Amiga vs Atari - "back in the day"

[TheMagicM]

Sometimes when I drive home, I listen to reruns of Computer Chronicles, stuff I havent seen, to get an idea of how it was back then.

I ran across this video:

 Amiga versus Atari - Computer Chronicle part 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xfyg1OYf14g

Stoneware a company that makes DB Master an entry level database had this reason why to support Atari first before Amiga and I wondered if it was a bs reason or was there any truth to it:

"...the Amiga when you develop for it, its very hard to use your dev investment for other machines, with the ST its much easier."  

To me it sounds like someone was paid to release their product for an Atari 520ST.

Skip to 1:00...

[TheMagicM]

I don't know anything about programming on the ST but I believe TOS was close to other existing OS's of the era and GEM was already the GUI on some PCs.

yea but different architecture.

[TheMagicM]

Probably not. The Atari ST was a very classical (not to say "boring") design. IOW, developers didn't have to care about such annoying problems as "multitasking" and "I'm not the only application that requires memory". Also, it was used in a couple of places as a "poor men's Mac replacement" for the office (or home office), unlike the Amiga, which was always considered as an "advanced game machine" (unfortunately) and hence did not attract many professional customers.

AAhh ok..that makes more sense.  I thought his quote was a slight to the Amiga.  Hearing it from a Dev makes more sense.

[TheMagicM]

I don't know if you folks read Dad Hacker...

very interesting site.  Another thing I like doing is reading stuff like this.