Atari ST's in history.

[DigitalQuirk]

Everything good about the Amiga was a hack. HAM mode? A hack. High resolution graphics via interlacing? A hack. It also had its own memory limitations. My A500 only had 512k of chip RAM, and therefore had a 512k limit. That chip ram could not be expanded without replacing the entire computer. This resulted in limitations with the type of programs I could run.

 

If multitasking and a GUI were the things that made the Amiga special, then I would like to direct everyone's attention to the Commodore 64. The Commodore 64 could truly multitask; that is, run two different programs at the same time. This was illustrated in the November 1996 issue of Compute!'s Gazette, page 94. Note that this was not "Task switching," something already covered in the April 1995 issue. The Commodore 64 also had a very nice GUI in GEOS. Both the multitasking and GUI worked on an unmodified C64, working with less than 64k of memory. I would imagine that, with sufficient memory and processor speed, both the multitasking and GUI could have been combined and implemented as was done in the Amiga.

 

I do believe that is what gave the PC an edge over the Amiga. Up until the C128, all Commodore machines were backwards compatible. Many of your PET and Vic-20 programs could run on your C-64 (though not all), and all files were compatible. They even sacrificed disk drive speed in the 1541 to maintain this backward compatibility; something that definitely didn't hurt sales. The C-128 could run 100% as a C-64. Then along came the Amiga. Not one single bit of backwards compatibility. You couldn't even use the same monitor or disk drives. That, as far as I'm concerned, was Commodore's biggest mistake and contributed to their failure. While PC's to this day are still backwards compatible all the way back to 1981, the Amiga had a difficult time in being backwards compatible with itself. I cite the inability to run Amiga Basic programs on machines with Workbench 2.0 or later as an example.

 

Quite frankly, Commodore would have been much better off making a 16 bit version of the C-64/128, give it GEOS as an O/S, and incorporate the Amiga's video chipset. Of course, this would've meant that they'd actually have to care about their customers.

[tjlazer]

Everything good about the Amiga was a hack. HAM mode? A hack. High resolution graphics via interlacing? A hack. It also had its own memory limitations. My A500 only had 512k of chip RAM, and therefore had a 512k limit. That chip ram could not be expanded without replacing the entire computer. This resulted in limitations with the type of programs I could run.

 

Sorry comparing the archaic PC computer with 640k base memory and extended memory to the Amiga is no comparison. The Amiga has a built in GUI, the PC-TO THIS VERY DAY does not! Period. 2007 and the PC does not have a GUI. How can that not be the biggest hack in computing history. I agree HAM was a hack, but how is Hi Res Graphics in interlace a hack? That is a feature not a hack. Also the Amiga 500 can also be expended to 1MB Chip RAM quite easily just by adding the 512k fast memory card and cutting a trace or two. And before you say hack, later 500s came with 1MB Chip factory! You can also add 2MB Chip RAM with a new chip and small board. (DKB MegaChip 2000) Anyway, this this has become very off topic, we should continue this over at Amiga.org

Edited January 9, 2007 by tjlazer

[FastRobPlus]

I came to rethink how I consider how "Powerful" a computer is. Is this measured by the speed of the processor? The amount of memory it has? The width of the data bus? Or, is real power measured by the sheer variety of tasks a computer can perform? I would think that an Amiga that could work as a web server would need to be quite powerful to do so; yet there are original 8088-based PC web servers that are up and running today with the DOS operating system. Web browsing would bring my Amiga 500 to its knees even with upgrades, but the Archane browser runs fine on a '286.

 

 

You reconsidered how computer power is expressed and came to the conclusion that a 286 was more powerful than an Amiga 500?!?

 

Is this a joke? My Amiga 500 had a full 16Mhz 286 inside it on a little $100 card for goodness sake!

Edited January 9, 2007 by FastRobPlus

[DigitalQuirk]

Sorry comparing the archaic PC computer with 640k base memory and extended memory to the Amiga is no comparison. The Amiga has a built in GUI, the PC-TO THIS VERY DAY does not! Period.

 

There is no built-in GUI in the Amiga. There are certain elements in the Kickstart ROM chip, but the GUI itself came off a diskette with the LOADWB command. Without that boot disk, you simply got either a (poorly drawn) picture of a hand holding a diskette (WB 1.x), or an animated image of a disk going into the computer (WB 2+).

 

2007 and the PC does not have a GUI. I agree HAM was a hack, but how is Hi Res Graphics in interlace a hack? That is a feature not a hack.

 

Interlacing the video to achieve high resolution was a hack; the display clearly flickered VERY badly when it was invoked. It was rarely used by anyone on a regular basis. The GUI up to and including WB 1.3 was also a hack; files that didn't have an icon created for them would NEVER show up in any folder or window. You'd have to drop to the CLI (command prompt) to get a directory listing to see those files. Quite frustrating with those seemingly empty yet full Fred Fish disks. No matter; the Amiga worked better working from the command line anyway.

