Atari ST vs. Amiga

[Thorsten Günther]

 

Its funny cos back then I knew loads of people with Atari ST's and Amigas and not one of the Amiga owners had more than 512k of ram (in fact they all had standard A500's) and every single ST owner I knew had a double sided drive (in fact I never met an ST owner who did have a single sided drive).

 

Location: Hatfield, England

Seconded.

Shouldn't their experiences be more valid if anything, with the ST and Amiga being most popular in UK&EU by far?

I suppose he will not believe that SS drives were replaced rather quickly on the ST because the vast majority of them were external anyway - even though all the cracked games disks by Automation, FOF, Cynix, d-bug, Medway Boys, etc. required DS drives and several of my commercial games (e.g. "The Immortal", "Silent Service II", "Turrican 2", "Super Space Invaders", "Nitro", "Warlock the Avenger", "Strike Fleet", "Robocop 2" and the entire "Power Pack" 12-disk set) also came on DS disks.

 

Thorsten

[FastRobPlus]

I think our point is, unless you were that boring un-remembered bloke who was in charge of Commodore, why would Amiga owners not admit that despite it's 'superiority' (although I would suggest slightly more advanced technical capability in the sound and graphics front might be nearer the mark) that in some aspects that do not concern game playing, graphics or having a 'built in' genlock, the ST is actually a better machine? Come on, we are mature enough to admit the Amiga has it over us in some respects but sometimes it seems the reverse it true the other way round, and Amiganoids would rather be burnt at the stake than admit their machine wasn't perfect. I cite here the general outrage that appears whenever any ST owner mentions midi, DTP or the fact the ST has a marginally faster CPU, meaning 3D and other mathematical calculations are slightly faster. I mean a sound chip is great for games, but not everyone thinks games are the be all and end all of computers. Thankfully the pop hits of the eighties were free of Amiga chip tunes (as they could have been even worse!). And I apologise to the North American Amiga guys again as I'm again using the Amiga 500 as a comparison. If you want the more flashy models then we'd have to add the TT and Falcon into the mix and that is going to get complex..

 

 

I had a bit of an epiphany when I read this. I’ve bolded some phrases in your original post. Hope that’s okay.

 

What I see here is someone who thinks that the ST and the Amiga are similar in that they are both “closed” architecture systems, like an Atari 800, C64, or European Spectrum. You think that what you see is all you get. Yours is a recurring assumption throughout this forum.

 

This assumption is false. The ST was built as a closed architecture. For example, when the ST was built, they surface mounted everything for cost reduction. They pulled the lines they thought hobbyists would want or need out into the ports on the back and the cartridge slot. They built the purpose minded low-cost machine they set out to build.

 

The Amiga took a very different path. The designers did not build a game system or a home computer or a personal computer. They built an entire technology platform that was even in 1982 planned around the concept of future scalability. The does not mean they never intended to make closed architecture computers based on the platform (A600), but the computer as released in 1985 was already a fully realized platform, not a one time machine. You can think of the Amiga as a computer that was subtracted from, but the platform was never cut down.

 

When you look at early concept sketches, you see that the system was always designed to have a full next generation expansion chassis and bus. This chassis was subtracted from the A1000 to reduce cost, but the entire bus was still implemented and sent to an edge expansion. This meant even the most aggressive imaginable upgrades could be added as easily as a cartridge. Want that new 68020? Slap it on! You don’t even need to void your warranty! Want 8MB RAM? Slap it on! Want a totally new kind of device that has only just been invented? Slap it on!

Want the entire zorro expansion chassis because you want an IDE flashdrive AND an Ethernet card? Well… that’s a lot of cards… maybe you should slap on an entire zorro bus expansion chassis? Why not, there were half a dozen!

 

Amiga Lorraine concept with a 32-bit expansion bus stacked (‘82-‘84)

Amiga 1000 with a 32-bit expansion bus stacked (‘85)

 

Let’s be realistic. The ST was good in the way the C64 was good. It was cheap and powerful and in the case of the ST, it closed the pages on the home computer. The Amiga was good because it bridged the gap between home computers and modern computers.

Edited December 9, 2009 by FastRobPlus

[+DarkLord]

 

<snipped>

 

Let’s be realistic. The ST was good in the way the C64 was good. It was cheap and powerful and in the case of the ST, it closed the pages on the home computer. The Amiga was good because it bridged the gap between home computers and modern computers.

 

You present a good case there. I have a question though. Wasn't Lorraine, in its original

design and concept, which became the Amiga, intended as a game machine?

 

Thanks.

Edited December 9, 2009 by DarkLord

[FastRobPlus]

 

<snipped>

 

Let’s be realistic. The ST was good in the way the C64 was good. It was cheap and powerful and in the case of the ST, it closed the pages on the home computer. The Amiga was good because it bridged the gap between home computers and modern computers.

 

You present a good case there. I have a question though. Wasn't Lorraine, in its original

design and concept, which became the Amiga, intended as a game machine?

 

Thanks.

 

Hi-Toro/Amiga was funded on the promise of a next-gen gaming system, which was all the rage back in ‘82.

You can see the Jay Miner/Atari DNA at work here. Jay seemed to think that the path to success was to create an entire platform and use it to underpin several product lines. The Atari 800/Atari 5200 is a good example, but recall that the 5200 was a bit of a letdown owing to its late release.

 

The Amiga technology was conceived in the same way as the A8 technology: build it out and then scale it into the devices you want. This must have been very alluring to a company like Commodore who was schizophrenic regarding where they wanted to go with computers. On the one hand, they built business machines and wanted to be IBM/HP/DEC while on the other hand they were becoming known widely for the Commodore 64. The Amiga must have been like a dream come true – a premade architecture they could scale up or down.

 

A lot of people were upset at the Amiga 1000. Half seemed to think it was too home computer like to be treated seriously and half seemed to think it was too pricey and over engineered to be a home computer. You could tell Commodore really wanted to have it both ways, hence the 500 and 2000 being released on such an aggressive timetable.

 

With the ST, Atari knew excatly what they wanted to make and market. That focus helped them become arguably the last really sucessful home and hobbyist computer.

