Difference between Amiga and Atari 520?

[InTheSand]

Summary (from a 1985 perspective):

Atari ST: cobbled together from mostly off-the-shelf parts, limited graphics-related capabilities, very limited inbuilt audio, nasty keyboard, nastier operating system (GUI provided by Digital Research's GEM, other OS parts via "TOS" which was a CP/M clone) with no multi-tasking.

Amiga: designed over a period of years, highly configurable video capabilities / graphics modes, highly advanced audio capabilities, fully pre-emptive multitasking operating system designed from scratch to suit the hardware (e.g. use of multiple draggable screens, etc).

The ST gained acceptance in music studios as a MIDI controller, thanks to its inbuilt MIDI interface, and also as a cheap DTP system, thanks to a dedicated monochrome 640x480 monitor (which gave a rock-solid display) and a cheap laser printer. Its 68000 was also clocked slightly faster than the Amiga's. For the early years of both machines, the ST was significantly cheaper than the Amiga.

And the Amiga story I guess we all know!

Just my 2c worth! I'm sure my description of the ST will be savaged!  :-D

 - Ali

[InTheSand]

Marco wrote:
Took Microsoft until Win95 to actually have a GUI OS that wasn't just a graphical shell for DOS.

I remember Mac users at the time saying Windows 95 = Macintosh '89!

And then the Amiga users hit back with Windows 95 = Macintosh '89 = Amiga '85!

And don't forget it took Microsoft until Windows XP to have a consumer OS that finally dumped the underlying DOS-based stuff!! Though at the time, Win95 with purely 32-bit applications was good enough (and still seems to be for some! - I still find people here using Win9x-based PCs for everyday use!)

 - Ali

[InTheSand]

whabang wrote:

InTheSand wrote:
And don't forget it took Microsoft until Windows XP to have a consumer OS that finally dumped the underlying DOS-based stuff!!

I hate to be a knitpick, but that's just not true! The first true 32-bit version of Windows was Windows NT 3.1. IIRC, it was released in 1993.

True, WinNT 3.x was fully 32-bit, but it was certainly not a consumer OS - these were still stuck on the Win9x line until XP Home was released, with the NT-based line not even getting true plug 'n' play, USB and other goodies until Windows 2000.

Erol wrote:
I think the Atari ST and the Spectrum128 had more in common, bad sound!

I remember playing Xenon on the Atari ST and then playing the Amiga version, then i laughed as the Atari version was awful.

Hehe! I remember when I upgraded from a Spectrum 128 to the ST - I must say I was a bit disappointed with the sound and the initial lack of smooth vertical scrolling, until Goldrunner came along!!! I only had the ST for a year, then saw the light and got an A500 - seeing Shadow Of The Beast running in a computer store with the glorious parallax scrolling was what swung it for me!

When the time came to upgrade the Spectrum 128, it just wasn't the done thing for a Speccy user to buy a computer from "the enemy" that was Commodore!!!  :-D   Plus the Amiga was initially quite a bit more money than the ST.

 - Ali