 

Also the Amiga 500 can also be expended to 1MB Chip RAM quite easily just by adding the 512k fast memory card and cutting a trace or two. And before you say hack, later 500s came with 1MB Chip factory! You can also add 2MB Chip RAM with a new chip and small board. (DKB MegaChip 2000)

 

You had to do more than simply cut a trace and add the 512k memory expansion option. You also needed to upgrade the chipset; in paticular, the Fat Agnus chip needed to be replaced with a Fatter Agnus chip. Not exactly something you could walk into a store and buy, and certainly not cheap back in the day. This would leave you with no fast RAM, which caused problems with certain programs that needed it; so next you're looking at adding some fast RAM along with an external expansion solution for that memory, since your internal memory would be fully populated with that 512k expansion module. People such as yourself expressing how "Easy" it was only added to the frustration. There was nothing easy nor cheap about it.

 

With the PC, all I had to do to get rid of that 640k limit was to boot with OS/2 which was technically superior to both Workbench and DOS. Not that I ever seen the 640k as a limiting factor, since DOS has been able to manage expanded memory for some time now ever since we had protected mode.

[FastRobPlus]

Sorry comparing the archaic PC computer with 640k base memory and extended memory to the Amiga is no comparison. The Amiga has a built in GUI, the PC-TO THIS VERY DAY does not! Period.

 

There is no built-in GUI in the Amiga. There are certain elements in the Kickstart ROM chip, but the GUI itself came off a diskette with the LOADWB command. Without that boot disk, you simply got either a (poorly drawn) picture of a hand holding a diskette (WB 1.x), or an animated image of a disk going into the computer (WB 2+).

 

2007 and the PC does not have a GUI. I agree HAM was a hack, but how is Hi Res Graphics in interlace a hack? That is a feature not a hack.

 

Interlacing the video to achieve high resolution was a hack; the display clearly flickered VERY badly when it was invoked. It was rarely used by anyone on a regular basis. The GUI up to and including WB 1.3 was also a hack; files that didn't have an icon created for them would NEVER show up in any folder or window. You'd have to drop to the CLI (command prompt) to get a directory listing to see those files. Quite frustrating with those seemingly empty yet full Fred Fish disks. No matter; the Amiga worked better working from the command line anyway.

 

Also the Amiga 500 can also be expended to 1MB Chip RAM quite easily just by adding the 512k fast memory card and cutting a trace or two. And before you say hack, later 500s came with 1MB Chip factory! You can also add 2MB Chip RAM with a new chip and small board. (DKB MegaChip 2000)

 

You had to do more than simply cut a trace and add the 512k memory expansion option. You also needed to upgrade the chipset; in paticular, the Fat Agnus chip needed to be replaced with a Fatter Agnus chip. Not exactly something you could walk into a store and buy, and certainly not cheap back in the day. This would leave you with no fast RAM, which caused problems with certain programs that needed it; so next you're looking at adding some fast RAM along with an external expansion solution for that memory, since your internal memory would be fully populated with that 512k expansion module. People such as yourself expressing how "Easy" it was only added to the frustration. There was nothing easy nor cheap about it.

 

With the PC, all I had to do to get rid of that 640k limit was to boot with OS/2 which was technically superior to both Workbench and DOS. Not that I ever seen the 640k as a limiting factor, since DOS has been able to manage expanded memory for some time now ever since we had protected mode.

 

OS/2? DOS? Are you sure you arent from Microsoft?

Oh, wait...

[tjlazer]

My A500 came with the fatter agnus so I already had the chip, all I had to cut was a trace and I had 1MB RAM. Most A500s had the fatter Agnus. You must of had an old A500, you should of just upgraded to an A2000 and you would of had no problems and your opinions would be better of the Amiga!

 

As far as the Amiga not having a built in GUI. Boot an AmigaDOS disk and press CTRL D (to stop the startup sequence) and what do you get? A Command shell WITH a mouse pointer! GO figure!!! LOL Oh I bet a blank disk that has been set to boot (Install DF0:) must have the GUI hidden on 0k on the disk huh! LOL

Edited January 9, 2007 by tjlazer

[deadmeow]

I smell some Atari bias. As an Apple II person, I liked my inferior IIgs, but I had many IIgs buddies who went over to the Amiga side. The Amiga was the best computer of its era. There is no comparison.

[DigitalQuirk]

My A500 came with the fatter agnus so I already had the chip, all I had to cut was a trace and I had 1MB RAM. Most A500s had the fatter Agnus. You must of had an old A500, you should of just upgraded to an A2000 and you would of had no problems and your opinions would be better of the Amiga!

 

Gee, why didn't I think of that? I should've just pulled out my big ole fat wallet that was overflowing with money and shelled out a couple thousand dollars for an A2000. Let's not forget that Commodore jacked up the price of the A2000 in the 90's due to the popularity of the Video Toaster. How nice of them to fleece their customers like that.

