Amiga.org
Operating System Specific Discussions => Other Operating Systems => Topic started by: runequester on December 26, 2010, 08:07:01 PM
-
A bit of google didn't net me anything, so wondering if anyone had a reasonable ballpark cost for the Atari Falcon when it came out?
-
A bit of google didn't net me anything, so wondering if anyone had a reasonable ballpark cost for the Atari Falcon when it came out?
It was sold for £100 more than the A1200 in the UK... Which I think would have put it about £400 (the A1200 was £299) IIRC...
-
I bought my A1200 for £400 on the day of release and the Falcon was £500.
-
It's amazing how people's recollections are different.
I'm certain the falcon was £599 on release in the UK. I think £100 difference on the A1200 would not be enough to cover the 030, DSP, and hard disk.
-
Also amazing how there's absolutely no word online whatsoever what the MSRP was, let alone cost of various configurations. It's almost as if the Falcon never existed or at least, wasn't sold. HA!
Power without the price indeed! :lol:
-
Well, at either 5-600 dollars it wasn't a bad deal at all compared to a mac, I imagine :)
Save2600: That's pretty funny. Thanks :D
-
Definetaly recall seeing it at £599 in Dixons many many moons ago... :)
Pretty sure I came across a TV ad for it recently in my search for old Commodore ads, need to try and find it again... :)
-
I'm not sure but the local Commodore and Amiga user group in LA had a running Jaguar with games in the box and a falcon
-
I'm certain the falcon was £599 on release in the UK. I think £100 difference on the A1200 would not be enough to cover the 030, DSP, and hard disk.
I just read how, despite having a 16mhz 030 inside, the Falcon was still based on the ST's 16-bit architecture. Blech. Talk about a poorboy's 030 computer or better yet... The Atari Falcon: Choking a faux 32-bit chicken. :lol:
What's truly amazing is what both Commodore and Atari tried to peddle, in their later years to the public. Reminds me of this great song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRiLYImveAE
-
Definetaly recall seeing it at £599 in Dixons many many moons ago... :)
Pretty sure I came across a TV ad for it recently in my search for old Commodore ads, need to try and find it again... :)
Wasn't there two models of Falcon?
-
Wasn't there two models of Falcon?
Not sure, I knew it only lasted a short time but didn't realise it was only one year until I read this... :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Falcon
-
Extra Features of the Falcon: 68030 processor @ 16 Mhz, 65,000 colors @ 640x480, 1.44 meg floppy drive, 4 meg RAM (expandable to 14), internal 65 meg hard drive, DSP processor, SCSI-2 port, Price: $1,299.
This is US price and listed at http://www.ataritimes.com/system.php?System=Atari-ST
-
Wow... that screenshot of the Falcons desktop makes 1.2 & 1.3 look modern in comparison... :)
-
GEM wasn't necessarily a nice looking operating system. Atari really rocked for MIDI and music though.
-
I've heard over the years a lot of folk say that, seems It was quite popular amongst many professional musicians, although I can't say personally I've ever heard anything that was produced on it... :)
-
Extra Features of the Falcon: 68030 processor @ 16 Mhz, 65,000 colors @ 640x480, 1.44 meg floppy drive, 4 meg RAM (expandable to 14), internal 65 meg hard drive, DSP processor, SCSI-2 port, Price: $1,299.
[/url]
Wow, unbelievable. Atari was totally off their rocker back then. Anyone get the double-plus-good pun there? Think Amiga and 2600 :laughing:
Anywho, Franko... you're absolutely right. I recently tried resurrecting an ST for old shits sake and I could not believe how primitive and crippled the OS was. Completely out of order and damn near useless. It took a TOS ROM update before you could do something as simple as rename a folder. Not kidding.
-
I used Atari 1040STs in school with Notator (I am a muso). It was the only way to do it back in the early 90s. That connected to Korg 01s/M1s, Yamaha SY77s. Ah, the memories. The Amigas at my school were used for animation/ray tracing exclusively at the time.
