Atari ST versus Commodore Amiga in pictures

[DigitalQ]

Neat video, but it misses other aspects that made the Amiga clearly superior: The sound and the animation capabilities.  The title screens are a very tiny aspect of the game.  The Amiga also had a much more sophisticated and superior operating system.

We need to bear in mind that, when the Atari 520ST first came out, Commodore only had the Amiga 1000.  An Amiga 1000 system would cost almost three times what a similar Atari ST system would cost in 1985!  It wasn't until two years later did we see a price-competitive Amiga 500, and it still cost more than a comparable ST system (though not by a whole lot; maybe $100 or so).

The Amiga and the Atari ST came out at almost the same time; the ST may have beat the Amiga by a month or two.  Don't forget that the Amiga used to be the Lorraine owned by Hi-Torro, and was almost bought by Atari!  I wonder how much of the Amiga's design concepts Atari "Stole" to complete their ST?

[DigitalQ]

monami:

In actual fact, the Amiga 500 was, essentially, an Amiga 1000 with a full 512k of RAM and Kickstart 1.2 burned into a ROM.  Technically speaking, it didn't offer anything that you couldn't do with an Amiga 1000.  It was put in a case that very much resembled the Commodore 128; so much so that, at a glance, it can be difficult to tell the two machines apart.  It was the utilization of 2 year old technology and design concepts already in place with the Commodore 128 that made it price-competitive in the low-end 16 bit market.

In this picture, we can see clear similarities between the 64c, the Commodore 128, and the Amiga 500:



The Commodore 128, the inspiration behind the Amiga 500's design, predates the Atari ST by a full year.

The Amiga 500 and Amiga 2000 were both released at about the same time, and they addressed the demands of customers.  The Amiga 500 was for those demanding a low-cost, "Affordable" Amiga; while the Amiga 2000 was for those demanding an Amiga with better expandability.  The A2000 broadened the appeal of the Amiga to a whole new market for Commodore (you know, the Mac and PC one you claimed they didn't think was successful); while the A500 was a logical upgrade path from the 8 bit Commodores.  Atari should have seen this coming and made a better, more competitive ST during those two years.

[DigitalQ]

monami,

The source you cite is the opinion of the writer.

I think we need to put a little perspective on this.  When the Amiga was first introduced in 1985, it could do things that nothing under $10,000 could do at the time.  You would have to spend upwards of $20,000 to get the same functionality as the Amiga 1000.  Because of this, the Amiga 1000 was a great success and made a huge impact on the computer industry.  It was so advanced, comparisons to the Atari ST seemed absurd.

At the time of the release of the Amiga 500, CBM's general manager, Alfred Duncan, was quoted as saying, the Amiga 500 represents "a computer that retails for about half as much as the Amiga 1000 yet retains all of the performance capabilities - including advanced graphics and video, four-channel sound, built-in speech synthesis, and multi-tasking -- in a lower priced unit."  With the exception of the ROM-resident kernel (the Amiga 1000 used a kickstart disk, but I believe ROM solutions were made available), it was, for all intents and purposes, an Amiga 1000 computer system stuffed into a Commodore 128 case.  It had the exact same chipset and capabilities.  Just as the Amiga 2000 was an Amiga 1000 with the ROM-resident kickstart and an open archetecture with seven internal slots.

Fact is, the Amiga outclassed everything in its day, including the Atari ST.  Fact is, the Amiga 500 would have happened regardless of the existence of the Atari ST, as it follows the same evolutionary path as Commodore's 8 bits (Commodore PET > Vic 20 = Amiga 1000 > Amiga 500).  Technology trickles down, and all-in-one computer designs were mainstaples of the home computer industry since the 1970's when we had the Apple II, Vic 20, and Atari 400.

[DigitalQ]

I said the Amiga 500 would have happened without the Atari ST.  Clearly, Atari as a company played a big role in the early days of 8 bit computers and game consoles and did their part to shape the industry that was to come.  However, the impact of the Atari ST computer was really only noticed in the music industry, where the ST found its niche.  The Amiga, on the other hand, had a dramatic effect on the entire computer industry.

