Difference between Amiga and Atari 520?

[KThunder]

much of the original st hardware seems to be very pcish, except for the processor. it had an ega style video chip, very simple sound chip and pc style floppies (only the boot block was different iirc)
management at atari was about as bad as at commodore, or the st series might still be around. the 030 added better graphics, processor (of course), and audio dsp. it didnt have much expansion though. that was really the problem with most st series computers. you could add tons of stuff to almost any amiga but the st's were all kludges.

[KThunder]

chsedge wrote:
Marco, fully pre-emptive multi-tasking existed since the 70's, and even GUI. Amiga has GUI later than the MAC, and at that time multi-tasking was a feature needed mainly on big machines. The TripOS project was a nice research, but it has many flaws that Amiga suffered for years.

i think what marco meant was a personal computer os not mainframe or whatever. if you look at the way the amiga os was designed (threads mainly but arexx later) multitasking worked much better than on other machines.
which flaws that amiga suffered with are you talking about?