Edited December 9, 2009 by FastRobPlus

[+wood_jl]

 

 

Perfectly, and succinctly stated. If Amiga users think the ST is absolute crap, I'd like to hear their opinions of the Mac from that era - and please consider price when forming the opinion.

 

Could not keep up with your 5-10 consecutive posts, but I don't agree Amiga users think the ST is "absolute crap"

My point was that unless your name is Jack Tramiel, why would you pretend that they were equals?

 

Sorry about the consecutive posts, if you're trying to register a complaint about it. I was late getting into the thread, and had I known it would be confusing for you, I certainly would have stopped. I shall certainly endeavor to limit my consecutive posts in the future, to spare you such distress. My apologies.

 

They're not absolute equals - they are competitors. Each one had different advantages and disadvantages. Price was a huge advantage for ST in the beginning. You've already stated the Amiga advantages in this thread. Why do they have to be equals? Why cant they be comparable without being equals? They were both competing 16-bit home computers of the era, with different plusses and minuses. Why, then, do you act like the Amiga was not even comparable? Every prospective customer who looked at them and chose one (or the other) compared them. Some of the people who bought STs likely bought them in lieu of the Amiga, and it met many of their needs. Who cares if they're equals or not?

Edited December 9, 2009 by wood_jl

[atarian63]

 

and for the record, this is not the only place that people prefer Atari ST's over Amiga's...

 

Right! There's Little Green Desktop as well.

 

How SHOCKING, ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING that on an Atari website, in a SPECIFIC Atari ST forum on that website.....there are going to be people that prefer the ST and disagree with you. Oh My God - what to do?

 

In other news, on Ford websites they prefer Fords. On BMW websites they prefer BMWs. It's rumored that on Dyson vacuum cleaner sites they prefer those too. Details at 11.

Details at 11!! Funny!! I love it!

[atarian63]

 

The ST was a colour Mac at 1/3 the cost, and for that it deserves respect.

 

Perfectly, and succinctly stated. If Amiga users think the ST is absolute crap, I'd like to hear their opinions of the Mac from that era - and please consider price when forming the opinion.

 

I wrote a full featured GEM based video rental store application with FAST BASIC on the ST, the owner was very happy, certainly happy than had he been forced to use a text based unfriendly DOS PC system like everyone else As for Apple they must have been making $2000 in profit on the hardware!

We ran our store for over 5 years on a dbman program called SalesPro. Even continued it with a PC version later.

[atarian63]

I think our point is, unless you were that boring un-remembered bloke who was in charge of Commodore, why would Amiga owners not admit that despite it's 'superiority' (although I would suggest slightly more advanced technical capability in the sound and graphics front might be nearer the mark) that in some aspects that do not concern game playing, graphics or having a 'built in' genlock, the ST is actually a better machine? Come on, we are mature enough to admit the Amiga has it over us in some respects but sometimes it seems the reverse it true the other way round, and Amiganoids would rather be burnt at the stake than admit their machine wasn't perfect. I cite here the general outrage that appears whenever any ST owner mentions midi, DTP or the fact the ST has a marginally faster CPU, meaning 3D and other mathematical calculations are slightly faster. I mean a sound chip is great for games, but not everyone thinks games are the be all and end all of computers. Thankfully the pop hits of the eighties were free of Amiga chip tunes (as they could have been even worse!). And I apologise to the North American Amiga guys again as I'm again using the Amiga 500 as a comparison. If you want the more flashy models then we'd have to add the TT and Falcon into the mix and that is going to get complex..

 

 

I had a bit of an epiphany when I read this. I’ve bolded some phrases in your original post. Hope that’s okay.

 

What I see here is someone who thinks that the ST and the Amiga are similar in that they are both “closed” architecture systems, like an Atari 800, C64, or European Spectrum. You think that what you see is all you get. Yours is a recurring assumption throughout this forum.

 

This assumption is false. The ST was built as a closed architecture. For example, when the ST was built, they surface mounted everything for cost reduction. They pulled the lines they thought hobbyists would want or need out into the ports on the back and the cartridge slot. They built the purpose minded low-cost machine they set out to build.

 

The Amiga took a very different path. The designers did not build a game system or a home computer or a personal computer. They built an entire technology platform that was even in 1982 planned around the concept of future scalability. The does not mean they never intended to make closed architecture computers based on the platform (A600), but the computer as released in 1985 was already a fully realized platform, not a one time machine. You can think of the Amiga as a computer that was subtracted from, but the platform was never cut down.

 

When you look at early concept sketches, you see that the system was always designed to have a full next generation expansion chassis and bus. This chassis was subtracted from the A1000 to reduce cost, but the entire bus was still implemented and sent to an edge expansion. This meant even the most aggressive imaginable upgrades could be added as easily as a cartridge. Want that new 68020? Slap it on! You don’t even need to void your warranty! Want 8MB RAM? Slap it on! Want a totally new kind of device that has only just been invented? Slap it on!

Want the entire zorro expansion chassis because you want an IDE flashdrive AND an Ethernet card? Well… that’s a lot of cards… maybe you should slap on an entire zorro bus expansion chassis? Why not, there were half a dozen!

 

Amiga Lorraine concept with a 32-bit expansion bus stacked (‘82-‘84)

Amiga 1000 with a 32-bit expansion bus stacked (‘85)

 

Let’s be realistic. The ST was good in the way the C64 was good. It was cheap and powerful and in the case of the ST, it closed the pages on the home computer. The Amiga was good because it bridged the gap between home computers and modern computers.

I like the Atari Warner era pic. Very cool.

As for Amiga being a bridge to modern computers... Not really. Maybe to so extreme hobbyist who stuck with it long after is was essentially dead,but the general public had long moved on. Sad to say as pc's were really not an improvment at least at time.

[Zogging Hell]

 

I had a bit of an epiphany when I read this. I’ve bolded some phrases in your original post. Hope that’s okay.

 

What I see here is someone who thinks that the ST and the Amiga are similar in that they are both “closed” architecture systems, like an Atari 800, C64, or European Spectrum. You think that what you see is all you get. Yours is a recurring assumption throughout this forum.

