Atari ST versus Commodore Amiga in pictures

[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.

[DigitalQ]

@monami:

If you really knew your history, you would know that Commodore CEO Tom Rattigan was responsible for the A500 and A2000 duo, as well as bringing Commodore back to profitability.  He was not around when Commodore bought Amiga, and it's a well-known fact that Commodore was horribly mis-managed back in those days.

Rattigan was interviewed by Dan Gutman back in 1987, and I have an excerpt from that interview which you will find enlightening:

Guttman: (What is your reaction about) Jack Tramiel, founder of Commodore and now head of your biggest competitor?

Rattign: None.  None whatsoever.  If he were sitting here, it would be the first time I ever met him.  He smokes cigars, so he can't be all bad.

Clearly, as indicated by this interview which occurred just months prior to the demonstration of the Amiga 500 and 2000 for the first time ever, there was no "Bad Blood" between the man responsible for the Atari ST and the man responsible for the Amiga 500.  Just business as usual.

I do like this quote from the interview, the only time the Atari ST was mentioned during the interview:

Q: What would you do if your granddaughter brought home an Atari ST?
A: I'd probably send her off to have her IQ tested.

 :lol:

[DigitalQ]

monami wrote:
i've just found a midi interface for amiga. where can i find a legal copy of cubase? thanks.

You could dig out and run an old copy of Emulator's, Inc. Gemulator on a bone stock Amiga 500 and run the Atari ST version; but as others have pointed out, similar software native to the Amiga is so much nicer to use; why restrict yourself?  

I had a copy at one time, but I think I erased that disk to use for something else since there really wasn't anything for the Atari ST that I couldn't do better in the native Amiga world.   :-D

[DigitalQ]

I saw this picture, and thought of this thread: