Atari ST vs. Amiga

[FastRobPlus]

They are really too far apart to be lumped together. Like comparing the 8-bit 2600 and the NES in the category of 8-bit consoles. I also notice it often comes down to games when comparing platforms. That makes less sense with Amiga since it was a fully realized platform. One primary use was photo and video editing. Another was productivity. But for games, that could be a whole thread unto itself. I'm sure Syndicate, Killing Game Show, Hired Guns, Eye of the Beholder, Worms, Sim City, Alien Breed, etc were all very demonstrably better on the 16-bit Amiga than the 16-bit ST/Sega/SNES. In fact, by the time the Genesis came out my Amiga wasn't even 16-bit. It's the architecture you see. ST/Genesis/SNES were in a different class. They were closed systems. The Amiga was 16-bit only until you added a 68020 or 68030 card.

 

Since these were graphically/sound-capable machines of their day (compared to PC/Mac/whatever), I guess we look at games since they exploit those capabilities. I think it's a bit of a stretch to separate them along the likes of the Atari 2600/NES; it's pretty easy to tell Atari 2600 Donkey Kong from NES Donkey Kong, but "Defender of the Crown" on ST/Amiga would be much harder to tell apart, although the Amiga version was the best.

 

While DoC was a bit better on the Amiga, it was an earlier game. That dev team set out to do a Ben Hur type cinematic game next (Centurion: Defender of Rome) and at the time said that they needed two double density drives, one DD drive and a hard drive, or one DD drive and a meg of RAM to make the loading less painful than in DoC (a huge complaint) They were sure that their target AMiga audience at least met the 2-DD disk drive and 1MB RAM bar, so the game came out on Amiga and PC only.

 

Rereading this, I think you missed my original point and I missed your's when I replied. While I agree comparing games could be an apples to apples way to compare systems from the same era, It misses the point because it limits the Amiga and plays to the ST's strengths. The Amiga was many people's first experience with real multitasking. With prosumer color printing. With photoshopping (ADPro, Imagemaster, DigiPaint, ToasterPaint.) With DTV. With modern software authoring systems (Director, CanDo, Scala, Amigavision.) With Cross-application communication and integration (pipes, REXX, sytem wide cut and paste.) With significant modding and customizing of an Operating System. With keeping a computer by giving it new capabilities (video cards, audio cards, RAM cards, new processor, IDE, SCSI2, etc) rather than leaving it behind and buying a different computer or an updated version because "You can't get there from here" with the home computer you have now.

 

Amiga was among the first of the modern personal computers. The ST was among the last of the closed architecture home computers.

In the end, Amiga games outstripped those of the ST, but if you limit a comparison of them to games you shortchange the Amiga by making it appear artificially nearer in capability to the ST.

[atarian63]

They are really too far apart to be lumped together. Like comparing the 8-bit 2600 and the NES in the category of 8-bit consoles. I also notice it often comes down to games when comparing platforms. That makes less sense with Amiga since it was a fully realized platform. One primary use was photo and video editing. Another was productivity. But for games, that could be a whole thread unto itself. I'm sure Syndicate, Killing Game Show, Hired Guns, Eye of the Beholder, Worms, Sim City, Alien Breed, etc were all very demonstrably better on the 16-bit Amiga than the 16-bit ST/Sega/SNES. In fact, by the time the Genesis came out my Amiga wasn't even 16-bit. It's the architecture you see. ST/Genesis/SNES were in a different class. They were closed systems. The Amiga was 16-bit only until you added a 68020 or 68030 card.

 

Since these were graphically/sound-capable machines of their day (compared to PC/Mac/whatever), I guess we look at games since they exploit those capabilities. I think it's a bit of a stretch to separate them along the likes of the Atari 2600/NES; it's pretty easy to tell Atari 2600 Donkey Kong from NES Donkey Kong, but "Defender of the Crown" on ST/Amiga would be much harder to tell apart, although the Amiga version was the best.

 

While DoC was a bit better on the Amiga, it was an earlier game. That dev team set out to do a Ben Hur type cinematic game next (Centurion: Defender of Rome) and at the time said that they needed two double density drives, one DD drive and a hard drive, or one DD drive and a meg of RAM to make the loading less painful than in DoC (a huge complaint) They were sure that their target AMiga audience at least met the 2-DD disk drive and 1MB RAM bar, so the game came out on Amiga and PC only.

 

Rereading this, I think you missed my original point and I missed your's when I replied. While I agree comparing games could be an apples to apples way to compare systems from the same era, It misses the point because it limits the Amiga and plays to the ST's strengths. The Amiga was many people's first experience with real multitasking. With prosumer color printing. With photoshopping (ADPro, Imagemaster, DigiPaint, ToasterPaint.) With DTV. With modern software authoring systems (Director, CanDo, Scala, Amigavision.) With Cross-application communication and integration (pipes, REXX, sytem wide cut and paste.) With significant modding and customizing of an Operating System. With keeping a computer by giving it new capabilities (video cards, audio cards, RAM cards, new processor, IDE, SCSI2, etc) rather than leaving it behind and buying a different computer or an updated version because "You can't get there from here" with the home computer you have now.

 

Amiga was among the first of the modern personal computers. The ST was among the last of the closed architecture home computers.

In the end, Amiga games outstripped those of the ST, but if you limit a comparison of them to games you shortchange the Amiga by making it appear artificially nearer in capability to the ST.

