVs no doubt compared to video monitors like the pro-reel range etc)

I can assure you that you are wrong. I am talking about Amiga on amiga 1080 1080s 1084s take your pick. Being trained on monitors and most electronic systems in the military as well as having done repairs on hundred fof monitors through the years. It was the amiga not the monitor. Side by side,not close to an St. The St was crisp and sharp, the amiga output was not. It's not the monitor at all, the amiga color setup brightness etc gave a way to soft appearance. Customers pointed it out ALL the time when selecting a machine.

 

Then you either deal with a lot of blind charities or are talking nonsense

 

Had you commented on the actual difference in proportional size of the pixels between both machines I might have listened to a future reply, but as far as RGB output goes BOTH machines are just as readable in lo-res and just as unreadable in med-res on a standard PAL/NTSC resolution tube

 

(the ST's lo-res pixels are a taller aspect ratio ie 20% taller.....which is why the buggy in buggy boy looks different between ST/Amiga...because they used the same graphics for both!)

Get some glasses and try looking at the desktops. Fuzzy,cartoonlike Amiga or Sharp Crisp ST. Not even close. Thousands can't be wrong just because it doesn't suit your own view..

[kool kitty89]

Get some glasses and try looking at the desktops. Fuzzy,cartoonlike Amiga or Sharp Crisp ST. Not even close. Thousands can't be wrong just because it doesn't suit your own view..

 

Wait... do you mean fuzzy as in blurry (what I and most others have been assuming), or "fuzzy" in the asthetic sense, not of a blurry display, but of icons/art used for the OS that have a "fuzzy" look to them? (rather than fuzzy in the sense that the text or idividual pixels are hard to make out and such)

[oky2000]

Around 1990 I noticed that newer Sony TV's no longer had 100% convergance over the entire screen including the corners so had to switch to a 16" Mitsubishi TV/Monitor to restore 100% accuracy on the screen, being a trained TV electrician convergance annoys the hell out of me, there is no need and it was simple cost cutting by most TV tube makers around 1990 (to coincide with the massive drop in prices of TVs no doubt compared to video monitors like the pro-reel range etc)

 

By convergence, do you mean the amount of the display going into overscan. (with 100% convergence being a display calibrated for zero overscan?)

I've heard PAL TVs were (and are?) much better in this respect than NTSC ones, although that may be in part due to the higher vertical resolution (any content using 240p/480i lines will not overscan regardless, though things using the full 288p/576i may, horizontal overscan being a bit of a different issue though). With the Amiga/ST at normal 200 lines, even with cheaper TVs, the full (vertical) scan should have been visible (ecept some really old/cheap ones showing only ~192/384i lines opposed to the more common 224/448i lines on newer sets), again horizontal overscan being a different issue. (I'd assume those computers compensated for that though, otherwise text/graphics would constantly be getting cropped from the sides)

Of course, one could manually adjust the display with the service controls (or service menu with the case of many newer sets) to remove overscan. (and with modern TVs in 16:9 compressed mode, there's only horizontal overscan to worry about anyway)

 

 

Convergence is the accuracy of the individual red green and blue phosphor dots being turned on/off by the electron beam gun in the tube....in relation to each other. Imagine drawing a square grid on the screen in 2 colours (black background,white lines) say 16x16 pixels in size with a 1 pixel width of the lines on a 640x512. If you had 100% convergence the you would see pure white lines over the entirety of the screen. Where the convergence isn't accurate you will get fringe colours of red or blue or green at the edges of the white lines. So if you had 100% convergence on a screen workbench looks perfect...every pixel is either white or blue with crystal clarity right to the four corners of the screen, on newer TVs the solid rectangles, straight lines and dithered patterns were a mess near the corners as there was red fringing happening because the image drawn for the red and blue pixels (white on screen using both) didn't quite match up so you would get a weird gradually worse HAM fringing/artifacting kind of effect....bit like those rubbish 3D movies where you have to wear those red and blue lensed 3D cardboard glasses in the 80s

 

Of course the Sony had superior clarity and colour purity as a seperate issue but dpaint became unusable to me....hence I gave 5 Sony TVs back and bought a Mitsubishi TV in 1990-1 etc

[oky2000]

Get some glasses and try looking at the desktops. Fuzzy,cartoonlike Amiga or Sharp Crisp ST. Not even close. Thousands can't be wrong just because it doesn't suit your own view..

 

Wait... do you mean fuzzy as in blurry (what I and most others have been assuming), or "fuzzy" in the asthetic sense, not of a blurry display, but of icons/art used for the OS that have a "fuzzy" look to them? (rather than fuzzy in the sense that the text or idividual pixels are hard to make out and such)

 

He's talking rubbish, better to ignore the fanboy FACTUALLY UNFOUNDED comments of this member I have never needed glasses as I already said my eyesight is at the maximum level tested at the time (30% better than average or required for 20/20 vision), if people purchase rubbish monitors in his 'shop' and can't even tell that 320x200 on a screen with massive borders on a different sized screen entirely anyway is no basis for comparison then his arguments are pretty worthless.