 

This assumption is false. The ST was built as a closed architecture. For example, when the ST was built, they surface mounted everything for cost reduction. They pulled the lines they thought hobbyists would want or need out into the ports on the back and the cartridge slot. They built the purpose minded low-cost machine they set out to build.

 

The Amiga took a very different path. The designers did not build a game system or a home computer or a personal computer. They built an entire technology platform that was even in 1982 planned around the concept of future scalability. The does not mean they never intended to make closed architecture computers based on the platform (A600), but the computer as released in 1985 was already a fully realized platform, not a one time machine. You can think of the Amiga as a computer that was subtracted from, but the platform was never cut down.

 

When you look at early concept sketches, you see that the system was always designed to have a full next generation expansion chassis and bus. This chassis was subtracted from the A1000 to reduce cost, but the entire bus was still implemented and sent to an edge expansion. This meant even the most aggressive imaginable upgrades could be added as easily as a cartridge. Want that new 68020? Slap it on! You don’t even need to void your warranty! Want 8MB RAM? Slap it on! Want a totally new kind of device that has only just been invented? Slap it on!

Want the entire zorro expansion chassis because you want an IDE flashdrive AND an Ethernet card? Well… that’s a lot of cards… maybe you should slap on an entire zorro bus expansion chassis? Why not, there were half a dozen!

 

Let’s be realistic. The ST was good in the way the C64 was good. It was cheap and powerful and in the case of the ST, it closed the pages on the home computer. The Amiga was good because it bridged the gap between home computers and modern computers.

 

Well yes, the Amiga's expansion capabilities are very credible, much better than the soldering solutions the average ST user had to put up with to get extra memory or a faster processor. There are however a few problems with this argument. For starters how many users actually bothered with the expandability. I imagine those left using the Amiga are enthusiasts and did expand the computer to it's limits. But I imagine 10 fold more didn't bother so the fact it was expandable made no difference between it an the ST, which enthusiasts expanded as much as possible. Moreover I suspect a lot of the more loyal Amiga users abandoned the 500 as soon as a more powerful base model came out (i.e. 1200). To the end user a computer is just as it comes. Regardless of its potential.

The argument over the planning of the Amiga to be a whole range of products is interesting, but despite the fact Atari allegedly designed the ST just to be a box of bits, it didn't stop it evolving into a myriad of different products the Falcon, TT and Stacy included. I would argue the ST developed into as many different products as the Amiga, and would have even more, if the talk of Stylus's and ST consoles had come to pass. Atari may not have planned future scalability but it did not stop the line continuing in the slightest. The Falcon and TT (which I think it is time to talk about) address much of the expandability problems of the original ST. One of the reasons we have a 68060 processor on the Falcon is thanks to a plug in adaptor, which fair enough isn't on the side of the computer, but is easy enough for even a technical numpty like me to add bits onto.

[Zogging Hell]

Let’s be realistic. The ST was good in the way the C64 was good. It was cheap and powerful and in the case of the ST, it closed the pages on the home computer. The Amiga was good because it bridged the gap between home computers and modern computers.

 

Yes but does this actually mean the Commodore was a worse or inferior computer to the Atari offering. I would argue not, much as I like the 800 (again I have three), but the Commodore 64 worked bloody well out of the box and in a lot of cases looked better graphically than the 800.. I would say it was an equal computer in terms of the capabilities an average user would see to the 800/XL etc and it cost a whole a whole lot less as well. In some parts it is a better machine. (I should point out I don't want to be quoted on that!)

[FastRobPlus]

 

 

Well yes, the Amiga's expansion capabilities are very credible, much better than the soldering solutions the average ST user had to put up with to get extra memory or a faster processor. There are however a few problems with this argument. For starters how many users actually bothered with the expandability. I imagine those left using the Amiga are enthusiasts and did expand the computer to it's limits.

 

Amiga World did a survey once year to determine this. Amazing, Transactor, .info, Sentry, and VTU were other magazines that did this, but I don’t know the frequency or if they published the results to readers.

 

RAM and disk expansions were beyond 90% (in line with what FTL said about Dungeon master) and that was by 1987/88!

Speaking of the low-end A500 – you may never find one on ebay without some third party RAM expansion in the belly slot.

 

Other things like modems and slap on the side accelerators were high, but not above 70% if I remember correctly. Now this was Amiga World's readership, so the real numbers were likely lower, but remember that RAM, extra drives, and processor expansions became dirt cheap very quickly. The Supra Turbo 28 selling for $200 or less and then dropping fast as I recall. Hard disk drives stayed expensive and were a coffin nail as developers felt an increasing need to install all software to the HDD. I know Sierra, Westwood and New World Computing all mentioned this as a factor in the decision not to release some games. New world said that Might and Magic III broke even but was outsold 10:1 on the PC version due to the Amiga’s small HDD install base.

 

It's unlikely that the US installed base of hard drives exceeded 50% amortized over the usable life of the platform.

Edited December 10, 2009 by FastRobPlus

[+wood_jl]

In what respect is the Amiga a modern computer [above]?

 

My A2500 with its graphics card, 060 accelerator, mass storage, USB, USB sound, etc., etc. can do most everything I need a computer to do. That's what I meant. Because Amiga and its OS3.9 is so efficient, some websites and tasks are even faster on my 128mb/50hz 060 A2500 than they are on my 2.1ghz iMac G5! As web standards continue to change (not always for the better), yes - our legacy browsers such as iBrowse, AWeb, Voyager, etc., are not able to keep up. But I digress. Those types of fancy sites, personally - I'm not missing much.

 

And then there's MorphOS, Aros, AmigaOS 4.x platforms... totally modern and one could with little difficulty NOT need a Mac or PC to do modern things (besides play the latest game).

 

Computing for me has come down to relatively light web surfing, news reading, e-mail, home made photo/movie importing & editing and maybe the occasional mapquest or photo print out.

