Atari ST versus Commodore Amiga in pictures

[Flashlab]

And the point being?

Noone denies that here. Noone denies Atari for what they did in computing history. You seem to be an Atari fan boy two decades too late.

[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.

[monami]

why didn't they stick with their original design of the a1000?  atari were the competition and as far as i can see they did everything to become what atari was and did...

[Flashlab]

They did: 2000, 3000 and 4000 were big box Amigas like the original 1000.

And for the 500, 600 and 1200 models. C= has a big history of all in one home computers BEFORE the ST models. Look at the post earlier in this topic comparing the 500 to the C64 and 128 models with picture.

[monami]

well i can only say reguardless while i do like the a500 my thoughts about it remain unchanged. i would still by an st over an amiga if the time had come back. even with all the bells and whistles. and it was right for my purpose and i had my st in 1985 not 1987... i didn't like the nature of amiga owners at the time. very in yer face "i've got namiga. i've got n800k floppy."

while the platform had it's dissapointments for me. i still have some fond memories of atari who did nothing but innovate since conception and succeed as far as i'm concerned and all they touched turned to gold for a while. good luck big old atari in the sky! shame it had to be marred by those wanting a foot up just to get the recognition. i have my amigas yes and am fond of them but i always carried that in my heart...

[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.

[Hammer]

monami wrote:
from amiga history: 1991.

"1991: Standing still

The deep cracks in Commodore turn to huge tidal waves as many people loose faith in the market. Commodore launch a low-end upgrade to the A500 - the Amiga 500 plus - without informing anyone that they were shipping the product and the CDTV was canceled."

Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Mach
ATI's timeline for Mach GPU series. Starting with ATI's Mach8 in 1991, Mach32 in 1992 and Mach64 in 1994.

Overlay that with AGA and AAA timelines.

The Amiga 500 Plus (AmigaOS 2.0x, 2MB Fat Agnus, Super Denise) is just revised version Amiga 500 Rev6A(my first Amiga, AmigaOS 1.3.2, 1MB Fat Agnus).  Amiga 500 Rev6A is revised version Amiga 500 Rev5(my second Amiga for null serial multi-player, AmigaOS 1.2, 512KB Agnus).

[Flashlab]

I knew it; classic fan boy behaviour! Even when presented with logic and factual history you just get the "but I feel it's different" answer.

I give up talking sense into you. This gives me the same annoyance like talking to Jehova's witnesses that want to convert me.

[monami]

i'm a fan of many platforms...
what sence have you to talk? talk it.

[monami]

@hammer

those are not my words they are from the online amiga history!

[InTheSand]

monami wrote:
...atari who did nothing but innovate since conception and succeed as far as i'm concerned...

As far as you're concerned... Exactly.

Meanwhile, back in reality, Atari innovated in the 1970s with the 2600 and the 400/800 series, but it's a bit of a push to consider the likes of the ST as "innovative". Cheap, yes, but not innovative.

As history shows and others in this thread have stated, it was hastily cobbled together from mostly off-the-shelf parts, using someone else's GUI (GEM) and someone else's base OS (CP/M 68K). Innovation? Where?

 - Ali

[monami]

i'm sure the amiga was the same. surface mounting and all...

[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.

[InTheSand]

DigitalQ wrote:
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.  

Yes!!! The experience of typing on that squishy keyboard is certainly unique!

If you can get hold of it, the "Byte" magazine ST review and interview (circa 1986) makes interesting reading. In particular, the ST was never originally intended to be shipped with that awful YM/AY clone soundchip...

 - Ali

[SamOS39]

Brilliant! Amiga wins!! :-D

[Hammer]

monami wrote:
@hammer

those are not my words they are from the online amiga history!

In 1991, PC was in ascending as a gaming platform e.g. Wing Commander series reveals classic Amiga’s architectural weakness for certain type of games.