They really just went off in 2 differnet directions. ST went to DTP and Music and business apps. Amiga to video work of various sorts. Also at the end Amiga went back to a mostly closed system with A600/a1200 and Cd32.

[HiroProX]

Back in the day I went from the Atari 8-bit computers to the Amiga, more out of designer loyalty. I still pick up Amiga 1200s today. Mainly because nowdays, the A1200 is a much more accessable machine than the Falcon. Contrary to price claims, the Falcon was always more expensive than a higher speced A1200 system. And that difference has only grown. The last A1200 I picked up was for $300 with a 50MHz RC030/882 accelerator, 64mb ram, and a 4gb CF for a HDD. In comparison, finding a Falcon for less than $600 has proven fruitless. The Falcon's problem has always been its status as an inaccessible machine. Originally, it was inaccessible due to Atari's pathetic excuse for distributing, and now it's that way because $600 is a bit much for what it is. I can get a Turbo Color NeXTStation for less, and it has the DSP and a stronger OS, as well as a 33mhz RC040.

 

At the time I bought my first CBM A1200, due to Atari's lousy distribution especially in the U.S., the Falcon was a mythological creature, while the A1200 was a reality I could touch and walk home with one new in a box for $500 with a 40mb HDD in 1993. Same thing happened earlier in 1989, the ST and such were mythological creatures only seen in magazines, while the A500 was a reality down at Montgomery Wards for $400 with the A501 ram expansion and a 1200bps modem.

 

It was kind of neat to capture one of those Atari "unicorns", a STacy 4mb with HDD, but for $300 it was okay. But $600 can get a fully loaded A1200 or a midlevel A3000. So no Falcon for me until the price drops, if it ever does.

Edited January 14, 2010 by HiroProX

[FastRobPlus]

Back in the day I went from the Atari 8-bit computers to the Amiga, more out of designer loyalty. I still pick up Amiga 1200s today. Mainly because nowdays, the A1200 is a much more accessable machine than the Falcon. Contrary to price claims, the Falcon was always more expensive than a higher speced A1200 system. And that difference has only grown. The last A1200 I picked up was for $300 with a 50MHz RC030/882 accelerator, 64mb ram, and a 4gb CF for a HDD. In comparison, finding a Falcon for less than $600 has proven fruitless. The Falcon's problem has always been its status as an inaccessible machine. Originally, it was inaccessible due to Atari's pathetic excuse for distributing, and now it's that way because $600 is a bit much for what it is. I can get a Turbo Color NeXTStation for less, and it has the DSP and a stronger OS, as well as a 33mhz RC040.

 

At the time I bought my first CBM A1200, due to Atari's lousy distribution especially in the U.S., the Falcon was a mythological creature, while the A1200 was a reality I could touch and walk home with one new in a box for $500 with a 40mb HDD in 1993. Same thing happened earlier in 1989, the ST and such were mythological creatures only seen in magazines, while the A500 was a reality down at Montgomery Wards for $400 with the A501 ram expansion and a 1200bps modem.

 

It was kind of neat to capture one of those Atari "unicorns", a STacy 4mb with HDD, but for $300 it was okay. But $600 can get a fully loaded A1200 or a midlevel A3000. So no Falcon for me until the price drops, if it ever does.

 

STacy is a really fun system. Beware because nowdays the screens have often become quite dim

 

How did you know of the lineage between Atari -> Amiga back in the day? I know in the user groups many satyed loyal to Atari by buying the ST, which turned out to be an error. I myself didn't understand that the Amiga had Atari DNA for the first year or two. After using an ST and and Amiga, the Amiga just felt much better and I guessed I just wasn't a very loyal Atari fanboy... It was only later I discovered that I was more loyal than I could have ever guessed.

Edited January 15, 2010 by FastRobPlus

[+wood_jl]

They are really too far apart to be lumped together. Like comparing the 8-bit 2600 and the NES in the category of 8-bit consoles. I also notice it often comes down to games when comparing platforms. That makes less sense with Amiga since it was a fully realized platform. One primary use was photo and video editing. Another was productivity. But for games, that could be a whole thread unto itself. I'm sure Syndicate, Killing Game Show, Hired Guns, Eye of the Beholder, Worms, Sim City, Alien Breed, etc were all very demonstrably better on the 16-bit Amiga than the 16-bit ST/Sega/SNES. In fact, by the time the Genesis came out my Amiga wasn't even 16-bit. It's the architecture you see. ST/Genesis/SNES were in a different class. They were closed systems. The Amiga was 16-bit only until you added a 68020 or 68030 card.

 

Since these were graphically/sound-capable machines of their day (compared to PC/Mac/whatever), I guess we look at games since they exploit those capabilities. I think it's a bit of a stretch to separate them along the likes of the Atari 2600/NES; it's pretty easy to tell Atari 2600 Donkey Kong from NES Donkey Kong, but "Defender of the Crown" on ST/Amiga would be much harder to tell apart, although the Amiga version was the best.

 

While DoC was a bit better on the Amiga, it was an earlier game. That dev team set out to do a Ben Hur type cinematic game next (Centurion: Defender of Rome) and at the time said that they needed two double density drives, one DD drive and a hard drive, or one DD drive and a meg of RAM to make the loading less painful than in DoC (a huge complaint) They were sure that their target AMiga audience at least met the 2-DD disk drive and 1MB RAM bar, so the game came out on Amiga and PC only.