-
Wow, unbelievable. Atari was totally off their rocker back then. Anyone get the double-plus-good pun there? Think Amiga and 2600 :laughing:
Anywho, Franko... you're absolutely right. I recently tried resurrecting an ST for old shits sake and I could not believe how primitive and crippled the OS was. Completely out of order and damn near useless. It took a TOS ROM update before you could do something as simple as rename a folder. Not kidding.
Then again, without jailbreaking, you can't rename an application on the iPhone/iPad!
-
I used Atari 1040STs in school with Notator (I am a muso). It was the only way to do it back in the early 90s. That connected to Korg 01s/M1s, Yamaha SY77s. Ah, the memories. The Amigas at my school were used for animation/ray tracing exclusively at the time.
That's awesome your school had such diverse computers! But, Amiga could be just as MIDI "ready" with a $40 parallel port MIDI box. And there's plenty of music/MIDI capable software written for the Amiga as well.
Funny how a few musicians gravitated toward the Atari line just because MIDI was built-in. BTW: I've known musicians that have used ST's before. Guess what? They could care less and knew nothing about the computer as a whole. It was nothing more than just a bridge or an appliance of sorts for them. Never used their computers for anything else.
Same is true with a friend that owns an embroidery/screen printing shop here in town. Used a MegaST for years before he went PeeCee. Only ever used his ST for the one "simple" process of laying out patterns to be scanned in and printed. Nothing else. Veird!
@Dentunes: yeah, I have an iPad. There's a few stupid aspects about it I don't like, but all things considered - it's pretty neat for what it is.
-
Anywho, Franko... you're absolutely right. I recently tried resurrecting an ST for old shits sake and I could not believe how primitive and crippled the OS was. Completely out of order and damn near useless. It took a TOS ROM update before you could do something as simple as rename a folder. Not kidding.
I only ever knew one person who claimed to own an Atari, though we never got to see it he was always hanging around with us Amigans, strange kid he was... :)
So I never got to actually see one working as the odd one or two that were in the shops were always switched off for some reason... :lol:
(Still got me old Pro-Midi interface (£25) and still use it with an old Yamaha keyboard & Bars & Pipes on the odd occasion...:))
-
So I never got to actually see one working as the odd one or two that were in the shops were always switched off for some reason... :lol:
Would you believe our local Amiga store in Wheeling, IL actually used an ST with b/w monochrome monitor as their Point Of Sale cash register? These were die-hard Amigans too. Guy that ran it also belonged to a user group nearby. Was soooooo funny purchasing Amiga goods and then seeing an ST behind the counter. DOH!
-
Would you believe our local Amiga store in Wheeling, IL actually used an ST with b/w monochrome monitor as their Point Of Sale cash register? These were die-hard Amigans too. Guy that ran it also belonged to a user group nearby. Was soooooo funny purchasing Amiga goods and then seeing an ST behind the counter. DOH!
Perhaps it was a crafty sales ploy, I mean if you saw an ST running on a B&W monitor you'd be sure to buy the Amiga Instead, or maybe the didn't want to reduce the Amiga to the status of a cash register... :)
It's either that or they were just plain weird... :lol:
-
It wasn't that Amigas couldn't do MIDI, Atari STs had MIDI ports built in and Notator software (the Killer Music App) is what made it the popular choice. The software on the Atari ends up being Cubase today. The music apps on the Amiga were more focussed on MODs rather than MIDI.
And yeah, the high school I went to rocked where it came to computers. 386s when they just came out, a room (yes a ROOM!) of Amigas and a couple Ataris in the music labs. I spent my lunch breaks playing games in the Amiga room though lol. They even upgraded to Amiga 3000s when they came out including a digitiser!
-
Perhaps it was a crafty sales ploy, I mean if you saw an ST running on a B&W monitor you'd be sure to buy the Amiga Instead, or maybe the didn't want to reduce the Amiga to the status of a cash register... :)
It's either that or they were just plain weird... :lol:
I can see why. At work we always use the crappiest computers as tills, the good stuff to demo software on. The Atari was probably the crappiest at the time and it was relegated to POS duties hehehe
-
I just read how, despite having a 16mhz 030 inside, the Falcon was still based on the ST's 16-bit architecture. Blech. Talk about a poorboy's 030 computer or better yet... The Atari Falcon: Choking a faux 32-bit chicken. :lol:
:furious:
No, it was actually quite a revolutionary computer, the backward thing about it was the operating system, that harked back to CPM68 and Atari could not and would not update it, they had a dispute with DR about license fees and were stuck with a GEM/CPM system from 1984 and only partial sources and a management team that did not understand software.
