Difference between Amiga and Atari 520?

[Giana]

Two fantastic machines !!!
I still have both.

Atari is more simply made, poor architecture, no custom chips so overall graphics and sounds capabilities are not as good as the Amiga(s). Simpler to code too (on first approach ...). And true first demos, first stunning gfx effects were coded on Atari first coz the challlenge was big : how to push the limit of this little machine ...

On the other hand, during the early good old days, games development on Amiga were often badly done : simply a kind of cross compiling with no true use of the custom chips, so games were slightly identical. But this didn't last too long, and "specific" games appeared : I remember a great change from the first release of Shadow of the Beast. I was 13 and and it was like a nuke fell down on our heads.

Well, this is my point of view ...
Giana

[InTheSand]

whabang wrote:

InTheSand wrote:
And don't forget it took Microsoft until Windows XP to have a consumer OS that finally dumped the underlying DOS-based stuff!!

I hate to be a knitpick, but that's just not true! The first true 32-bit version of Windows was Windows NT 3.1. IIRC, it was released in 1993.

True, WinNT 3.x was fully 32-bit, but it was certainly not a consumer OS - these were still stuck on the Win9x line until XP Home was released, with the NT-based line not even getting true plug 'n' play, USB and other goodies until Windows 2000.

Erol wrote:
I think the Atari ST and the Spectrum128 had more in common, bad sound!

I remember playing Xenon on the Atari ST and then playing the Amiga version, then i laughed as the Atari version was awful.

Hehe! I remember when I upgraded from a Spectrum 128 to the ST - I must say I was a bit disappointed with the sound and the initial lack of smooth vertical scrolling, until Goldrunner came along!!! I only had the ST for a year, then saw the light and got an A500 - seeing Shadow Of The Beast running in a computer store with the glorious parallax scrolling was what swung it for me!

When the time came to upgrade the Spectrum 128, it just wasn't the done thing for a Speccy user to buy a computer from "the enemy" that was Commodore!!!  :-D   Plus the Amiga was initially quite a bit more money than the ST.

 - Ali

[Agafaster]

spirantho wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
The copper co-processor makes it possible to use multithreading natively. No extra software needed. No cpu cycles spilled waiting.

Erm... that's not quite accurate. The Copper is another processor, it doesn't affect the OS in any way to do with multitasking whatsoever.

Otherwise you could say that any PC with a WinTV card supports hardware multitasking because it's got a seperate RISC processor on-board which can wait for stuff without tying up the CPU.

Incidentally, the original 520ST may have been bundled with a disk drive but it didn't come out of the box with a disk drive. I know because my disk drive wouldn't fit in my 520ST's box.

...and you da man where TV cards are concerned ! got anywhere with AmiTV, incidentally ?

on first experiences as a spotty little speccy user, the ST looked better for me, as it had a nicer looking box, and had a GUI - this was in '85, before I saw a Spec128, so the sound seemed pretty good to me. then I saw an Amiga - I absolutely HATED the horrid blue and orange colours on me mates' telly, but that was the only argument, once I'd seen a few demos, and played shuffle puck cafe a few times!! of course, I've grown to respect the WB1 colour scheme - looks a tonne better on a proper display device!!

[Agafaster]

When the time came to upgrade the Spectrum 128, it just wasn't the done thing for a Speccy user to buy a computer from "the enemy" that was Commodore!!!  :-D   Plus the Amiga was initially quite a bit more money than the ST.

 - Ali

there was probably a little of the 'Auld Enemy' in there for me too!!

[patrik]

Erol wrote:
@Amiduffer

I think the Atari ST and the Spectrum128 had more in common, bad sound!

I remember playing Xenon on the Atari ST and then playing the Amiga version,  then i laughed as the Atari version was awful.

I assume that by awful, you mean that the sound was awful in the Atari ST version.

Graphically, the Bitari Brothers' games always looked the same on the Amiga and the ST.

It is a shame that they could never be arsed to use the hardware features of the Amiga, to achieve for example smooth scrolling.


/Patrik

[Erol]

patrik wrote:

I assume that by awful, you mean that the sound was awful in the Atari ST version.
/Patrik

That is correct.
I did like time bandit though on the AtariST.  ;-)