 

Rereading this, I think you missed my original point and I missed your's when I replied. While I agree comparing games could be an apples to apples way to compare systems from the same era, It misses the point because it limits the Amiga and plays to the ST's strengths. The Amiga was many people's first experience with real multitasking. With prosumer color printing. With photoshopping (ADPro, Imagemaster, DigiPaint, ToasterPaint.) With DTV. With modern software authoring systems (Director, CanDo, Scala, Amigavision.) With Cross-application communication and integration (pipes, REXX, sytem wide cut and paste.) With significant modding and customizing of an Operating System. With keeping a computer by giving it new capabilities (video cards, audio cards, RAM cards, new processor, IDE, SCSI2, etc) rather than leaving it behind and buying a different computer or an updated version because "You can't get there from here" with the home computer you have now.

 

This is true, for those people who actually used those applications. Everybody I knew (back in the era) who used an ST or Amiga pretty much used it for games, word processsing, and BBSing, primarily. Sure, some people used Video Toasters, some people used MIDI, some people played with "Paint" type programs, some did desktop publishing. But most people played games, did a little word processing, and got "online" just like they did with their 8-bit computers, only "better." It wasn't until the advent of DVD burners that the masses started "doing video" on their PC. It wasn't until the advent of cheap hi-res scanners and quality digital cameras that the masses started "Photoshopping." Even if this stuff could have been done on the 16-bit home computers, most people couldn't have afforded the expensive peripherals, RAM, and hard drive space to do this effectively. By the time they could, the Amiga and ST were hardly relevant.

 

Amiga was among the first of the modern personal computers. The ST was among the last of the closed architecture home computers.

In the end, Amiga games outstripped those of the ST, but if you limit a comparison of them to games you shortchange the Amiga by making it appear artificially nearer in capability to the ST.

Which Amiga? The 2000, 3000, 4000? How much did those cost? Most people I knew with Amiga had the A500, so I guess it's pretty closed too. I really liked it, though, and regret I didn't pick one up.

[+wood_jl]

How did you know of the lineage between Atari -> Amiga back in the day? I know in the user groups many satyed loyal to Atari by buying the ST, which turned out to be an error. I myself didn't understand that the Amiga had Atari DNA for the first year or two. After using an ST and and Amiga, the Amiga just felt much better and I guessed I just wasn't a very loyal Atari fanboy... It was only later I discovered that I was more loyal than I could have ever guessed.

 

I'm not here to blow the Atari ST horn - I didn't build the thing, don't have one anymore, and have no problem with people who dislike it. However, I suggest you refrain from trying to speak so absolutely for everyone else who made a different choice than you - as you do when you declare it an "error" when someone bought an ST. You may as well write stuff like "Many in the Chevy club stayed loyal to Chevy by buying a Silverado, which turned out to be an error" because you drive a Ford. [or Honda or Toyota or whatever] For the price (color Mac for 1/3 the price) the ST met the needs of many and was not an "error." For many, the ST was a fine stepping stone between the A8 and the PC (or Mac) they use today. "If the shoe fits...." I don't know about STe, Mega STe, TT, Falcon - I wasn't around for that, and those were not a "color Mac for 1/3 price" deal, and had a thumping PC by then. But please come off the high horse when it comes to judging the choices of others, and deal with the fact that others made different choices than you, and live with it. Thank you.

[FastRobPlus]

How did you know of the lineage between Atari -> Amiga back in the day? I know in the user groups many satyed loyal to Atari by buying the ST, which turned out to be an error. I myself didn't understand that the Amiga had Atari DNA for the first year or two. After using an ST and and Amiga, the Amiga just felt much better and I guessed I just wasn't a very loyal Atari fanboy... It was only later I discovered that I was more loyal than I could have ever guessed.

 

I'm not here to blow the Atari ST horn - I didn't build the thing, don't have one anymore, and have no problem with people who dislike it. However, I suggest you refrain from trying to speak so absolutely for everyone else who made a different choice than you - as you do when you declare it an "error" when someone bought an ST. You may as well write stuff like "Many in the Chevy club stayed loyal to Chevy by buying a Silverado, which turned out to be an error" because you drive a Ford. [or Honda or Toyota or whatever] For the price (color Mac for 1/3 the price) the ST met the needs of many and was not an "error." For many, the ST was a fine stepping stone between the A8 and the PC (or Mac) they use today. "If the shoe fits...." I don't know about STe, Mega STe, TT, Falcon - I wasn't around for that, and those were not a "color Mac for 1/3 price" deal, and had a thumping PC by then. But please come off the high horse when it comes to judging the choices of others, and deal with the fact that others made different choices than you, and live with it. Thank you.

 

Disagree completely here. If you bought an ST thinking it was a natural extension of an A8, you would have made an error. This is my point. I never said buying an ST in itself was an error if you bought it on its merits as a home computer.

 

To use your GM analogy: Lets say you are brand loyal after your short flirtation with Asian cars ended when you bought a low quality Daewoo Nubria back in 2001. So you buy a Chevy Aveo because the last car you really loved (the one before the Daewoo) was a Chevy Prizm and it was a great car for its time. You hear good things about some Asian cars (Toyota for example), but you really want to steer clear of Asian cars after the Daewoo Nubria fiasco.

