Atari ST versus Commodore Amiga in pictures

[persia]

Ok, So if you took all the products of all the dead computer companies, Amiga would be the best.  The video is lame.

[bloodline]

persia wrote:
Ok, So if you took all the products of all the dead computer companies, Amiga would be the best.  The video is lame.

That's a rather nice summary...


I thought the video was quite good hopefully it will inspire someone to make a version with split-screen game Amiga/ST gameplay :-)

[HenryCase]

@monami

monami wrote:
i think the a500 was meant to usurp the st. make of that what you will.

Thank you for answering my question. I don't see it as being quite as straightforward as you propose. Take a look at this article on the history of the Amiga:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/amiga-history-part-5.ars/4
As you can see, the A1000 wasn't selling all too well, so Thomas Rattigan decided to split the Amiga line with a high end and a low end model, hence A500/A2000.

I'm not going to pretend that Commodore were making their decisions without considering what their competitors were up to, but I really think you're overselling the importance of the ST. Just my opinion.

[InTheSand]

DigitalQ wrote:
A well-known fact is that modern Windows is based on NT.  A little-known fact is that NT is based on OS/2.   :-D

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

[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.

[monami]

is a date specified anywhere when the custom chips were made?

[jj]

Not that long before the Amiga 1000 was frist demostrated

you should really check out these articles


Here

[Wain]

@monami

I'm confused, you seem to be saying that you didn't like amigans and amigas at the time because the low end model came out after the atari ST and was better than it...and that it was unfair to compare the two because the a500 came out 2 years later.


Does this about sum up your point?


Should I bother pointing out that if the two were in actual market competition then comparing the two does in fact make perfect sense, and that if you want to squabble about who deserves credit for what you should remember that NEITHER Atari nor Commodore invented the majority of technology in either the Atari ST or the OCS Amiga lines?

[monami]

hi,

i will check out the articles. thanks.

some points seem hard to grasp thats all. if the amiga was as quoted a computer that could do things a 10000 couldn't do(earlier in the thread.) why couldn't they shift it for 1000?

atari "off the shelf chips"? they were industry standard. yam sound chip? used in their keyboards?

if the amiga was so revelutionary why did 3 companies turn them down?

my original point was amiga was failing as they entered the market. their price point was incorrect and so they tried to cut in on ataris market. if their hardware was so good why wasn't the a500 sold for £500 not the same price as atari? surely they would have been recognised for the genius they were?

[jj]

Basically bad management, its al there in the  5 articles so far

[KThunder]

by the time i came around (early 90's) the question came down to upgradeability. the atari had midi and seemed to be a neat machine but a 2000 and later 3000 and 4000 could easily upgrade video, processor, and audio. ataris didnt have anything like that.

 it is possible to put an 060 accelerator with what 128megs ram, multigig hd, high res true color video card, sound card, and many other goodies into a 2000 with os3.9 ataris always seemed much sleaker but more limited to me. and the later versions (falcon etc) that corrected some of those problems were far too rare.

nowadays it comes down to availability. you can get amigas in many places for reasonable prices. were can you get ataris?

[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:

[monami]

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

[Tahoe]

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

Your point being?

It would be like me saying, I just bought an Atari Mega4, now where do I stick my Video Toaster?

It's funny to see though, that after all these years there is still so much bashing going on between these 2 followers. Why not Apple Mac? Why not PC's?

I am a fan of Atari's, be it 8 bit. The ST never did anything for me. Not am I saying one is better then the other, but in history I would agree that Amiga's have had a bigger impact. On the console front that has to be the Atari 2600.

[swift240]

No competition, Amiga wins every time.

The Amiga rests its case.


Mike.

[bloodline]

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

I always hated cubase, still do (all here know I'm a Logic Pro guy now)... For the Amiga, I always loved OctaMED for MIDI and sampling.