 

I tried BOTH machines on the SAME monitors and the result apart from pixel aspect ratio IS IDENTICAL. Like I said at 320x200 or whatever lo-res screen you want to choose on the Amiga, using an RGB cable and the same Trinitron 14" tube you can count the individual pixels with identical ease. Seeing as cables are not readily available for the SC1224/Thomson ST monitors to use on an Amiga snd vice versa for 1084/1081 monitors and ST cables.

 

Respected magazines like Byte and PCW would have mentioned a problem like this being highly technical publications with an even handed testing and benchmarking of all equipment. NONE of these magazines ever indicated either above or below average video output quality for either machine, both were as specified and produced an image as expected in the testcard benchmarks for image quality. These are engineers like myself and therefore I would tend to believe them over an Atari fanboy who has no factual argument agreeing with a 1000 of his fanatical fanbase.

[oky2000]

I was never a huge fan of any of the 1084 series. I much preferred the original 1080 version and the 2002. I saw some 1084 monitors that looked really poor.

 

You guys do realize that there were something like 20+ combinations of the 1084 monitor among at least 4 or 5 totally distinct models, right? And they all looked different, to the point where the tube, bezel, and even inputs varied from one to the next?

 

Saying that the “1084” was good or was bad is like saying “the Audi car” was good or was bad.

 

 

Snipped from Amiga Hardware Guide:

 

The 1084 and its variants (1084S, 1084ST, 1084S-P, 1084-P, 1084S-P2, 1084-D, 1084S-D) are all 15.75 kHz monitors. They do not handle AGA "double" screenmodes, nor will they display the deinterlaced output from the A2320 Amber board or the motherboard deinterlaced output on an A3000. However, they will show all normal 15.75 kHz displays, and many (most? all?) of the 1084 versions have a separate input for composite video.

 

The 1084 is a usually a variation of the Philips CM8833 monitor; the 1084S-D was made by Daewoo (as was the 1084D, probably). The display tubes used in these monitors were made by Orion, Toshiba, Hitachi, and Samsung.

 

Exactly and to add to that Commodore not once used either Sony, Panasonic or Mitsubishi tubes, which in the lifespan of the 1081/84 series were the best money could buy. Grundig were also good pre 1985 but I can't comment on their, or JVCs later models as I've never worked on them. Something like LG/Goldstar/Fergusson were very much a smudge-o-rama experience even in RGB scart

 

One thing that is for sure though is unless you put two different models side to side it is very hard to notice this lack of clarity in the tube. The same is true today of LCD screens, no two screens will give the same quality picture...if you put two different laptop screens of identical spec next to each other even the colours will look colder/warmer on identical graphics card settings.

[atarian63]

Get some glasses and try looking at the desktops. Fuzzy,cartoonlike Amiga or Sharp Crisp ST. Not even close. Thousands can't be wrong just because it doesn't suit your own view..

 

Wait... do you mean fuzzy as in blurry (what I and most others have been assuming), or "fuzzy" in the asthetic sense, not of a blurry display, but of icons/art used for the OS that have a "fuzzy" look to them? (rather than fuzzy in the sense that the text or idividual pixels are hard to make out and such)

 

He's talking rubbish, better to ignore the fanboy FACTUALLY UNFOUNDED comments of this member I have never needed glasses as I already said my eyesight is at the maximum level tested at the time (30% better than average or required for 20/20 vision), if people purchase rubbish monitors in his 'shop' and can't even tell that 320x200 on a screen with massive borders on a different sized screen entirely anyway is no basis for comparison then his arguments are pretty worthless.

 

I tried BOTH machines on the SAME monitors and the result apart from pixel aspect ratio IS IDENTICAL. Like I said at 320x200 or whatever lo-res screen you want to choose on the Amiga, using an RGB cable and the same Trinitron 14" tube you can count the individual pixels with identical ease. Seeing as cables are not readily available for the SC1224/Thomson ST monitors to use on an Amiga snd vice versa for 1084/1081 monitors and ST cables.

 

Respected magazines like Byte and PCW would have mentioned a problem like this being highly technical publications with an even handed testing and benchmarking of all equipment. NONE of these magazines ever indicated either above or below average video output quality for either machine, both were as specified and produced an image as expected in the testcard benchmarks for image quality. These are engineers like myself and therefore I would tend to believe them over an Atari fanboy who has no factual argument agreeing with a 1000 of his fanatical fanbase.

oky is an idiot and only a layman. I was a dealer for both system and a repair shop. This was ALWAYS an issue with amiga. Sounds like an uneducated unqualified opinion from an Amiga fanboy. It would seem you did not work in the industry or sell and service these machines back at the release or during thier run.

[atarian63]

dbl post

[atarian63]

Get some glasses and try looking at the desktops. Fuzzy,cartoonlike Amiga or Sharp Crisp ST. Not even close. Thousands can't be wrong just because it doesn't suit your own view..

 

Wait... do you mean fuzzy as in blurry (what I and most others have been assuming), or "fuzzy" in the asthetic sense, not of a blurry display, but of icons/art used for the OS that have a "fuzzy" look to them? (rather than fuzzy in the sense that the text or idividual pixels are hard to make out and such)

yes, the 2nd example is what customers and industry folk alike said.An asthetic sense.The display or choice of colors and scheme were not sharp or clear. We actually had returns related to this though nothing was actually wrong, just commodores screwed up choice for display and desktop. Did not help that the original 1080 monitor was a bit dull.