 

So what's the problem now you're back with Chevy? Well, for starters, you have never owned a Chevy made car! That Chevy Prizm was made by Toyota of California. And the Chevy Aveo? That's made by Daewoo and imported and given a Chevy badge! How ironic. If you wanted to be loyal to the quality and engineering of that Prizm you owned, you should have bought a Toyota (Foe example, the Toyota Corolla, made in the same CA plant.)

 

And in a double-wallop of irony, let's say someone made a website and called it ChevyPrizmAge and all the Prism owners waxed nostalgic about how great their cars were, and how they have all moved up to Chevy Aveos now because Chevy is great!

 

You might see why I consider this an error in logic, regardless of whether the Aveo is a good or bad car, or whether Chevy is a good or bad company.

 

And you might see how I would find it extra ironic if folks compared the Prizm and by extension the Aveo to the Corolla and decided the Prizam/Aveo were as good or better, despite the fact that the Corolla is the updated Prizm and the Aveo exists only because Chevy could not secure the Corolla under their own badge.

[atarian63]

How did you know of the lineage between Atari -> Amiga back in the day? I know in the user groups many satyed loyal to Atari by buying the ST, which turned out to be an error. I myself didn't understand that the Amiga had Atari DNA for the first year or two. After using an ST and and Amiga, the Amiga just felt much better and I guessed I just wasn't a very loyal Atari fanboy... It was only later I discovered that I was more loyal than I could have ever guessed.

 

I'm not here to blow the Atari ST horn - I didn't build the thing, don't have one anymore, and have no problem with people who dislike it. However, I suggest you refrain from trying to speak so absolutely for everyone else who made a different choice than you - as you do when you declare it an "error" when someone bought an ST. You may as well write stuff like "Many in the Chevy club stayed loyal to Chevy by buying a Silverado, which turned out to be an error" because you drive a Ford. [or Honda or Toyota or whatever] For the price (color Mac for 1/3 the price) the ST met the needs of many and was not an "error." For many, the ST was a fine stepping stone between the A8 and the PC (or Mac) they use today. "If the shoe fits...." I don't know about STe, Mega STe, TT, Falcon - I wasn't around for that, and those were not a "color Mac for 1/3 price" deal, and had a thumping PC by then. But please come off the high horse when it comes to judging the choices of others, and deal with the fact that others made different choices than you, and live with it. Thank you.

 

Disagree completely here. If you bought an ST thinking it was a natural extension of an A8, you would have made an error. This is my point. I never said buying an ST in itself was an error if you bought it on its merits as a home computer.

 

To use your GM analogy: Lets say you are brand loyal after your short flirtation with Asian cars ended when you bought a low quality Daewoo Nubria back in 2001. So you buy a Chevy Aveo because the last car you really loved (the one before the Daewoo) was a Chevy Prizm and it was a great car for its time. You hear good things about some Asian cars (Toyota for example), but you really want to steer clear of Asian cars after the Daewoo Nubria fiasco.

 

So what's the problem now you're back with Chevy? Well, for starters, you have never owned a Chevy made car! That Chevy Prizm was made by Toyota of California. And the Chevy Aveo? That's made by Daewoo and imported and given a Chevy badge! How ironic. If you wanted to be loyal to the quality and engineering of that Prizm you owned, you should have bought a Toyota (Foe example, the Toyota Corolla, made in the same CA plant.)

 

And in a double-wallop of irony, let's say someone made a website and called it ChevyPrizmAge and all the Prism owners waxed nostalgic about how great their cars were, and how they have all moved up to Chevy Aveos now because Chevy is great!

 

You might see why I consider this an error in logic, regardless of whether the Aveo is a good or bad car, or whether Chevy is a good or bad company.

 

And you might see how I would find it extra ironic if folks compared the Prizm and by extension the Aveo to the Corolla and decided the Prizam/Aveo were as good or better, despite the fact that the Corolla is the updated Prizm and the Aveo exists only because Chevy could not secure the Corolla under their own badge.

Who would want that rice anyway.. or a chevy or toyota for that matter.

[HiroProX]

Back in the day I went from the Atari 8-bit computers to the Amiga, more out of designer loyalty. I still pick up Amiga 1200s today. Mainly because nowdays, the A1200 is a much more accessable machine than the Falcon. Contrary to price claims, the Falcon was always more expensive than a higher speced A1200 system. And that difference has only grown. The last A1200 I picked up was for $300 with a 50MHz RC030/882 accelerator, 64mb ram, and a 4gb CF for a HDD. In comparison, finding a Falcon for less than $600 has proven fruitless. The Falcon's problem has always been its status as an inaccessible machine. Originally, it was inaccessible due to Atari's pathetic excuse for distributing, and now it's that way because $600 is a bit much for what it is. I can get a Turbo Color NeXTStation for less, and it has the DSP and a stronger OS, as well as a 33mhz RC040.

 

At the time I bought my first CBM A1200, due to Atari's lousy distribution especially in the U.S., the Falcon was a mythological creature, while the A1200 was a reality I could touch and walk home with one new in a box for $500 with a 40mb HDD in 1993. Same thing happened earlier in 1989, the ST and such were mythological creatures only seen in magazines, while the A500 was a reality down at Montgomery Wards for $400 with the A501 ram expansion and a 1200bps modem.

