Amiga 1200 versus Atari Falcon?

[Pentad]

The Atari Falcon -like the entire ST line- is full of mysteries that I wish somebody could solve in a book like the one on Commodore from Bagnall.

This thread compares the Atari Falcon to the Amiga and while I think personally the Amiga wins out, the Falcon is another great example of 'How did that ever get through a design group?'.

What I mean is that when these machines were new, I was a kid that really didn't know anything.  As an educated adult in the Computer Science field, I look at some decisions in utter amazement.

Please, don't think that I'm trying to be arrogant or that I know everything.  Trust me, I make plenty of mistakes and there is much I don't know.

Given that, there are certain decisions where even the simplest person had to know it was a fatal design mistake.

As I had posted before, Atari wrote TOS using instructions in the 68k that we not certified to be there in future processors.   In fact, Motorola went out of their way to let companies know which instructions would be in their next CPUs.

TOS uses instructions that are not available from the 010 and beyond.  This is why the ST line couldn't use an 010 through the 060.

The Atari TT has a new version of TOS but it clobbers backward compatibility because most software assumed that it wasn't going to have a new processor.   Given all the great stuff Atari included, they *removed* the blitter from their *graphics* workstation.

Lastly, the Atari Falcon tries to over come these two issues but its given a puny 16bit bus that fatally cripples it.

I sincerely don't understand how any of these got through design and Q/A meetings.  Unless, Jack just dictated plans by himself, I just can't imagine anybody with a degree in engineering (CS, EE, etc..) that would have thought this was a good idea.

You might be able to argue that the TT and Falcon were fatally wounded by cost or marketing folks.   However, writing the core OS and using instructions that are deprecated is just unheard of...I mean its just unthinkable from a design stand point.

Lest, you think you come away with nothing from this post.  Does anybody know which computer TOS was written on?


The Apple Lisa.

Cheers!
-P

[Pentad]

When I read and post in threads like these, I think they are a great deal of fun.  Debating who had the better hardware and what each company should have done is like reliving some history.

However, it makes me sad to think that Commodore, Atari, Ti, Tandy, and many others really helped to shape the computer landscape but are forgotten in the folds of history.

I am grateful that Brian Bagnall decided to write about Commodore and fill in gaps that many of us had wondered about.

In truth, I wish Brian -or another like him- would do the same for Atari.   While there are other companies that helped shape the computer landscape, I cannot think of another company -besides Commodore- that had such a colorful line of products.

I would love to read some insider stuff on the 400/800, the XLs, the STs, and their consoles...   Atari really had a dizzying array of products that were both good and bad.   I bet there are some great stories just waiting to be told.

Today, almost all the books dwell on Apple and Microsoft with a smattering of IBM thrown in but the landscape was much more then these three companies.

-P