The Falcon had a hardware multiplexer, so you could route data from one entity to another without a load on the CPU, eg the DSP bus could stream from the hard disk while the CPU was playing around with the graphics, this meant 16 track 16bit audio recording by using the DSP as a simple lossless audio compressor (since the 16x16b data stream was larger than HD's at the time could manage in RT), something we did not get reliably on a PC until 97/98 and then only just.
Atari really had something special, but no clue how to market or develop it, by the time I bought one it was cheaper than an A1200 and soon discontinued, I bought 3 more when they blew the last few off at silly prices
-
Wasn't there two models of Falcon?
Four, one from Atari and three from C-Lab
-
Funny how a few musicians gravitated toward the Atari line just because MIDI was built-in. BTW: I've known musicians that have used ST's before. Guess what? They could care less and knew nothing about the computer as a whole. It was nothing more than just a bridge or an appliance of sorts for them. Never used their computers for anything else.
Same is true with a friend that owns an embroidery/screen printing shop here in town. Used a MegaST for years before he went PeeCee. Only ever used his ST for the one "simple" process of laying out patterns to be scanned in and printed. Nothing else. Veird!
Not weird in any way, the answer in both cases is software, Cubase and Notator on Atari were miles ahead of anything else and people are still using them as Yamaha Cubase and Apple Logic (Notator).
The graphic software was probably Calamus (http://www.calamus.net) At the 1987 to ca 1993 timeframe superior to the Mac and PC eq. in most respects but a bit outdated now, very extendable so it was often sold as a part of an embedded/specialized solutions
-
Then again, without jailbreaking, you can't rename an application on the iPhone/iPad!
But you don't need to jailbreak it to rename a folder ;)
-
I only ever knew one person who claimed to own an Atari, though we never got to see it he was always hanging around with us Amigans, strange kid he was... :)
So I never got to actually see one working as the odd one or two that were in the shops were always switched off for some reason... :lol:
(Still got me old Pro-Midi interface (£25) and still use it with an old Yamaha keyboard & Bars & Pipes on the odd occasion...:))
I saw one Atari ST in use at my friends house. He was playing simcity. I tried in vain to convince him my A500 was slightly better but it was no use... :(
I mean, being an Atari user he was used to using the tv set whereas as an Amiga user i was used to the sophistication of using a monitor. Worlds apart... :rolleyes:
-
Not weird in any way, the answer in both cases is software, Cubase and Notator on Atari were miles ahead of anything else and people are still using them as Yamaha Cubase and Apple Logic (Notator).
Really better than anything else available at the time? Better than Bars & Pipes for the Amiga (the flat-out best MIDI only sequencer I have ever used)? I have never used Cubase or Notator, but I judging by these screen shots they seem relatively primitive compared to Bars & Pipes.
Cubase (Atari ST):
(http://s3.postimage.org/10l6r6v8/Pro_24.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/10l6r6v8/)
Notator (Atari ST):
(http://s1.postimage.org/2xp4qgngk/notat3.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/2xp4qgngk/)
Bars & Pipes (Amiga):
(http://s3.postimage.org/13kooqys/pianoroll.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/13kooqys/)
-
Really better than anything else available at the time? Better than Bars & Pipes for the Amiga (the flat-out best MIDI only sequencer I have ever used)? I have never used Cubase or Notator, but I judging by these screen shots they seem relatively primative compared to Bars & Pipes.
Cubase (Atari ST):
(http://s3.postimage.org/10l6r6v8/Pro_24.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/10l6r6v8/)
Notator (Atari ST):
(http://s1.postimage.org/2xp4qgngk/notat3.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/2xp4qgngk/)
Bars & Pipes (Amiga):
(http://s3.postimage.org/13kooqys/pianoroll.jpg) (http://postimage.org/image/13kooqys/)
At the time Cubase and Logic supported 16 tracks of pro quality audio for starters, something that never happened on the Amiga, B&P was not bad but timing resolution and lack of features for one thing made it somewhat less than pro.