 

It was kind of neat to capture one of those Atari "unicorns", a STacy 4mb with HDD, but for $300 it was okay. But $600 can get a fully loaded A1200 or a midlevel A3000. So no Falcon for me until the price drops, if it ever does.

 

STacy is a really fun system. Beware because nowdays the screens have often become quite dim

 

How did you know of the lineage between Atari -> Amiga back in the day? I know in the user groups many satyed loyal to Atari by buying the ST, which turned out to be an error. I myself didn't understand that the Amiga had Atari DNA for the first year or two. After using an ST and and Amiga, the Amiga just felt much better and I guessed I just wasn't a very loyal Atari fanboy... It was only later I discovered that I was more loyal than I could have ever guessed.

 

I followed news about Jay Miner and Amiga, Inc. before the ST or A1000 showed up.

 

Yeah, those LCDs were a custom job by Epson used in the STacy and the Apple Mac Portable. I'm looking into a new EL panel that is the same resolution and dimensions as the Epson panel.

[FastRobPlus]

 

I followed news about Jay Miner and Amiga, Inc. before the ST or A1000 showed up.

 

Yeah, those LCDs were a custom job by Epson used in the STacy and the Apple Mac Portable. I'm looking into a new EL panel that is the same resolution and dimensions as the Epson panel.

 

That might look amazing.

[+DarkLord]

"I know in the user groups many satyed loyal to Atari by buying the ST, which turned out to be an error. "

 

No way and no how would I ever say or consider buying the ST as an "error".

 

25 years later, through various ST models and tons of software, and I've

still not changed my mind.

[FastRobPlus]

"I know in the user groups many stayed loyal to Atari by buying the ST, which turned out to be an error. "

 

No way and no how would I ever say or consider buying the ST as an "error".

 

25 years later, through various ST models and tons of software, and I've

still not changed my mind.

 

Then re-read what I wrote:

"many stayed loyal to Atari by buying the ST..."

 

The point is, you were in error if you stayed loyal to the A8 by buying an ST, not that buying the ST itself was an error.

 

If you buy the next device from the same company, you are brand loyal.

 

But bhat do you do if the next device jumps ship from the brand to a different brand? And the brand you like changes hands too?

 

You have a choice: Stay loyal to the logo you like or stay with the technology you like.

 

By your logic, you can't make an error by buying Infogrammes games these days because they all have an Atari logo on them and therefore share more DNA with the Atari games you liked than games written for EA or Activision by the same author as the games you used to love.

[+wood_jl]

"I know in the user groups many stayed loyal to Atari by buying the ST, which turned out to be an error. "

 

No way and no how would I ever say or consider buying the ST as an "error".

 

25 years later, through various ST models and tons of software, and I've

still not changed my mind.

 

Then re-read what I wrote:

"many stayed loyal to Atari by buying the ST..."

 

The point is, you were in error if you stayed loyal to the A8 by buying an ST, not that buying the ST itself was an error.

 

If you buy the next device from the same company, you are brand loyal.

 

But bhat do you do if the next device jumps ship from the brand to a different brand? And the brand you like changes hands too?

 

You have a choice: Stay loyal to the logo you like or stay with the technology you like.

 

By your logic, you can't make an error by buying Infogrammes games these days because they all have an Atari logo on them and therefore share more DNA with the Atari games you liked than games written for EA or Activision by the same author as the games you used to love.

 

This is just a preposterous setup so you can "justify" buying an ST an error. Concepts such as "staying loyal to the A8" and "Atari DNA" are highly debatable - see the "ST vs A8" thread where Copper is compared to Antic (by some) and the "DNA" theory is shot down by A8-haters who love Amiga (I'm assuming they came from C64s to Amiga). Does the Amiga run A8 software any better than the ST? Uh, no. The simple fact is that you, personally, like the A8 and you like the Amiga. That's fine, and that's your personal choice. You don't need to justify it, you don't need to pretend that it's "extra-loyal" or "extra-logical" because it makes zero sense to do so, is unprovable. It's just your choice. I suggest you (silently) be happy with your choice, and let others be happy with their choices. Do you have some guilt or complex about "abandoning" the Atari brand yourself, driving you to search your sole for justification? No???? Then why keep bringing it up? Why not just enjoy the Amiga without evangelizing? Why attempt to create silly situations where you can pretend that you made the "logical" choice? It's not necessary to keep bringing it up, and nobody cares. If nothing else, answer these questions, so we can get to the bottom quickly: Exactly (1) What is your motivation for bringing it up, (2) What is your point in bringing it up, and (3) What do you intend to do about it, and (4) What do you want others to do about it?

[+DarkLord]

If you buy the next device from the same company, you are brand loyal.

 

Guess I'm brand "loyal" then, because I've got:

 

Atari 800XL

Atari 2600 (remake)

Atari Mega ST

Atari STacy

Atari Mega STe

Atari Falcon

Atari Jaguar

Atari Lynx

 

along with various Atari T-shirts, mugs, and other paraphenalia!

 

 

PS For the record, I've had a handful of Amiga's - and still have

one A1200 with some added ram and an accelerator. I'm going to sell

it through, because its been in the closet for months, and it really

deserves someone who will use it. Sadly, it plays the "poor cousin"

here...