 

As far as the Amiga not having a built in GUI. Boot an AmigaDOS disk and press CTRL D (to stop the startup sequence) and what do you get? A Command shell WITH a mouse pointer! GO figure!!! LOL Oh I bet a blank disk that has been set to boot (Install DF0:) must have the GUI hidden on 0k on the disk huh! LOL

 

Again, while certain elements of the GUI existed in the Kickstart ROM, nothing would happen - not even CTRL D - until the actual operating system loaded off a diskette.

 

Oh, and I should correct you on something...PC's have been available with DOS burned on a ROM for quite some time now:

 

http://www.drdos.com/dosdoc/romhtml/romch1.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROM-DOS

 

Nothing really new with embedding the OS, except in the case of the Amiga, only elements of the OS, and not the OS itself, were embedded.

[tjlazer]

Wrong, I'm done here. If you want to continue it you need to come over to Amiga.org. This is an Atari forum. Now back to Atari's! Going back on topic, have you guys seen this VIDEO with Jack Tramiel?

Edited January 9, 2007 by tjlazer

[FastRobPlus]

Have you guys seen this VIDEO with Jack Tramiel?

 

Yeah, saw that a while back. Isn't it odd how he plugs his new 8-bit and 16-bit systems and then leaves the studio like he can't get out of there fast enough?

[DigitalQuirk]

For the record, the only point I'm trying to make is, that neither PC's nor their operating system were "Crappy," the people who bought them were not stupid nor were they "Lemmings." In fact, many Commodore 64 owners went to PC after Commodore basically alienated them with a new 16 bit system that could not make use of the disk drives and monitors which cost quite a bit of money. They made an intelligent decision; beating up on or trying to tear down one computer operating system and/or platform does nothing to make another better.

 

Also, for the record, I was always jealous of how the Atari ST computers looked. Those were some of the coolest looking computers to ever grace a desktop; they made the Amigas (except for the A3000) look cheap and rather ordinary. If Atari sold PC's today in those kind of computer cases at reasonable prices, I'd bet they'd have a hard time keeping them in stock. I, for one, am tiring of the tower design.

[FastRobPlus]

We aren't supposed to feed you anymore.

[FastRobPlus]

Wow. 400 Pounds Sterling for a 130XE...

[deadmeow]

If PC's didn't have the worst operating system of the big players, who did? Do you know what a "PC" typical user in the late 80's would say when they saw an Amiga, Atari ST, or even an Apple IIgs in action? "Wow".

 

"many Commodore 64 owners went to PC... could not make use of the disk drives and monitors which cost quite a bit of money."

 

C64 was the cheapest peice of hardware out there. If the Amiga had been backward compatible at all with the C64, that would have been a handicap.

[+remowilliams]

If the Amiga had been backward compatible at all with the C64, that would have been a handicap.

That's quite true. Backwards compatibility isn't always a wonderful thing. It's one reason why we've been saddled with such crap bus and CPU architectures on the PC for a loooooong time.

[FastRobPlus]

Back on topic, there is a cool ST synopsis in Retro Gamer magazine from a year or so back. In it they interview one of the higher-ups at Atari UK who outines a lot of the reasons he feels the ST could not keep the early momentum it had gained.

 

Personally, I think that things that kept the costs down early, such as no composite or RF output early on, single density drives, and tough expandability ended up slowing the machine's momentum.

[FastRobPlus]

Back on topic, there is a cool ST synopsis in Retro Gamer magazine from a year or so back. In it they interview one of the higher-ups at Atari UK who outines a lot of the reasons he feels the ST could not keep the early momentum it had gained.

 

Personally, I think that things that kept the costs down early, such as no composite or RF output early on, single density drives, and tough expandability ended up slowing the machine's momentum.

[+Zeptari]

I'd bet they'd have a hard time keeping them in stock. I, for one, am tiring of the tower design.

 

 

http://www.cybernetman.com/Default.cfm?DocID=12000

 

 

I know this link was posted not to long ago.... But i love the look of the all in one design.

 

It looks like what a new ST would look like today if Atari was still around.

 

-Rick

[Christos]

It looks a lot more like a Schneider Euro PC than an Atari/Amiga.

http://www.homecomputermuseum.de/comp/55_de.htm

[FastRobPlus]

I'd bet they'd have a hard time keeping them in stock. I, for one, am tiring of the tower design.

 

 

http://www.cybernetman.com/Default.cfm?DocID=12000

 

 

I know this link was posted not to long ago.... But i love the look of the all in one design.

 

It looks like what a new ST would look like today if Atari was still around.

 

-Rick

 

Around here I notice these all in one wedge/console type smalll form factor PCs at places like the video store and the gym. They seem to e popular for point of sale type applications. For that reason, whenever I see a pic like the one in the link, I think "Where's they keyskin?"