 

Your setup sounds cool. I was jealous of Amiga users back in the late 80s as it seemed each year it offered something new - whether a new high end or a cheaper low end. The ST got stupid stuff like "a new case" which did zero to advance the platform. I'll always be sorry I didn't check out the Amiga closer because I'm sure I would have liked it - or MANY things about it. As someone else stated - by the time STe came out it was too-little too-late for a lot of people, including me. I never knew ANYBODY who even had a Mega ST. I have never seen an STe, If the PC hadn't exploded in popularity and plummeted in price, I likely would have taken a hard look at Amiga offerings. The higher end machines seemed "to die for" back in the day.

[FastRobPlus]

Let’s be realistic. The ST was good in the way the C64 was good. It was cheap and powerful and in the case of the ST, it closed the pages on the home computer. The Amiga was good because it bridged the gap between home computers and modern computers.

 

Yes but does this actually mean the Commodore was a worse or inferior computer to the Atari offering. I would argue not,

 

One thing I’m trying to point out (and I'm hearing agreement here from everyone) is that it was a bit of an Apples to Oranges comparison. I was done with the console systems (keyboard, CPU, cartridge slot all in one housing) when I went out and got the Amiga. I really loved authoring systems and the potential there (bought Director, CanDo, Amiga Vision, Scala, etc) and made tons of stuff. Used DPaint II and III to break into the games industry. Even have a demo in Macromedia Director made using the Amiga and this demo can still be found today on the original Microsoft Windows 95 CD! These are things I would not have felt empowered to do on the ST.

 

I’ve got nothing against the ST, I sold a bunch in 86-88 with Software Center. Owned one starting in ’85, and have since owned a dozen or two out of nostalgia. Check out another thread here where I have an entire sofa loaded to spilling over with all of the local Seattle ST user group's hardware I bought off Craigslist!

 

I just don’t see them as equals in the same way I see the C64 and A8 as equals. I will concede based on the other comments in this thread that in some regions, they were direct competitors. For example, if you look on eBay in Europe, you are likely to see a “Cartoon Madness!” or “Superheroes” bundle consisting of an STe and some movie/TV tie-in games, and you can scroll down and see a “Hollywood Stars!” or “Cartoon Heroes!” bundle featuring an Amiga 500+ (whatever that is…) and some movie tie in games, all in a colorful cartoony box.

 

We had no such rivalry in N. America. For starters, Amiga and ST had different distribution channels. Only independents ordering through Ingram/MicroD sold both in the same shop. They were marketed differently, and generally used differently. As has been mentioned earlier, they did cross paths in the realm of music and DTP, two areas where the ST had a natural affinity, but where the Amiga and Mac were aggressively marketed in as well.

Edited December 10, 2009 by FastRobPlus

[atarian63]

Lets be realistic. The ST was good in the way the C64 was good. It was cheap and powerful and in the case of the ST, it closed the pages on the home computer. The Amiga was good because it bridged the gap between home computers and modern computers.

 

Yes but does this actually mean the Commodore was a worse or inferior computer to the Atari offering. I would argue not,

 

One thing Im trying to point out (and I'm hearing agreement here from everyone) is that it was a bit of an Apples to Oranges comparison. I was done with the console systems (keyboard, CPU, cartridge slot all in one housing) when I went out and got the Amiga. I really loved authoring systems and the potential there (bought Director, CanDo, Amiga Vision, Scala, etc) and made tons of stuff. Used DPaint II and III to break into the games industry. Even have a demo in Macromedia Director made using the Amiga and this demo can still be found today on the original Microsoft Windows 95 CD! These are things I would not have felt empowered to do on the ST.

 

Ive got nothing against the ST, I sold a bunch in 86-88 with Software Center. Owned one starting in 85, and have since owned a dozen or two out of nostalgia. Check out another thread here where I have an entire sofa loaded to spilling over with all of the local Seattle ST user group's hardware I bought off Craigslist!

 

I just dont see them as equals in the same way I see the C64 and A8 as equals. I will concede based on the other comments in this thread that in some regions, they were direct competitors. For example, if you look on eBay in Europe, you are likely to see a Cartoon Madness! or Superheroes bundle consisting of an STe and some movie/TV tie-in games, and you can scroll down and see a Hollywood Stars! or Cartoon Heroes! bundle featuring an Amiga 500+ (whatever that is…) and some movie tie in games, all in a colorful cartoony box.

 

We had no such rivalry in N. America. For starters, Amiga and ST had different distribution channels. Only independents ordering through Ingram/MicroD sold both in the same shop. They were marketed differently, and generally used differently. As has been mentioned earlier, they did cross paths in the realm of music and DTP, two areas where the ST had a natural affinity, but where the Amiga and Mac were aggressively marketed in as well.

There were several other distributors to buy ST pc's as well. Ingram had a sucky price and harder to deal with. We sold both as well as PC's. The killer for ST the was supply,mostly going to europe at about 88/89. You could still get Amiga's like A500 so that was what we sold, though we did manage to scrouge some ST machines. Amiga people were irritated with the STE,no doubt feeling threatened,dont know why. It was much better but not and amiga and software only occasionally supported it. We did sell quite a few Mega ST's, very few Mega STE. Next to the A500 the A2000 was our 2nd most volume amiga unit. What a honking pc like box! It was the bomb for add in cards though. Neither Amiga ever achieved our total St sales.Most of which were the 520 (all types) and 1040st.

Edited December 10, 2009 by atarian63

[FastRobPlus]

In what respect is the Amiga a modern computer [above]?

 

My A2500 with its graphics card, 060 accelerator, mass storage, USB, USB sound, etc., etc. can do most everything I need a computer to do. That's what I meant. Because Amiga and its OS3.9 is so efficient, some websites and tasks are even faster on my 128mb/50hz 060 A2500 than they are on my 2.1ghz iMac G5! As web standards continue to change (not always for the better), yes - our legacy browsers such as iBrowse, AWeb, Voyager, etc., are not able to keep up. But I digress. Those types of fancy sites, personally - I'm not missing much.

 

And then there's MorphOS, Aros, AmigaOS 4.x platforms... totally modern and one could with little difficulty NOT need a Mac or PC to do modern things (besides play the latest game).

 

Computing for me has come down to relatively light web surfing, news reading, e-mail, home made photo/movie importing & editing and maybe the occasional mapquest or photo print out.