[carmel_andrews]

Biggest mistake Atari made....not coming out with the proposed Blitter chip upgrade for standard ST...And probably should have combined that with one or both of JRI's video upgrade, namely the 4k or 32k colour version (or an atari own version) at least that would have been a stop gap until the STe was released

 

Still scratching my head trying to figure out why atari scrapped the 2040 or was it the 2060 stfm (st with 2 meg and blitter and allegedy tos 1.4) or the 4 meg version (4080 or 4120 stfm if i recall correctly), I remember seeing these two beasts demo at the pcw show in London, and spent more money putting that design into a separate keyboard/cpu type scenario (the mega series of st/e)

[+poobah]

If you buy the next device from the same company, you are brand loyal.

 

Guess I'm brand "loyal" then, because I've got:

 

Atari 800XL

Atari 2600 (remake)

Atari Mega ST

Atari STacy

Atari Mega STe

Atari Falcon

Atari Jaguar

Atari Lynx

 

along with various Atari T-shirts, mugs, and other paraphenalia!

 

 

PS For the record, I've had a handful of Amiga's - and still have

one A1200 with some added ram and an accelerator. I'm going to sell

it through, because its been in the closet for months, and it really

deserves someone who will use it. Sadly, it plays the "poor cousin"

here...

 

What, no TT030?

[+DarkLord]

What, no TT030?

 

 

Heh, I know. I actually had one way back when, years ago - played with it for awhile, installed MINT on

it, then finally sold it to a friend.

 

Boy I sure wish I could take that one back now!

[oky2000]

Biggest mistake Atari made....not coming out with the proposed Blitter chip upgrade for standard ST...And probably should have combined that with one or both of JRI's video upgrade, namely the 4k or 32k colour version (or an atari own version) at least that would have been a stop gap until the STe was released

 

Still scratching my head trying to figure out why atari scrapped the 2040 or was it the 2060 stfm (st with 2 meg and blitter and allegedy tos 1.4) or the 4 meg version (4080 or 4120 stfm if i recall correctly), I remember seeing these two beasts demo at the pcw show in London, and spent more money putting that design into a separate keyboard/cpu type scenario (the mega series of st/e)

 

I think it was the right choice of design. The Mega 4 was seriously high end in price and the home computer look of the 520/1040 didn't look right for the business sector.

[+poobah]

What, no TT030?

 

 

Heh, I know. I actually had one way back when, years ago - played with it for awhile, installed MINT on

it, then finally sold it to a friend.

 

Boy I sure wish I could take that one back now!

 

Don't feel bad, I'm down to one TT030... they take up a lot of space

[kool kitty89]

Amiga was among the first of the modern personal computers. The ST was among the last of the closed architecture home computers.

In the end, Amiga games outstripped those of the ST, but if you limit a comparison of them to games you shortchange the Amiga by making it appear artificially nearer in capability to the ST.

Which Amiga? The 2000, 3000, 4000? How much did those cost? Most people I knew with Amiga had the A500, so I guess it's pretty closed too. I really liked it, though, and regret I didn't pick one up.

But didn't even the A500/500+ have the expansion bus connector? (which was the main means of expansion for the A1000 as well, not so much internally -outside of CPU socket upgrade boards -which were used on the 500s as well, and the 256kB RAM expansion port was exteranl on the A1000 as well)

 

The ST lacked such an expansion bus, though I'd assume any expansions using the CPU socket method would be similar.

 

 

"I know in the user groups many stayed loyal to Atari by buying the ST, which turned out to be an error. "

 

No way and no how would I ever say or consider buying the ST as an "error".

 

25 years later, through various ST models and tons of software, and I've

still not changed my mind.

 

Then re-read what I wrote:

"many stayed loyal to Atari by buying the ST..."

 

The point is, you were in error if you stayed loyal to the A8 by buying an ST, not that buying the ST itself was an error.

 

If you buy the next device from the same company, you are brand loyal.

 

But bhat do you do if the next device jumps ship from the brand to a different brand? And the brand you like changes hands too?

 

You have a choice: Stay loyal to the logo you like or stay with the technology you like.

 

By your logic, you can't make an error by buying Infogrammes games these days because they all have an Atari logo on them and therefore share more DNA with the Atari games you liked than games written for EA or Activision by the same author as the games you used to love.

 

This is just a preposterous setup so you can "justify" buying an ST an error. Concepts such as "staying loyal to the A8" and "Atari DNA" are highly debatable - see the "ST vs A8" thread where Copper is compared to Antic (by some) and the "DNA" theory is shot down by A8-haters who love Amiga (I'm assuming they came from C64s to Amiga). Does the Amiga run A8 software any better than the ST? Uh, no. The simple fact is that you, personally, like the A8 and you like the Amiga. That's fine, and that's your personal choice. You don't need to justify it, you don't need to pretend that it's "extra-loyal" or "extra-logical" because it makes zero sense to do so, is unprovable. It's just your choice. I suggest you (silently) be happy with your choice, and let others be happy with their choices. Do you have some guilt or complex about "abandoning" the Atari brand yourself, driving you to search your sole for justification? No???? Then why keep bringing it up? Why not just enjoy the Amiga without evangelizing? Why attempt to create silly situations where you can pretend that you made the "logical" choice? It's not necessary to keep bringing it up, and nobody cares. If nothing else, answer these questions, so we can get to the bottom quickly: Exactly (1) What is your motivation for bringing it up, (2) What is your point in bringing it up, and (3) What do you intend to do about it, and (4) What do you want others to do about it?