Also you are cheating by using a Pro-24 screenshot, Steinberg Pro-24 is the predecessor to cubase and originates on a C64 hence shitty graphics
-
I used Atari 1040STs in school with Notator (I am a muso). It was the only way to do it back in the early 90s. That connected to Korg 01s/M1s, Yamaha SY77s. Ah, the memories. The Amigas at my school were used for animation/ray tracing exclusively at the time.
Why is that? i mean there were tons of cheap midi interfaces from the A1000 days on?
I assume there had to be some software to go with them?
I was not into midi,so i never had any in the day.
-
Seems bars and pipes was taken over by this guy and updated.... or was:
http://bnp.hansfaust.de/indexeng.html
-
Extra Features of the Falcon: 68030 processor @ 16 Mhz, 65,000 colors @ 640x480, 1.44 meg floppy drive, 4 meg RAM (expandable to 14), internal 65 meg hard drive, DSP processor, SCSI-2 port, Price: $1,299.
This is US price and listed at http://www.ataritimes.com/system.php?System=Atari-ST
For the record, that screenshot on that page is from an early version of TOS. The Falcon had MultiTOS. Which finally added color icons (yeah, I know, still full of suck compared to the AmigaOS, but was much nicer than anything earlier than the Falcon.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_TOS
slaapliedje
-
:furious:
No, it was actually quite a revolutionary computer, the backward thing about it was the operating system, that harked back to CPM68 and Atari could not and would not update it, they had a dispute with DR about license fees and were stuck with a GEM/CPM system from 1984 and only partial sources and a management team that did not understand software.
The Falcon had a hardware multiplexer, so you could route data from one entity to another without a load on the CPU, eg the DSP bus could stream from the hard disk while the CPU was playing around with the graphics, this meant 16 track 16bit audio recording by using the DSP as a simple lossless audio compressor (since the 16x16b data stream was larger than HD's at the time could manage in RT), something we did not get reliably on a PC until 97/98 and then only just.
Atari really had something special, but no clue how to market or develop it, by the time I bought one it was cheaper than an A1200 and soon discontinued, I bought 3 more when they blew the last few off at silly prices
Don't suppose you still have them and would part with one? :D I've been wanting one since they came out. But they never appear on eBay. I would hazard a guess that those who managed to grab them either have had them die, or just aren't getting rid of them.
slaapliedje
-
:furious:
No, it was actually quite a revolutionary computer, the backward thing about it was the operating system, that harked back to CPM68 and Atari could not and would not update it, they had a dispute with DR about license fees and were stuck with a GEM/CPM system from 1984 and only partial sources and a management team that did not understand software.
Gary Kildall invented CPM for the Intel 4004(?) which sort of launched a new market. DOS would be a clone of CPM which Microsoft would end up buying. Gary went on to found Digital Research which created GEM. GEM got the pants sued off of them by Apple (there is a surprise) which slowed GEM's development a great deal.
However, when GEM was licensed to Atari it wasn't as restricted at it was before but you can see that GEM was pretty ugly all the way 'round.
TOS was a disaster for Atari and you will know why if you have read my other rambling posts here. TOS was designed on Apple Lisa Computers but TOS uses instructions that are not available on M chips > than 68k (010,020, etc...).
As I have rambled on in other posts, I cannot conceive of why you would do this. More to the point, why you wouldn't fix it in a revision of TOS. TOS 1.0 (like AmigaDOS 1.0) was a piece of crap so rewriting TOS to use certified instructions might have broken compatibility with TOS 1.0, but who cares when you have such a major problem? Instead, they just kept rolling out TOS versions that only cemented software to the problem.
I suspect the following occurred:
-Apple was suing the hell out of everyone with a decent GUI that looked like the Mac GUI. GEM and Digital were sued. You might be able to make the argument that GEM couldn't be updated because of legal issues tied with Apple. However, GEM under DOS was updated and looked much better than GEM in TOS. So I'm not sure.
