Thread: Amiga Vs ST
View Single Post
Old 29 July 2009, 00:51   #159
dlfrsilver
CaptainM68K-SPS France
dlfrsilver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melun nearby Paris/France
Age: 40
Posts: 7,061
Send a message via MSN to dlfrsilver
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
The Amiga was and is an incredible computer that is most areas beats the ST.


It beats the ST in video, sound and speed.......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
However, the ST benefited from the lower prices in the early days, which gave it the largest market share and the Amiga had to play catch-up for the rest of the 8o's.


To survive on the market, the amiga price has been lowered seriously, we all know what followed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
The faster CPU was another advantage, those who think the difference was nothing should talk to David Braben who said the ST version of Frontier runs 25% faster than the A500 version.


This is a point where to compare both machines you can't and should not argue about this. while both use MC68000, doesn't mean they are used the same way and the same purpose.

On Atari St the 68K makes everything alone, pixel pushing and co. On the amiga the 68K is NOT the main part. It's overhauled by the custom chips. The 8 mhz 68K on ST cannot
overcome a computer like the amiga built like a coin-op machine (read using specialized/custom chips on board). Who need an 8 mhz 68000 when you have a 68000 clocked at 7,19 mhz AND a very fast blitter that can be used in a game like frontier elite 2 ?

I have frontier elite 2 on both amiga and atari STE. Where are the 25% more speed on ST ? Also, if Braben has choosed to make frontier rely only on CPU processor, it's an atari ST
programming port. An amiga coding means using custom chips or else it's crap

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
The inbuilt MIDI ports meant the ST cornered the music world despite its rubbish sound chip, just like the Amiga did with video. And yes, you could buy MIDI ports for the Amiga, but the point is they where not standard.


Were not standard, but once installed, it works, right ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Now we come to the so called weak graphics of the ST. Yes, it could normally only display 16 colours, although copper effects (like the Amiga's but done in software) could increase this to 32 or even more. Also, a couple of paint packages also broke this by allowing 512 colours on screen at once. Weak, yes weak against the Amiga's graphics but not against any other home computer of the time. BTW, the only way the Amiga could display 512 colours was with in HAM mode, but this caused terrible HAM artifacting and was a nightmare to use. When the ST displays 512 colours images with Spectrum 512 there is none of this artifacting, all colours live happily next to each other.


Everything you do in software eats up your CPU power. That's why there's nothing better in the world than hardwired effects. They eats no cpu power at all. About the 512 colors, i will
only take a known example : Wings of death title screen / thalion. The title screen is a spectrum 512 picture on atari ST. But they made it too on amiga how ? By using the COPPER !!! No need to use ham on amiga to display 512 colors, use the copper instead


Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
The ST did have lousy sound but this was rectified with the STE, its funny how this ST is never mentioned when ST bashing is going on! The STE also had a blitter and 4096 colours as standard. Obviously Atari where tying to catch up with Commodore by this time.


While having 4096 colors, the blitter on STE is really weak. In game coding, when the STE was out, some famous Atari ST coders like Paul Cuisset made some tests, and it appears that the A500 blitter is WAY faster and better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldrunner View Post
Both the Amiga and ST are great machine, if they weren't they would not have sold in the volumes they did. The only reason that ST bashing goes on is because they were based on similar technology, both have plus and minus points. I love both machines with equal measure and I think everyone here should be grateful the ST existed at all. After all in the early days it was the ST that drove the 16-bit market, and so many titles would never have appeared on the Amiga if the ST wasn't around, it would not have been profitable enough. This also hold true for the ST's later life when it was the Amiga that was profitable and the ST was fast becoming obsolete.
The amiga computer was great ; because it was light years ahead (15-20 years ahead) before everyone. The atari st is only a mediocre hardware that had some good and bad programs running on it. The amiga and neogeo have similar technology (M68000) but have nothing in common.
It's the same between amiga and ST. Sharing the same processor but the difference stops here. To me video games on 16/32 bits like amiga and ST
are seperated in 3 generations ; the 1 st generation where the 16 bits machines had just appeared, and the coders were not handling the computers at their best (8 bits lookish). this was the time where games appeared on atari ST and were converted badly on amiga, as straight port era going from 1985 to 1989. 2nd generation came with Shadow of the beast ; It was the first time the atari ST got deadly stabbed, beast coders made other coders eyes opened, the amiga was indeed more powerful, and consequently to a serious coding, some new possibilities in games arised.
Since the atari ST was the lowest platform, and as such used as the development machine (tools, etc...) ; it was now time to use the amiga as base machine, meaning more powerful tools, instead of ST limited ones in term of colors, etc.... this era was 1989-1991 ; The 3rd generation has seen games hardly or even not possible to convert on atari ST signing its own death on the market : Flashback, Monkey island 2, indy 4, Jim Power (with the results we know), Mr nutz, Lion heart to say the least.
period going from 1992 to the end of amiga life.

Don't you think ?
dlfrsilver is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.06717 seconds with 9 queries