Regardless of the Amiga's development relationship to the A8 (or not), brand name is all the ST had in common with the A8, it wasn't even created under the same company. It started development at TTL (as RBP) prior to Tramiel's acquisition of Atari Inc's consumer assets (and debt), and was subsequently released by the new company, Atari Corp, which had limited relation to the previous Atari Inc. (albeit a lot more than the current Atari Inc. has to do with any previous Ataris) So unless you bought an XE computer, the 2 weren't even products of the same company. (same for the VCS/2600 other than the 2600 Jr.)

 

 

Biggest mistake Atari made....not coming out with the proposed Blitter chip upgrade for standard ST...And probably should have combined that with one or both of JRI's video upgrade, namely the 4k or 32k colour version (or an atari own version) at least that would have been a stop gap until the STe was released

 

Still scratching my head trying to figure out why atari scrapped the 2040 or was it the 2060 stfm (st with 2 meg and blitter and allegedy tos 1.4) or the 4 meg version (4080 or 4120 stfm if i recall correctly), I remember seeing these two beasts demo at the pcw show in London, and spent more money putting that design into a separate keyboard/cpu type scenario (the mega series of st/e)

Hmm, I think it might have been better to drop the BLiTTER alltogether, stick with CPU power as they had, and as PCs (and MACs) were doing. They could have instead have focused on upgrading the shifter sooner perhaps the audio as well. (keeping up with the emerging VGA and PC sound cards, the new shifter could have had a bit of added hardware features as well, nothing like a full blown blitter, but perhaps more like VGA offered -like smooth scrolling)

That, and they should have offered a box (MEGA) form factor ST sooner as the higher end/serious machine (with greater expandability), possibly offering a faster CPU standard from the start. (like a 10-12 MHz 68k initially, later a 16 MHz one)

And later add the upgrades to the lower-end models as well. (CPU, upgraded video and sound)

Going PC only (or mostly) would mean immediate performance improvement for nearly all programs, rather like on PCs. (the exceptions would be timing sensitive software which would go crazy at high CPU speeds -like a few PC games)

The other problem would be getting past the 68000 due to conflicts in the architecture of the 68010, 020 and onward, I suppose they could have forced programmers to adjust to that sooner by introducing a standard 68010 based machine, but that might be problematic as well. (or they could have stuck with the 68k alone and transitioned to a new architecture entirely, avoiding later 680x0 CPUs -going for a RISC design, perhaps ARM -being the most cost effective, following the ST)

 

That's one thing both Commodore and Atari Corp messed up, the ST started only with the lower-end console form factor, while the Amiga started in the higher-end PC-ish box arrangement, and it was about 2 years before the A500 and MEGA ST corrected that. Another thing was that Atari Corp and CBM (apparently) focused a lot on competing with eachother rather than looking at the bigger picture, granted the ST was positioned against the MAC as well, but both seemed to ignore advances in PC hardware. (when both had been superior initially)

Edited January 18, 2010 by kool kitty89

[+wood_jl]

Regardless of the Amiga's development relationship to the A8 (or not), brand name is all the ST had in common with the A8, it wasn't even created under the same company. It started development at TTL (as RBP) prior to Tramiel's acquisition of Atari Inc's consumer assets (and debt), and was subsequently released by the new company, Atari Corp, which had limited relation to the previous Atari Inc. (albeit a lot more than the current Atari Inc. has to do with any previous Ataris) So unless you bought an XE computer, the 2 weren't even products of the same company. (same for the VCS/2600 other than the 2600 Jr.)

 

Oh yeah, I get it. I never even insinuated that the they (A8 and ST) were related at all; it's really old news that they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I was merely attempting to rebut the notion that an buying an Amiga was "loyal to something" for a previous Atari8 user, as FastRob did so he could constuct an arguement around which to declare anyone who used A8 then ST as making "an error." This is not to suggest there is some A8-ST relation; where did that come from? Buying an Amiga simply because you like and desire an Amiga is an sensible and realistic reason to do so, and does not necessitate fanciful romanticism of "loyalty" to anything.

 

Since the basis for this alleged "loyalty" is the A8 and Amiga being related, I just wanted to point him to Amiga users who are not former A8 users and who refute the A8-Amiga relation. Not my arguement; here's what oky2000 wrote, and perhaps FastRob can argue with him:

 

and despite the A8 having one of THREE designers in common with the Amiga (ie not the one that did the Blitter or 4 channel DAC sound or even the CPU/Chipset multitasking alone...just the weak sprites and half the copper instructions) this romantic notion that the A8 is a baby Amiga is pure bullcrap, what made the Amiga games better than Genesis/SNES/TG16 sometimes like Lotus Turbo 2 was the 4 channel DACs flexibility and the blitter+68k combination....none of which is comparable on the A8 (nothing like a blitter and an average CPU for the time compared to the TI99/4A) sorry. Even a CPC game like Sorcery would be impossible to make as colourful or at the same resolution on the A8...so....just a supercharged VCS with all the same kind of restrictions (which incidentally is the only machine Jay designed alone apart from the A8 unlike the Amiga) or at best a Lynx from a system bus point of view (but without the Lynx awesome chipset which the other 2/3 Amiga designers were responsible for btw).

[FastRobPlus]

"I know in the user groups many stayed loyal to Atari by buying the ST, which turned out to be an error. "

 

No way and no how would I ever say or consider buying the ST as an "error".