 

Your setup sounds cool. I was jealous of Amiga users back in the late 80s as it seemed each year it offered something new - whether a new high end or a cheaper low end. The ST got stupid stuff like "a new case" which did zero to advance the platform. I'll always be sorry I didn't check out the Amiga closer because I'm sure I would have liked it - or MANY things about it. As someone else stated - by the time STe came out it was too-little too-late for a lot of people, including me. I never knew ANYBODY who even had a Mega ST. I have never seen an STe, If the PC hadn't exploded in popularity and plummeted in price, I likely would have taken a hard look at Amiga offerings. The higher end machines seemed "to die for" back in the day.

 

One thing that's cool about these old machines is you can get stuff cheap just to see "what might have been"

I built an A2000 out (I even gave it a name: Sandbox) to see just how much stuff I could heap onto a 1987 A2K.

 

I added a toaster, a tekmagic 060 with 64MB and SCSI II, a Picasso graphics card, an Ethernet card, an Emplant Mac II emulator with the i586 compat module, a Personal Animation Recorder, a time base corrector, a golden gate 486 bridgeboard with the SLC 50Mhz upgrade and math chip, a combo VGA/soundbalster 16-bit ISA card for the GG with HD drive support, fast math, and 4MB RAM onboard, and a Diamond Trackstar Apple IIe on a card, interfaced to the golden gate IBM emulation which was in turn diven by the Amiga.

I also added an apple 5.25" external drive for the trackstar, an external SCSI R/W CD-R drive, a SCSI hard drive for the MAC, an SCSI hard drive for the Amiga, a compact flash drive mounted on a CF->IDE adapter to act as a hard drive for the IBM golden gate, one 512MB compact flash card seated into a CF->IDE adapter which in turn was seated into an IDE->SCSI bridge to act as the OS' ultra fast boot drive, 2 HD Amiga disk drives supporting the golden gate in IBM mode and the Amiga 880 and 1.7MB modes, a flicker free video II daisy chained to the Picasso for ECS modes, a DKB Meg-a-Chip 2MB chip/video RAM expansion, and a kickstart switcher with 1.3, 2.04, and 3.1 for no real reason. It was all powered by a bigfoot internal PSU. Everything except the CD and apple drive fit under the hood and worked.

Edited December 10, 2009 by FastRobPlus

[atarian63]

In what respect is the Amiga a modern computer [above]?

 

My A2500 with its graphics card, 060 accelerator, mass storage, USB, USB sound, etc., etc. can do most everything I need a computer to do. That's what I meant. Because Amiga and its OS3.9 is so efficient, some websites and tasks are even faster on my 128mb/50hz 060 A2500 than they are on my 2.1ghz iMac G5! As web standards continue to change (not always for the better), yes - our legacy browsers such as iBrowse, AWeb, Voyager, etc., are not able to keep up. But I digress. Those types of fancy sites, personally - I'm not missing much.

 

And then there's MorphOS, Aros, AmigaOS 4.x platforms... totally modern and one could with little difficulty NOT need a Mac or PC to do modern things (besides play the latest game).

 

Computing for me has come down to relatively light web surfing, news reading, e-mail, home made photo/movie importing & editing and maybe the occasional mapquest or photo print out.

 

Your setup sounds cool. I was jealous of Amiga users back in the late 80s as it seemed each year it offered something new - whether a new high end or a cheaper low end. The ST got stupid stuff like "a new case" which did zero to advance the platform. I'll always be sorry I didn't check out the Amiga closer because I'm sure I would have liked it - or MANY things about it. As someone else stated - by the time STe came out it was too-little too-late for a lot of people, including me. I never knew ANYBODY who even had a Mega ST. I have never seen an STe, If the PC hadn't exploded in popularity and plummeted in price, I likely would have taken a hard look at Amiga offerings. The higher end machines seemed "to die for" back in the day.

 

One thing that's cool about these old machines is you can get stuff cheap just to see "what might have been"

I built an A2000 out (I even gave it a name: Sandbox) to see just how much stuff I could heap onto a 1987 A2K.

 

I added a toaster, a tekmagic 060 with 64MB and SCSI II, a Picasso graphics card, an Ethernet card, an Emplant Mac II emulator with the i586 compat module, a Personal Animation Recorder, a time base corrector, a golden gate 486 bridgeboard with the SLC 50Mhz upgrade and math chip, a combo VGA/soundbalster 16-bit ISA card for the GG with HD drive support, fast math, and 4MB RAM onboard, and a Diamond Trackstar Apple IIe on a card, interfaced to the golden gate IBM emulation which was in turn diven by the Amiga.

I also added an apple 5.25" external drive for the trackstar, an external SCSI R/W CD-R drive, a SCSI hard drive for the MAC, an SCSI hard drive for the Amiga, a compact flash drive mounted on a CF->IDE adapter to act as a hard drive for the IBM golden gate, one 512MB compact flash card seated into a CF->IDE adapter which in turn was seated into an IDE->SCSI bridge to act as the OS' ultra fast boot drive, 2 HD Amiga disk drives supporting the golden gate in IBM mode and the Amiga 880 and 1.7MB modes, a flicker free video II daisy chained to the Picasso for ECS modes, a DKB Meg-a-Chip 2MB chip/video RAM expansion, and a kickstart switcher with 1.3, 2.04, and 3.1 for no real reason. It was all powered by a bigfoot internal PSU. Everything except the CD and apple drive fit under the hood and worked.

Can you say all that again real fast? That's a heck of alot of stuff! A2000 is the monster.

[kool kitty89]

( The PC-Engine was pretty fast for a 6502 machine - I wonder if it could manage as many software sprites as the ST )

What would be the benefits of having software sprites on the PC-Engine?

 

It was only fast due to the custom graphics hardware (16bit) so there would be very little point in using what precious 6502 time you have for running game logic to be wasted on insignificant software sprites.