As for who died first; we're talking about platforms here, not companies.  The Atari ST platform died around 1990 or so after the release of the Mega STE and the ST Book.  Amiga was still a viable platform for four years after that up until when Commodore went bankrupt, and still sees development and sales to this day.

[DigitalQ]

Again, this isn't about Commodore vs. Atari companies; but rather the Amiga vs. the Atari ST computers.  While Atari as a company played a relatively minor role in the history of the Amiga, the Amiga 500 computer would have happened whether or not the Atari ST computer line ever existed.  There was market demand for an Amiga 1000 in a Commodore 128 case, which Atari had no control over.

[DigitalQ]

Again, the confusion.  Amiga, as a computer platform, was not a late comer.  However, in the low end 16 bit home computer market, the Atari ST had a head start over the Amiga 500.  With the Amiga 500, it was simply state-of-the-art, cutting edge, high-technology from 1985 trickling down as it ought to over a period of two years.  The Atari ST was never state-of-the-art or cutting edge; it was dated the day it was released, but it was priced as such and was a good value in 1985.  Superior Amiga technology trickled down, but the Atari ST never really improved until it was too late.

The A500 was not a gamble; it came out to meet market demand.    Many people, including myself, were not all that impressed with the Atari ST and decided to wait for the cheap Amiga to trickle down and arrive.  Others opted for a Commodore 128 instead of an Atari ST, to take advantage of the established software and hardware base.

As for the hype; the Amiga was the wonder computer of the 1980's.  It was capable of doing things nothing under $10,000 could.  You could call it hype or marketing.  I call it genius.

[DigitalQ]

The people who worked for Atari are people who worked for Atari.  They are not Atari, nor are they the Atari ST, nor does bringing them up support the argument that the Amiga 500 was a "Copy" of the Atari ST.

[DigitalQ]

Flashlab is spot on.  Also, the purpose of the all-in-one computer design was intended to keep manufacturing costs low, and was something Commodore, Atari, Apple, and many other manufacturers did long before anyone ever heard of the Atari ST.

The A500 has more in common, design-wise, with the Commodore 128 than it does with the Atari ST.

[DigitalQ]

Interestingly, what made the Atari ST special didn't even come from Atari.  It ran an operating system that was made by Digital Research, which was, for all intents and purposes, a rip-off from the Mac's interface.  It used a 68000 CPU made by Motorola, which it relied on very HEAVILY for every little task it performed.  The rest of it was made of cut-rate parts from whoever the lowest bidder was.  I think that maybe Atari made the case, however.  

That's what I really liked about the Amiga 500.  It was something refreshingly different.  It had its own custom co-processors, making very efficient use of the 68000.  Its operating system was very unique and powerful, unlike anything ever seen before.

[DigitalQ]

It seems to me there wasn't anything the Atari ST could do that the Commodore 128 could do.   :-D

[DigitalQ]

AeroMan wrote:

If you guys have read On The Edge, there is a part where it says the ST's design started inside Commodore. Amiga's creators were ex-Atari people.

Amiga's hardware is closer to the Atari 800 than to the C64. It uses a list to feed the video chip for graphics and sprites, as Miner did for the 800. It has DMA to obtain this data, and lots of similarities.

The ST is closer to the 64, in the way it has a number of fixed modes, and they work in a simpler way. It has a single video chip that shares RAM just like the VIC did. It is a simple machine. Shivji was part of the Commodore 8 bit team.

What really disapoints me is to see this world dominated by PCs. Crappy processor, crappy video, crappy sound, crappy OS, and It won the big fight over all the nice machines...
(crappy world ! :-? )

To be perfectly honest, I never thought of Amiga as being closely related to either Commodore or Atari.  To me, it made use of the best engineering concepts in computer design of the time to create a whole new computer platform.  

A lot of these arguments can be related to automobiles.  If someone worked for Ford then left to work for a small company to develop a new Hydrogen engine that set new standards in the automobile industry, which was later bought up by General Motors and used in cars built by General Motors, would we still call it a Ford?

Clearly, we have: A) Computer engineers, B) Computer platforms, and C) Computer companies.  We also have D) Investors, who may or may not be C) Computer companies.  It's A) Computer engineers that design B) Computer platforms, which are then marketed by C) computer companies.  Sometimes they need D) investors to get their ideas off the ground; but that money must be paid back.  Far too often, computer companies are credited with the creation of a computer platform.  They are not.  They simply market the products of the engineers who happen to be in their employ.  Thus, neither Commodore nor Atari are responsible for the creation of the Amiga.  

