Amiga vs Atari - was there any real competition?

[HopperJF]

Calen wrote:

I mean I just laughed once when I played a med module at home, went over an Atari ST owners place and he fired up a tracker. Every time he clicked on something the tracker paused slightly, and my hunch was that it was indeed as naff for multitasking as people made out.

There may have been a very slight mhz difference on the A500 vs the ST and it may have showed ever so slightly on 1 r 2 games but that would have been all lost once the ST used sampled sounds as it seemed to eat at the CPU cycles.

Indeed, there was a slight difference with the clock speeds.
The Amiga 500 was actually clocked SLOWER than the ST, as the 68000 Amigas are all clocked at 7.14MHz, and the 68000 Atari machines were at 8MHz.

[HopperJF]

Amiga is a better `open source' community than Linux ever will be.

A very courageous, bold and debatable point there.
Nice one.

[HopperJF]

Atari is a much more limiting, and cult machine which makes it more exciting to use in my  opinion, and more rewarding when some new software is found.

These factors give me more pleasure when using an ST computer than an Amiga. I also feel that ST computers are better built.  :-)

[HopperJF]

The ST will read DOS formatted disks as well - meaning that you can download software straight from the net, unzip it and put it on a disk.

A lot easier than it is to do on the Amiga.

[HopperJF]

The Lotus Turbo games were more playable on the ST.
Most earlier games are better on the ST, because the Amiga versions were only ported from the ST versions.

[HopperJF]

Wishmaster wrote:
Come on Hopper, don't talk bs.
Everybody knows that Ataris are crap :lol:

Says a Pegasos owner  :lol:
Joking!! Don't get the flamethrower out  :-o

[HopperJF]

I had one for a year.
October 99 - October 2000.

It rocked.