 

Hmm, I'd gotten the impression (from several people and discussions on AA and Sega-16, most recently the A8 vs ST thread) that in several ways the 6502 is significantly faster than a similarly clocked 68000. (regardless the PC engine's cpu was still 2x than the SNES's at least -probably more due to wait states on SNES, of course the PCE has 1/8 the work RAM, but this is off topic)

 

What I see here is someone who thinks that the ST and the Amiga are similar in that they are both “closed” architecture systems, like an Atari 800, C64, or European Spectrum. You think that what you see is all you get. Yours is a recurring assumption throughout this forum.

 

This assumption is false. The ST was built as a closed architecture. For example, when the ST was built, they surface mounted everything for cost reduction. They pulled the lines they thought hobbyists would want or need out into the ports on the back and the cartridge slot. They built the purpose minded low-cost machine they set out to build.

 

The Amiga took a very different path. The designers did not build a game system or a home computer or a personal computer. They built an entire technology platform that was even in 1982 planned around the concept of future scalability. The does not mean they never intended to make closed architecture computers based on the platform (A600), but the computer as released in 1985 was already a fully realized platform, not a one time machine. You can think of the Amiga as a computer that was subtracted from, but the platform was never cut down.

 

When you look at early concept sketches, you see that the system was always designed to have a full next generation expansion chassis and bus. This chassis was subtracted from the A1000 to reduce cost, but the entire bus was still implemented and sent to an edge expansion. This meant even the most aggressive imaginable upgrades could be added as easily as a cartridge. Want that new 68020? Slap it on! You don’t even need to void your warranty! Want 8MB RAM? Slap it on! Want a totally new kind of device that has only just been invented? Slap it on!

Want the entire zorro expansion chassis because you want an IDE flashdrive AND an Ethernet card? Well… that’s a lot of cards… maybe you should slap on an entire zorro bus expansion chassis? Why not, there were half a dozen!

 

You're talking mostly in terms of the console ST vs box Amiga though. The console Amigas weren't quite so flexible, and likewise the box STs (MEGA, TT, etc) were more easily expandable. Now, part of that comparison is obviously driven by the fact that the first ST model released was in console form factor and Amiga in a box, but that's not a good overall comparison. (particularly going by the popular models to the general public) Plus the A1000 needed that expandability out of the box with its limited 256 kB.

 

Also, I thought a large portion of the ST's chips were socketed, not soldered in. (let alone surface mounted, which wouldn't have even been available for a large portion of the chips -using DIPs and thus through-hole cnnections)

 

Hi-Toro/Amiga was funded on the promise of a next-gen gaming system, which was all the rage back in ‘82.

You can see the Jay Miner/Atari DNA at work here. Jay seemed to think that the path to success was to create an entire platform and use it to underpin several product lines. The Atari 800/Atari 5200 is a good example, but recall that the 5200 was a bit of a letdown owing to its late release.

 

Being late was far from the 5200's biggest problems (that would be more apt for the XEGS), the 5200 was a convoluted mess of an 8-bit derivative. The A400 was too expensive to be a main stream game console as well, at least before '81 and without a more consolidated board and form factor. (lack of lockout/security was a problem as well given the rampant, unregulated influx of games with the VCS, so a directly compatible adaptation could have been bad as well)

This is also off topic of course.

[FastRobPlus]

 

What I see here is someone who thinks that the ST and the Amiga are similar in that they are both “closed” architecture systems, like an Atari 800, C64, or European Spectrum. You think that what you see is all you get. Yours is a recurring assumption throughout this forum.

 

This assumption is false. The ST was built as a closed architecture. For example, when the ST was built, they surface mounted everything for cost reduction. They pulled the lines they thought hobbyists would want or need out into the ports on the back and the cartridge slot. They built the purpose minded low-cost machine they set out to build.

 

The Amiga took a very different path. The designers did not build a game system or a home computer or a personal computer. They built an entire technology platform that was even in 1982 planned around the concept of future scalability. The does not mean they never intended to make closed architecture computers based on the platform (A600), but the computer as released in 1985 was already a fully realized platform, not a one time machine. You can think of the Amiga as a computer that was subtracted from, but the platform was never cut down.

 

When you look at early concept sketches, you see that the system was always designed to have a full next generation expansion chassis and bus. This chassis was subtracted from the A1000 to reduce cost, but the entire bus was still implemented and sent to an edge expansion. This meant even the most aggressive imaginable upgrades could be added as easily as a cartridge. Want that new 68020? Slap it on! You don’t even need to void your warranty! Want 8MB RAM? Slap it on! Want a totally new kind of device that has only just been invented? Slap it on!

Want the entire zorro expansion chassis because you want an IDE flashdrive AND an Ethernet card? Well… that’s a lot of cards… maybe you should slap on an entire zorro bus expansion chassis? Why not, there were half a dozen!

 

You're talking mostly in terms of the console ST vs box Amiga though. The console Amigas weren't quite so flexible, and likewise the box STs (MEGA, TT, etc) were more easily expandable. Now, part of that comparison is obviously driven by the fact that the first ST model released was in console form factor and Amiga in a box, but that's not a good overall comparison. (particularly going by the popular models to the general public) Plus the A1000 needed that expandability out of the box with its limited 256 kB.

 

 

The Amiga 1000 had 512KB at launch, but 256KB was on the WCS and used for kickstart. Good catch about the A1000 having 256KB free RAM at launch. The 256KB expansion cost $100 and was basically always sold with the unit making it a 768KB system with 512KB free. They were later just included free. (And if you added a cheap-o kwickstart or multistart you could gain the 256K as usable RAM.

I would point out that the early 520ST also had only 256KB. The rest was used for TOS. They were later given TOS in ROM, but I'm not sure what happened to the early adopters. Possibly they were kicked to the curb in Jack Tramiel fashion.

 

I had one of these 520ST units as I think does TJLazer.

 

The A500 was not quite as flexible? Not so! SOTS (slap on the side) expansions were rife when the A500 was released. Even all Amiga 1000 expansions fit (albeit with the front of the unit facing away in a non aesthetic way) But because the architecture was widely understood, there were A500 expansions for every possible want and need at launch.

