View Single Post
Old 23 June 2003, 21:04   #12
FromWithin
Music lord
FromWithin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Liverpool, UK
Age: 43
Posts: 595
Send a message via ICQ to FromWithin Send a message via AIM to FromWithin Send a message via MSN to FromWithin Send a message via Yahoo to FromWithin
Damn, just can't stop myself from replying.

Quote:
Originally posted by Frederic
What can an Atari or Amiga do that a PC cannot? What's the incentive to use an older computer to mix music?
Amiga...Bars & Pipes. Greatest sequencing software ever created. You won't understand what I'm talking about unless you get in there an use it. It's unlike any other sequencer. (fromwithin.com/liquidmidi).

The other reason is timing. The Amiga and ST can provide much better MIDI timing due to the software layer being much closer to the hardware than having to kludge through Windows or MacOS. Timing is especially good with Bars&Pipes on the Amiga which uses an interrupt from a hardware audio channel to maintain accurate timing, no matter how much load the CPU is under (B&P was designed to also be used in conjuction with video and other time-based media, so it was very important not to lose sync). The unfortunate side-effect of this is that due to slight hardware variations, 120bpm may actually end up being something like 120.3bpm. It just depends on the Amiga it's running on.

Quote:
Originally posted by manicx
1) ST 720/1.44 floppy drive works a dream with PC floppy disks and vice versa. Just have a look to PacifiST, the old ST emulator for the PC that could read ST FDs!!! Neither to mention how easy it is to convert a ST/MSA image from the PC to the ST.
But that is because of the cheap drive controllers in PC floppies. It's like saying that a word processor that can only read and write MSWord files is better than another Word processor that has got many more features but saves its own file format. Compatible does not equal better. If PCs had adopted Amiga drive controllers at some point in their history, there would be no argument because then PCs would be able to read any disk format.

Quote:
Originally posted by manicx
2)The Amiga has an external PSU. Is this a disadvantage?
No because it's much easier to replace a PSU, and also keeps the heat outside the casing.

Quote:
Originally posted by manicx
3) YM2149 delivered its job really well. It was the whole ST architecture that lacked, not the sound chip. Don't forget that the ST could play 4ch mods but that was down to clever programming not to make the CPU go bananas. Basically, I've seen some routines that could play 4096 colours with scrolling while you are listening to 4ch music on the ST and the CPU is no more than 50% loaded....
So what you are saying is that the ST was as good at the Amiga because it could play four channels of samples and display 4096 colours while using 50% of the CPU, while the Amiga could do the same thing using 0% CPU? A definite flaw in your logic there...the YM2149 was an abomination and another example of the off-the-shelf nature of the ST.

Quote:
Originally posted by manicx
4) (Ok I cheated!!! ) The ST was running at nearly 1MHz faster. Vector graphics were moving a lot faster and 99% of 3D graphics back then were vectors...
Unfortunately, back then Amiga games were ST ports (especially 3D stuff). The Amiga could line-draw with the Blitter asynchronously, but I don't think anybody ever used it. BTW, the Amiga was at 7.09MHz (PAL) or 7.16MHz (NTSC) because it had to be divisible by the clock speed of the Blitter (28.37516MHz PAL, 28.63636MHz NTSC).

Quote:
Originally posted by manicx
TOS was a lot better than WB1.3. After all how many of us actually used WB1.3? It was useless in those floppy disks.
Oh dear. There is a lot more to the Operating System than Workbench. You should be talking about Kickstart1.3, not WB1.3. The Amiga had the OS in ROM (except for the software-loadable ROM on the 3000 and 1000 which came on kickstart disks). The workbench libraries etc were on disk. The OS also uses jump tables in RAM which by default point to the ROM, this meant that the OS was easily patched in software (that's what SetPatch does on later Workbench versions) to fix problems and allow updates. It also had proper preemptive multi-tasking. The TOS GUI was derived from the old GEM OS by Digital Research (from 1983) - it was another thrown-together component. All told, Kickstart1.3 was an amazing operating system for the time. It provided a windowing and gadget system, independent draggable screens, multiple screen resolutions on the same display, a command-line interface, named devices and volumes (instead of the stupid A: B: C: system), and no file extensions (hooray!) Far ahead of most operating systems of the time. And using it from floppy was fine, especially when doing command line stuff as you could put everything into the RAM disk on boot-up and then not need the floppy again. You didn't need anything on the disk to get the CLI up without the workbench running in the background. It seems to me that you never did any real work with your Amiga back then.

Quote:
Originally posted by manicx
All they tried to do, was to increase revenues by selling the same old computer at a time where technology and R&D was moving forward at a fast pace.
I agree with the revenues issue (Commodore didn't seem to realise what they had with the Amiga and spent tons of cash making Commodore PCs instead of putting all that money into Amiga research), but disagree with the R&D issue. The Amiga was released in 1985, and yet PCs only started to approach equivalent functionality when Windows95 was released. Even the Mac has never had a pre-emptive multi-tasking OS until OSX.

Quote:
Originally posted by manicx
The purpose of this post is not to cause wars, it's just here to highlight that both machines had strong and weak points
Just one last comment here about the strong and the weak points: I can only think of one single advantage that the ST held over the Amiga, and that was having built-in MIDI ports, which was a stroke of genius. This was not a technical advantage (the standard Amiga serial port supports any baud rate, obviously including the MIDI output baud rate of 31250), but an issue of convenience. You didn't have to spend an extra 25 on the MIDI interface and musicians bought an ST because built-in MIDI ports screamed "I'm good for music, honest!" at them. Cubase was, and still is, a dreadful piece of software for MIDI sequencing. These days, it's great for recording audio tracks and adding effects, but the MIDI editor is pretty much the same as the ST version, i.e. very rudimentary.

Aah. That's better.
FromWithin is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.08257 seconds with 9 queries