As for the state of modern PC's, I'd say they've incorporated a lot of the good qualities of the Amiga.  At least the world is using a Windows that's based on OS/2 now, which is closer to the Amiga.

[DigitalQ]

InTheSand wrote:
And... the rise of 3D first-person shooters pretty much killed off the remaining Amiga games market... If only the AGA chipset had included a chunky graphics mode as part of the original hardware (Akiko excluded)... Then again, that'd only have just delayed the inevitable...

What made Commodore such a great success was the times they delivered to market a product that people wanted.  What made them fail is when they tried to dictate to the market what people wanted.  Case in point: The Commodore PET created a desire.  The Commodore Vic 20, then the C64, delivered what the market demanded.  The Plus/4 and C16 were attempts by Commodore to control the market, and as such failed.  The Commodore 128 and 64c are examples of Commodore once again giving the market what they demanded, and the move barely saved them.

The Amiga 1000 was much like that Commodore PET; an original idea that created desire.  The A500 and A2000 gave the market what it demanded.  After that, Commodore tried to control the market and dictate it with products like the A500+, too many variations of the A2000, then the A600 and A3000.  However, this time, by the time they started delivering what people wanted (the 1200 and the 4000), it was too little, too late, too overpriced.  

[DigitalQ]

HenryCase wrote:
@DigitalQ

Forgive my ignorance, but in what ways is OS/2 more similar to the Amiga than DOS-based Windows?

The way in which OS/2 Multitasks is very similar to the Amiga; in that it worked very well without crashing the system.  Also, the High Performance File System (HPFS) of OS/2 was similar with respect that you could natively use long file names instead of the hack that Fat32 offered.  OS/2 used REXX, which was very similar to Amiga's AREXX.  Unlike DOS-based Windows, and much like AmigaDOS and Workbench 2.x and over, OS/2 was very stable and rarely crashed.  Like in Amiga WB 2.x and over, one could customize their desktop to no end in OS/2.  In all honesty, when I made the switch to PC from Amiga, I felt much more at home with OS/2 than I did with Windows.  

A well-known fact is that modern Windows is based on NT.  A little-known fact is that NT is based on OS/2.   :-D

[DigitalQ]

monami wrote:
 i know it's a cut throat buisiness. so many didn't succeed. but i personally didn't like the amigas entrance to my world. as you say my history is different to what you consider to be true. to me it was like a sex pistols song "god save the queen." on jubilee day. even though i'm a fan i didn't like that approach. yes commodore were having to find a nitch. but even i can see that was a mistake to put up what were £1000 computers when they had home computers before. so then i saw it like oh lets get in at the low end. and undercut and cut out atari. any kind of revenge it didn't wash with me thats all.

Honestly, what business was it of Atari's to even make home computers in the first place?  They had their Atari 2600 videogame console, and Commodore had the PET.  Then Atari decided to undercut and cut out Commodore with the Atari 400.  They could have stuck with videogame consoles like Nintendo did, but instead they decided to go on the attack against Commodore.  

See, you got your history all wrong again.  It's Atari that were the agressors; Commodore was merely trying to protect itself.   ;-)

[DigitalQ]

InTheSand wrote:
Errm... Windows NT was originally going to be based on OS/2, but this fell apart when Microsoft continued to develop its DOS-based Windows GUI instead of putting its resources into OS/2. IBM and M$ fell out, with IBM going the OS/2 route and Microsoft with Windows. The rest is history!

 - Ali

As I mentioned, it's a little-known fact.  When IBM and Microsoft parted ways, both parties owned OS/2 (as it was a joint project) and continued to develop it in their own way.  Microsoft slapped its Windows interface on it and called it Windows NT 3.0, while IBM proceeded with Warp.

This is further demonstrated when one discovers they can run older OS/2 programs under Windows NT.  Microsoft has an article on this at TechNet:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/ntwrkstn/reskit/os2comp.mspx?mfr=true

The compatibility existed because, for all intents and purposes, Windows NT was built on OS/2.