Even full on expansion chassis if you wanted to make an A500 into an A2000. Bodega Bay for example was actually quite cheap and aside from the video slot, gave you a full Amiga 2000. It even looked quite good. It might have been overall cheaper than the A2000 too! But you didn't really have to do this. The most typical upgrades (RAM and floppy) were as easy as upgrading a PS2 or 360's HDD is today. Special upgrades (digi-view, processor accelerators, mega RAM expansions, multifunction devices) sometimes wanted to install internally to keep the small footprint. Opening the box and expanding was so trivial. Everything was socketed (ROM, custom chips, CPU) so adding a video upgrade, a 68020 or 030, totally new revisions of the OS, etc. were as easy as pulling a chip and plunking the new one in. But like I said, you didn't need to do that! GVP for example made a 68030, 68882, MMU, SCSI, HDD, 286 card, RAM all in one upgrade that just slapped onto any old A500 in under 5 seconds. On the cheap side, Supra made a 28Mhz quad-speed 68000 with a small L1 cache that made the system instantly 4x as fast and just clicked onto the side. No drama, just snap it on!

Edited December 10, 2009 by FastRobPlus

[FastRobPlus]

BTW if you look at a large number of the external expansions out there for the A500 you will find that they are simply just an Amiga 2000 expansion card in a removable male->female adapter to allow them to slot into the A500's side expansion. The whole thing is then just housed in a plastic shell to match the contour of the 500's case. The advantage here is if you ever got an A2000 (or an A3000, an A2500, an A4000, a Bodega Bay, etc, etc) you could pop the card out of the adapter and use it on that system's Zorro II backplane.

Edited December 10, 2009 by FastRobPlus

[atarian63]

 

What I see here is someone who thinks that the ST and the Amiga are similar in that they are both “closed” architecture systems, like an Atari 800, C64, or European Spectrum. You think that what you see is all you get. Yours is a recurring assumption throughout this forum.

 

This assumption is false. The ST was built as a closed architecture. For example, when the ST was built, they surface mounted everything for cost reduction. They pulled the lines they thought hobbyists would want or need out into the ports on the back and the cartridge slot. They built the purpose minded low-cost machine they set out to build.

 

The Amiga took a very different path. The designers did not build a game system or a home computer or a personal computer. They built an entire technology platform that was even in 1982 planned around the concept of future scalability. The does not mean they never intended to make closed architecture computers based on the platform (A600), but the computer as released in 1985 was already a fully realized platform, not a one time machine. You can think of the Amiga as a computer that was subtracted from, but the platform was never cut down.

 

When you look at early concept sketches, you see that the system was always designed to have a full next generation expansion chassis and bus. This chassis was subtracted from the A1000 to reduce cost, but the entire bus was still implemented and sent to an edge expansion. This meant even the most aggressive imaginable upgrades could be added as easily as a cartridge. Want that new 68020? Slap it on! You don’t even need to void your warranty! Want 8MB RAM? Slap it on! Want a totally new kind of device that has only just been invented? Slap it on!

Want the entire zorro expansion chassis because you want an IDE flashdrive AND an Ethernet card? Well… that’s a lot of cards… maybe you should slap on an entire zorro bus expansion chassis? Why not, there were half a dozen!

 

You're talking mostly in terms of the console ST vs box Amiga though. The console Amigas weren't quite so flexible, and likewise the box STs (MEGA, TT, etc) were more easily expandable. Now, part of that comparison is obviously driven by the fact that the first ST model released was in console form factor and Amiga in a box, but that's not a good overall comparison. (particularly going by the popular models to the general public) Plus the A1000 needed that expandability out of the box with its limited 256 kB.

 

 

The Amiga 1000 had 512KB at launch, but 256KB was on the WCS and used for kickstart. Good catch about the A1000 having 256KB free RAM at launch. The 256KB expansion cost $100 and was basically always sold with the unit making it a 768KB system with 512KB free. They were later just included free. (And if you added a cheap-o kwickstart or multistart you could gain the 256K as usable RAM.

I would point out that the early 520ST also had only 256KB. The rest was used for TOS. They were later given TOS in ROM, but I'm not sure what happened to the early adopters. Possibly they were kicked to the curb in Jack Tramiel fashion.

 

I had one of these 520ST units as I think does TJLazer.

 

The A500 was not quite as flexible? Not so! SOTS (slap on the side) expansions were rife when the A500 was released. Even all Amiga 1000 expansions fit (albeit with the front of the unit facing away in a non aesthetic way) But because the architecture was widely understood, there were A500 expansions for every possible want and need at launch.

Even full on expansion chassis if you wanted to make an A500 into an A2000. Bodega Bay for example was actually quite cheap and aside from the video slot, gave you a full Amiga 2000. It even looked quite good. It might have been overall cheaper than the A2000 too! But you didn't really have to do this. The most typical upgrades (RAM and floppy) were as easy as upgrading a PS2 or 360's HDD is today. Special upgrades (digi-view, processor accelerators, mega RAM expansions, multifunction devices) sometimes wanted to install internally to keep the small footprint. Opening the box and expanding was so trivial. Everything was socketed (ROM, custom chips, CPU) so adding a video upgrade, a 68020 or 030, totally new revisions of the OS, etc. were as easy as pulling a chip and plunking the new one in. But like I said, you didn't need to do that! GVP for example made a 68030, 68882, MMU, SCSI, HDD, 286 card, RAM all in one upgrade that just slapped onto any old A500 in under 5 seconds. On the cheap side, Supra made a 28Mhz quad-speed 68000 with a small L1 cache that made the system instantly 4x as fast and just clicked onto the side. No drama, just snap it on!

No, there was a planned 256k ST, never shipped. All 520ST models has 512k, though for a 2-6week period at launch there was TOS on disk, they quickly shipped out TOS on ROM and we did free installs.

Amiga a release only had 256k available after kickstart and before workbench. it was 2-3 months before the ram upgrade in the front was made available.

A500 expansions were not rewadily available at launch, it took a year or two before they were common. The only common thing was the underside 512k ram upgrade. Supra had some devides for the bus a few months or so after release and they were early. Commodore was also supposed to have some things at launch,but they were no to be see for awhile.

