View Single Post
Old 21 June 2006, 07:27   #54
HOL / AMR Team Member

DrBong's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,251
Originally Posted by HCF
Don't remember the Atari ST to be cheaper (at least the 1040 which was comparable to the Amiga 500). The cheaper ST models had no disk drive and required the purchase of an external drive. You were also limited with the monitors versus the TV set that was supported by the Amiga. Maybe I should look for some old magazines since memory might be failing me...
And I honestly don't remember Atari ST software bundles but I was never really interested in the ST so I must have just missed those...
??? The first models of the Atari 520ST were as you said, but they then included an internal drive (and built-in RF IIRC) in response to criticism. It was directly in competition and comparable to the A500. The 1040ST came out later and notably had 1Mb ram as standard compared to the 512k still present in A500s at the time. I suggest you look at ads in some old mags for yourself. Off-hand I remember ACE carrying the ST ads I was talking about in 1988. Think The Games Machine and maybe even Commodore User ran the same ads too.

And even in the early days, Commodore was licensing Microsoft BASIC as part of the operating system in earlier 6502 based machines. At that particular time Microsoft BASIC was the defacto standard.
If they released the Amiga without a BASIC interpreter, they might alienate the C64 users converting to the Amiga. It also served as an educational tool for the novice user. If you spent a lot of money on a computer, you at least want to be able to "play around" a little without having to buy something else.
??? I'm not sure what your point is. What is popular and sells well (or in this case is bundled with a new computer) isn't necessarily better. C= did start out with Metacomco's ABasiC (which was more like 8-bit versions of BASIC) and then decided to license Microsoft's AmigaBASIC for WB 1.2/1.3. They then dropped it (and BASIC) altogether from WB 2.x/3.x, I imagine partly to save a bit of money with licensing and perhaps because there were much better versions of BASIC around commercially and on PD.

You say AmigaBASIC is buggy because some programs didn't run correctly but that doesn't mean the interpreter was at fault. Commercial games did not use AmigaBASIC since they most certainly were compiled using Absoft's compiler. Was not aware that Absoft itself also created a BASIC interpreter since as far as I knew, the compiler was intended to compile AmigaBASIC programs.
Being a HOL team member, working out what languages commercial Amiga games were coded in is of interest. Some early ones actually included all the AmigaBASIC files on the disk and used it to interpret and compile the game. Others like Computer Baseball actually instructed users to copy AmigaBASIC on to the game disk to do the same thing.

Never heard of True BASIC, not even on the PC. Must have been one of those obscure languages like Modula-2 or Draco.
Yep, so obscure that it was released on 6-7 platforms back in the day and is still being developed and sold today:

The forum on the website looks to be quite active too......
DrBong is offline  
Page generated in 0.04564 seconds with 10 queries