Originally Posted by athiga
ok ive gota be honest i didnt know what st meant thats how ignorant i was
also its ironic that the ST was designed by ex-Commodore enginers and the Amiga by ex-Atarians
so all st bashing is stupid
interstingly if the gaza the Gaza was a dual MC68000 processor system
atari was developing was ever finished atari os would have been multi
core ready and would have eaten the amiga for breakfast and s*iT wb
out for tea
wow dream of dreams a multi cpu amiga they say intuition carnt
handle it needs all sorts like memory protection ect wich would bloat os
so much we would think pc is small os
I doubt very much the Amiga OS could ever be as bloated or inefficient as OS X/Linux/Vista/Win7
And anyway Workbench/Kickstart managed in 1985 what it took Apple and M$ two decades. Memory protection is fine and dandy but the simple fact is I can create a 2kb program that STILL instantly locks up Win7 or Vista....not a virus...just a simple task due to Windows still being as crap today as it ever was
Hell a spec of dust on your DVD whilst burning = forced shutdown and reboot in Windows 7...how crap is that!
Gazza would have made the A1000 look like a disposable computer as far as costs were concerned too....And the A1000 was Commodore just trying it on just like when Jack overcharged his PET customers simply because he knew he had a superior product...the A500 which is identical to the A1000 didn't really cost that much less to make save for 256kb or whatever of WORM RAM onboard. Wouldn't have cost a lot to use the same quality keyboard as the 1000 in the 500 but they chose not to.
However I think what was better/worse isn't important, but it IS important to know about where things were in the mid 80s and what role Acorn/Apple/Atari/Commodore/IBM & wannabe machines played and why things are so depressing now when you walk into a shop and you have overpriced underpowered(GPU) Apple stuff and bloatware Wintel stuff.....the two worst priced/performing machines won....how did that happen!?!?! lol
(I know how it happened, Atari spent too much time trying to be Amiga, Commodore were lost for strategy and Acorn...well they were Acorn...what the hell did they know about mass market computing...so the other two would win no matter how crap/expensive their machines were because nobody else was left to compete!)
Now...what is really interesting is...if you notice the first 18 months of games coding for the ST pretty much everyone ignored the fact of it's limitations (like dodgy sound, no scrolling etc) and quite a few games had OK horizontal scrolling (Road Runner being a good example), all sound was sample playback (Gauntlet 1 already pushing plenty pixels!), 512 simultaneous colour intro screens (The Pawn) etc etc...then when all the big guns got involved we got the shovelware with plinky plonk sound, shit scrolling and hardly any presentation worth squat....and that IS bad because in meant ST ports like Gauntlet 2 on the Amiga are a complete pile of crap that look worse than 8bit Sega Nintendo consoles AND inferior to the ST exclusive version of Gauntlet.
So you see, being a fan of one machine is all very well, but unless you take an interest [without bias] of EVERY machine you will never really understand how it was...in this case why so many Amiga games failed to deliver anything like 100% of the OCS/ECS chipset capability. I cringe when I think of the arcade conversions...especially the Sega ones...that involve anything like sophisticated graphics (Outrun/Powerdrift/Chase HQ yadda yadda).
As an example, over a decade ago me and Neill Corlett (author of the excellent DOS gauntlet emulator from the 90s) did some preliminary work on writing Gauntlet from scratch and there is no reason why the OCS Amigas couldn't have an arcade perfect looking version given the limitations of composite video/modulator output. Most of that emulator at the time was transcoding x86 to 68k ASM core...and we are talking Pentium II 300mhz days at best....ie not even fast enough to run WinUAE....bit of an eye opener.