-Perhaps GEM was updated and could have been cross compiled but ran like crap on a 68k? GEM might have needed a faster CPU which TOS couldn't support because of Atari. So GEM remained pretty basic in TOS.
-Jack made some crazy deal that they could only use one version of GEM or screwed M over so they could only use 68ks...
In the end, I wish I knew. As an adult now, I can honestly say that was beyond stupid. I can't think of any developmental reason you would ignore M's warnings and use instructions not guaranteed to be in the next version of M chips. I can't think of a single situation where this was the better choice.
The Falcon had a hardware multiplexer, so you could route data from one entity to another without a load on the CPU, eg the DSP bus could stream from the hard disk while the CPU was playing around with the graphics, this meant 16 track 16bit audio recording by using the DSP as a simple lossless audio compressor (since the 16x16b data stream was larger than HD's at the time could manage in RT), something we did not get reliably on a PC until 97/98 and then only just.
Atari really had something special, but no clue how to market or develop it, by the time I bought one it was cheaper than an A1200 and soon discontinued, I bought 3 more when they blew the last few off at silly prices
Atari had to rewrite TOS with the TT (the graphics workstation without a blitter) and the Falcon and this was a major problem with backward compatibility. Commodore had a similar issue with AmigaOS 2.x since it broke poorly written Amiga 1.x programs. I suspect that TOS and Muti-TOS was a much harsher upgrade given the extent of the rewrite.
While Multi-TOS was a nice upgrade, it just added to Atari's growing list of problems.
I've said this before, I wish somebody would write the history of Atari from about the 2600 to Atari's sale to JVC at the end. I think it would be a fascinating read of the accounts of the Atari 400/800, the XL line, the ST/Stacy/TT/Falcon, the Jag, and of course the end...
BTW: Gary Kildall was on Computer Chronicles and is dead (I believe some sort of bar fight or accident?)
-
Gary Kildall invented CPM for the Intel 4004(?) which sort of launched a new market.
Never sold as a 4004 CP, only on 8 bit micros and bigger
went on to found Digital Research which created GEM. GEM got the pants sued off of them by Apple (there is a surprise) which slowed GEM's development a great deal.
Yes and no, GEM actually predates Apple developments, it has its origins in the GSX graphics library that was very popular for engineering and scientific applications but almost unused in home computers except for one Amstrad model, I had a working multi processor CP/M system with a rudimentary GSX based user interface until 2000 when I was forced to throw it away due to a move, that system had not been upgraded since 1982 so it predated the Lisa.
DR did not lose the Apple lawsuit but decided to agree to change some things that were Apple like
However, when GEM was licensed to Atari it wasn't as restricted at it was before but you can see that GEM was pretty ugly all the way 'round.
GEM was not ugly, it was like the early versions of the CP/M 68K optimized for the PC, and the best selling graphics interface on the PC was a CGA so everything was optimised so it would look OK on 320x200x16 which was the only CGA mode that could be used bitmapped, later versions like GEM/3 actually looked better than the Windows versions that shipped at the time.
TOS was a disaster for Atari and you will know why if you have read my other rambling posts here. TOS was designed on Apple Lisa Computers but TOS uses instructions that are not available on M chips > than 68k (010,020, etc...).
As I have rambled on in other posts, I cannot conceive of why you would do this. More to the point, why you wouldn't fix it in a revision of TOS. TOS 1.0 (like AmigaDOS 1.0) was a piece of crap so rewriting TOS to use certified instructions might have broken compatibility with TOS 1.0, but who cares when you have such a major problem? Instead, they just kept rolling out TOS versions that only cemented software to the problem.
DR sold the rights to an early CPM68k port and GEM version to Atari, note that this version does not correspond to a release version of either system, this was meant to be a development version and a later version was meant to be used with the shipping unit. Remember that early versions of Z8000 and 68K CP/M ports very full of 8086isms some intended some not, this got better later on, but the original idea was also compatibility so that programs could be ported from 86 to 68K, then to Z8K and so on which explain some of the 86isms in the DR products
DR wanted payment for the final version of both and Tramielsky said no, DR say bye and refused to release any of their programming languages or other software on the Atari platform even tough that was the original intention, this created panic when the original ST dev systems were released with useless development software.
