View Single Post
Old 24 June 2003, 09:40   #18
Junior Member
manicx's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Athens, Greece
Posts: 962
Originally posted by FromWithin
Damn, just can't stop myself from replying.

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.

Assumptions make me laugh. If this and if that. In case of a broken Amiga drive what do you do these days and how much do you pay? What about Kylwada and Catweasel. You should also contact Eyetech and ask them to make some 1.76 drives for you. They may even be able to find 4-5 in eBay. Things is that PCs rule the world...

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.
Seems you are a fast reader and you miss important parts in posts. I said that the whole Atari architecture was lacking not just the soundchip. It seems that some people want to argue all time.

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).
Have you wondered why they were Atari ports? Now here's a question for you. I personally know Steve Camber of the Infogrames glory and Yak, and they both answered this in the past, but I leave this to you to speculate....

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.
Oh dear! Such a long statement and you make a runty assumption at the end, once again. WB 1.3 was a very capable OS. Thing is, that since I was working in a TV station back in '88 (getting 3 euros a day!), doing all the video titling stuff, I came across WB1.3 in its full glory, and this is INSTALLED in a HD! WB was simply unusable from floppies. You wanted to format a floppy disk and you had to boot from floppy and wait 1 minute to boot up. You wanted basic file operations and it was the same. That's why people developed tools that were booting faster and were doing this things better. I remember, most of my friends back then, never bothered booting WB from floppy to do anything at all. They all had a floppy disk called EGA Team with tools and utilities.

To be honest, WB1.3 was much better than TOS, BUT TOS delivered its purpose more efficient and effectively than WB1.3. It was booting in seconds, provided basic funtions for 16bits, and was more easy to use. Atari was also more open minded in delivering multi-languange support for it. I was hired by them in 1990 and developed a Greek ROM. Also bear in mind that ST could boot TOS from floppy as well.

As I said, WB 1.3 was brilliant if you had a HD, but with the release of A500 WB 1.3 was cursed to remain an unexplored OS to most. I was lucky to have that work back then. I apparently collected enough money to buy me the HD for the A500 (an Alpha Data if I am not wrong).

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.
C'mon, R&D sucked. You speak about R&D in the 80's but where the hell was R&D when they released A500+, A600, and CD32? They even released A1200 in 92 whereas this machine should have been developed and released at least 3 years earlier... They totally lost the plot in exactly the same way Atari did. that's why they lost the game. They never saw the rise of 3D graphics...

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.
My main point, and excuse me if I am bit rough, is that some people lost the meaning of home computing. The meaning of home computing is to have a computer that is fun, brings creativity and helps you in office works at home. As I said, I have been a part of the Atari Vs Amiga wars back then, but after 13 years I laugh! Why? Because both computers were excellent, they both delivered its purpose and they both died mainly because they were fighting each other rather than developing their own strategy against the real opponent called Microsoft. So who cares if YM2149 was infrerior to Paula? I could play games and listen to some music and have a laugh! Who cares if the graphics were better in Amiga games? I did have laugh playing computer games... Same goes for serious software. Both computers served their purpose in that. The ST had the highres monitor that helped him fight against the PCs and Macs and Amiga only did this with AGA Amigas (I almost cried when I saw 640*512 in DbPal in my A1200 and the 1940 in 93).

To sum up, I laugh when people show up to say Amiga was better because.... or ST was better because... I still have my STE, my A1200 and my A4000 and I still use every single one of them to have a laugh. I just wish, Amiga hardware could sell a bit cheaper in eBay so I could buy a PPC card as my wage here in Greece in crap ! Anyway, I do hope that this post clarifies that I do love both the ST and the Amiga and I do have excellent memories with both. I try to be real and not think just Amiga or Just ST just like some people do 13 years after the great wars. I do believe that these people should grow up because we have 2003!
manicx is offline  
Page generated in 0.03970 seconds with 10 queries