 

25 years later, through various ST models and tons of software, and I've

still not changed my mind.

 

Then re-read what I wrote:

"many stayed loyal to Atari by buying the ST..."

 

The point is, you were in error if you stayed loyal to the A8 by buying an ST, not that buying the ST itself was an error.

 

If you buy the next device from the same company, you are brand loyal.

 

But what do you do if the next device jumps ship from the brand to a different brand? And the brand you like changes hands too?

 

You have a choice: Stay loyal to the logo you like or stay with the technology you like.

 

By your logic, you can't make an error by buying Infogrammes games these days because they all have an Atari logo on them and therefore share more DNA with the Atari games you liked than games written for EA or Activision by the same author as the games you used to love.

 

This is just a preposterous setup so you can "justify" buying an ST an error. Concepts such as "staying loyal to the A8"

 

I did stay loyal to the A8. Like anyone else would have. I bought an ST. There was no way to know that was an error until later. And yes - it was an error. Other than cost, there would have been no reason to buy an ST with the Amiga out. It just goes to show that when you trust a brand you expose yourself to mistakes.

[atarian63]

"I know in the user groups many stayed loyal to Atari by buying the ST, which turned out to be an error. "

 

No way and no how would I ever say or consider buying the ST as an "error".

 

25 years later, through various ST models and tons of software, and I've

still not changed my mind.

 

Then re-read what I wrote:

"many stayed loyal to Atari by buying the ST..."

 

The point is, you were in error if you stayed loyal to the A8 by buying an ST, not that buying the ST itself was an error.

 

If you buy the next device from the same company, you are brand loyal.

 

But what do you do if the next device jumps ship from the brand to a different brand? And the brand you like changes hands too?

 

You have a choice: Stay loyal to the logo you like or stay with the technology you like.

 

By your logic, you can't make an error by buying Infogrammes games these days because they all have an Atari logo on them and therefore share more DNA with the Atari games you liked than games written for EA or Activision by the same author as the games you used to love.

 

This is just a preposterous setup so you can "justify" buying an ST an error. Concepts such as "staying loyal to the A8"

 

I did stay loyal to the A8. Like anyone else would have. I bought an ST. There was no way to know that was an error until later. And yes - it was an error. Other than cost, there would have been no reason to buy an ST with the Amiga out. It just goes to show that when you trust a brand you expose yourself to mistakes.

Actually buying an ST was a great choince and the same choice most people made until the ST was barely available(89) and the A500 came out and was available. Not to mention buying an ST supported the company who made many other atari products Like XE,7800,2600 systems and software.

[+wood_jl]

"I know in the user groups many stayed loyal to Atari by buying the ST, which turned out to be an error. "

 

No way and no how would I ever say or consider buying the ST as an "error".

 

25 years later, through various ST models and tons of software, and I've

still not changed my mind.

 

Then re-read what I wrote:

"many stayed loyal to Atari by buying the ST..."

 

The point is, you were in error if you stayed loyal to the A8 by buying an ST, not that buying the ST itself was an error.

 

If you buy the next device from the same company, you are brand loyal.

 

But what do you do if the next device jumps ship from the brand to a different brand? And the brand you like changes hands too?

 

You have a choice: Stay loyal to the logo you like or stay with the technology you like.

 

By your logic, you can't make an error by buying Infogrammes games these days because they all have an Atari logo on them and therefore share more DNA with the Atari games you liked than games written for EA or Activision by the same author as the games you used to love.

 

This is just a preposterous setup so you can "justify" buying an ST an error. Concepts such as "staying loyal to the A8"

 

I did stay loyal to the A8. Like anyone else would have. I bought an ST. There was no way to know that was an error until later. And yes - it was an error. Other than cost, there would have been no reason to buy an ST with the Amiga out. It just goes to show that when you trust a brand you expose yourself to mistakes.

 

Right, for you it may have been an error. For someone else who got good service out of the ST, it was not an error. There is no point to this line of "reasoning."

[+DarkLord]

I did stay loyal to the A8. Like anyone else would have. I bought an ST. There was no way to know that was an error until later. And yes - it was an error. Other than cost, there would have been no reason to buy an ST with the Amiga out. It just goes to show that when you trust a brand you expose yourself to mistakes.

 

I'm still loyal to my 800XL. I'm still loyal to my ST's, Falcon, STacy, Jaguar, and Lynx.

 

Being loyal to one doesn't need to mean being disloyal to the other, in any sense.

 

If you want to insist that buying an ST was an error for you personally, that's fine. I

won't argue with that. But if you try to insist that buying an ST was an error, period -

well then you and I are gonna disagree all day long.

 

I couldn't afford an Amiga. Let alone an Amiga with a monitor. Get out of town - that

was a rich mans game. I got my ST, with floppy, mouse and color monitor for $799.00, when

the A1000 was going for 1500.00 by itself! Ugh!. I had to work long and hard just to save

up the money for the ST. Worth every darned penny it was too.

 

I'll sum it up for me - the ST did the vast majority of what the Amiga did, for substantially

less cost.

 

Maybe if Commodore had released an A500 type model at the same time the 520ST came out, for

approximately the same price, I *might* have chose a different path (but I doubt it). But

they didn't, and I didn't...and so many others didn't...

 

Good day.