Atari also later added FastTOS routines to TOS and actively encouraged programmers to use them, this killed compatibly with other GEM systems but there were a few software houses that never used the FastTOS so they could easily sell DOS versions as well (Artline for example).
Atari had to rewrite TOS with the TT (the graphics workstation without a blitter) and the Falcon and this was a major problem with backward compatibility. Commodore had a similar issue with AmigaOS 2.x since it broke poorly written Amiga 1.x programs. I suspect that TOS and Muti-TOS was a much harsher upgrade given the extent of the rewrite.
While Multi-TOS was a nice upgrade, it just added to Atari's growing list of problems.
Multi-TOS was stupid, especially the decision to keep it 68000 compatible, if they had focused on 68030 it would have made sense
BTW: Gary Kildall was on Computer Chronicles and is dead (I believe some sort of bar fight or accident?)
And sadly missed, died of a injuries sustained during a drunken brawl, funny really because he was viewed as one of the nicest blokes in the computer industry....
-
Don't suppose you still have them and would part with one? :D I've been wanting one since they came out. But they never appear on eBay. I would hazard a guess that those who managed to grab them either have had them die, or just aren't getting rid of them.
slaapliedje
I Still have 3 actually, dunno what happened to the fourth, 2 are still in use and the third has been promised to someone
-
A bit of google didn't net me anything, so wondering if anyone had a reasonable ballpark cost for the Atari Falcon when it came out?
The MSRP for the Falcon is unchanged since fall, with the
exception of the additonal pricing for two models: The Atari
Falcon030 with four megs of ram, and no hard disk will retail for
$999, and the 14 meg with 65 meg hard disk will retail for $1899.
http://www.atarimax.com/freenet/freenet_material/6.16and32-BitComputersSupportArea/8.OnlineMagazines/showarticle.php?355
and also this:
Falcon030:
Atari's Falcon030 is a brand new product, not available in mass
quantities yet. It's style is almost exactly that of the 1040STe. The
only difference is that it has really dark gray keys, and Atari's name is
in rainbow colors. It comes with 1, 4, or 14 megs of memory, a 1.44
megabyte 3.5" high density floppy drive, and an optional internal 84 meg
IDE hard drive (that is only 2.5"!). Inside the machine, is a 16 mHz 68030,
Motorola's 32 bit chip (the 68040 is also 32bit, and even better than the
68030). It has a BLiTTER like in the STe's, however this BLiTTER is 16
mHz. It also has a chip from Motorola called the DSP chip (short for
Digital Signal Processor). This chip is used to add effects to sound,
compress images, act as a modem, or do any other kind of signal processing.
It runs at a full 32 mHz! It also has a port on the back of the computer
for such uses as a connector to a modular jack, so the DSP can act as a
modem. In terms of video, the Falcon can do almost anything you throw at
it. There are programs such as FalconScreen that will allow resolutions
greater than 800x600 with 256 colors! There are many modes available
through the new desktop. It allows for 40 or 80 column modes (320 or 640
lines across), and 200 or 400 lines down. On a ST Monitor, the 400 line
mode is interlaced, and on a VGA, it is accually 240/480. In terms of
sound quality, the Falcon can beat any CD Player. Also new is the desktop
with 16 color icons, and 3D buttons. It includes a MultiTasking program
called MultiTOS also. You can find a Falcon for $799 for 1 meg and no hard
drive, $1299 for a 4 meg and 84 meg hard drive, and $1899 for a 14 meg and
84 meg hard drive.
http://www.atarimax.com/freenet/freenet_material/6.16and32-BitComputersSupportArea/2AbouttheST,TT,andFalconComputers.php
so it looks like it was $799 for a base model with 1MB and no HD. Not too bad!
-
(yeah, I know, still full of suck compared to the AmigaOS, but was much nicer than anything earlier than the Falcon.)
Unless you patch it with newicons, Amiga icons aren't that good either...