Many of the things you mention were mid to late in the life cycle of the A500. At launch it was really just comparable to a 520STM. We sold a package with the A500,monitor and ram expansion (512k). That was the most common config at the beginning which degenerated into just the A500 and ram expansion though added a 2nd floppy,no monitor. This was due to it primarily being used as a game console. At that point out store carried over 5000 software sku's of pc,ST and Amiga.95% of which was GAMES! It was a very good time!

[oky2000]

I'm sorry but the Amiga 1000 not the cocking Apple Mac was the machine that showed you the future of computing.

 

from the day it was launched you had a machine that ALL these.

 

Had a lovely simple GUI with things set out logically unlike file and program manager on that piece of crap Windows...click on drive 1 to see files on drive 1!

It mulitasked smoothly and effortlessly AND still multitasked when under severe percentage useage/load of resources (so Took MS until Vista to manage that!)

You had enough graphical power to produce photorealistic images or montages and even cartoon graphics with 16 cols @ 640x512 with 25/30fps via tweening (fantavision)

You could make your own music from your own samples in simple 4 track all digital 8bit sample sequencing in high quality.

Realtime OR successive approximation full colour video digitising.

More memory than anyone else (4.75mb on a stock A1000 via Zorro 1 4mb expansion)

Half decent BASIC with GUI hooks for free.

 

People really underestimate everything the A1000 (and hence the technically identical but butt ugly A500/A2000 also did) empowered people to do. Even today I would rather use Amiga OS4 than Mac OSX (which stole the 'dock' idea from Amiga OS 3.5 and added it to some shit linux distro) and Windows 7 (pig ugly...designed by geeks not people with any artistic ability) and still has the same problems as Vista as well haha.

 

What shit times we live in for buying a computer.

[FastRobPlus]

Even today I would rather use Amiga OS4 than Mac OSX (which stole the 'dock' idea from Amiga OS 3.5 and added it to some shit linux distro)

 

Amiga stole the dock idea from Next

[+poobah]

Hmm, I'd gotten the impression (from several people and discussions on AA and Sega-16, most recently the A8 vs ST thread) that in several ways the 6502 is significantly faster than a similarly clocked 68000.

 

Short answer: no

 

Longer answer: Ever seen a 2 MHz 68K? (or perhaps a 16 MHz 6502) Yah, me neither. Apples and Oranges

 

Even Longer Answer: The 68K has prefetch caches... it trades latency for throughput. Comparing execution of a single instruction on a 6502 vs a 68K is disingenuous at best. a 6502 is a building a entire car one at a time. The 68K is building cars on an assembly line. The 6502 gets 1 car quicker, but the 68K can crank out more on average than a 6502 ever will, but there's a delay until the first one comes off the line. All modern processors operate in this fashion.

 

2nd silly analogy: a ford focus is faster than a Corvette with 7 spark plugs missing, but is that a meaningful comparison?

Edited December 10, 2009 by poobah

[+poobah]

I'm sorry but the Amiga 1000 not the cocking Apple Mac was the machine that showed you the future of computing.

 

Um, no. The modern (future) of computing stems from Xerox PARC. I'd argue that Apple was the first to realize a usable instantiation of that technology. The genius of the Mac is the (largely) consistent user interface. Systems prior to the Mac had hap-hazard GUI design at best, no consistency from app to app. Granted, consistent interface standards aren't your typical 'technological innovation', but the rewards are huge.

 

It mulitasked smoothly and effortlessly AND still multitasked when under severe percentage useage/load of resources (so Took MS until Vista to manage that!)

 

I was doing this on a 486/25 under OS/2 in the early 90's

 

Even today I would rather use Amiga OS4 than Mac OSX (which stole the 'dock' idea from Amiga OS 3.5 and added it to some shit linux distro)

 

Um, No.

Dock is from NeXTStep, and Mac OS X is based on the Mach MicroKernel and Free-BSD (which is/was an actual Unix distribution), no Linux involved. Linux (and please forgive the gross oversimplification) is a reverse engineered Unix clone. (albeit, a very well engineered one).

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the Amiga was a phenomenal machine for its day, but if you are going to play the fan-boy game and argue fine points, you really need to at least make accurate statements.

Edited December 10, 2009 by poobah

[desiv]

Um, no. The modern (future) of computing stems from Xerox PARC. I'd argue that Apple was the first to realize a usable instantiation of that technology. The genius of the Mac is the (largely) consistent user interface. Systems prior to the Mac had hap-hazard GUI design at best, no consistency from app to app. Granted, consistent interface standards aren't your typical 'technological innovation', but the rewards are huge.

 

Oh, a Mac fanboy.. :-) Yes, PARC had the GUI concept which "inspired" (shall we say) Apple.

I'd say the genius of the Mac is the .. er.. um.. Daleks.. Definately Daleks!!! Brilliant that!

 

It mulitasked smoothly and effortlessly AND still multitasked when under severe percentage useage/load of resources (so Took MS until Vista to manage that!)

I was doing this on a 486/25 under OS/2 in the early 90's

And he was doing that in the late 80s, hence his point. OS/2 was pretty nice tho...

 

Even today I would rather use Amiga OS4 than Mac OSX (which stole the 'dock' idea from Amiga OS 3.5 and added it to some shit linux distro)

 

Um, No.

Dock is from NeXTStep, and Mac OS X is based on the Mach MicroKernel and Free-BSD (which is/was an actual Unix distribution), no Linux involved. Linux (and please forgive the gross oversimplification) is a reverse engineered Unix clone. (albeit, a very well engineered one).

 

Yeah, he was way off on that one.. And there are no "s**t linux distros"!!!!

Well, RiscOS had a DOCK concept about the same time as NeXT. I get in the Linux vs BSD argument all the time with a co-worker, so that's a totally different religious war to avoid. Interesting that Matt Dillon (the kernel GOD, not the actor) was an Amiga stud (I used his C compiler) and went on to be a huge BSD stud.. (DragonFLY BSD)...

 

Don't get me wrong, I think the Amiga was a phenomenal machine for its day, but if you are going to play the fan-boy game and argue fine points, you really need to at least make accurate statements.

I suppose the phrase "accurate statements" is really a matter of perspective on most forums...

 

 

desiv