The ATARI ST was great because....

[Galahad/FLT]

Originally Posted by _ThEcRoW

@Commie1974
The superiority of the speccy you a referring is because the rest of the 8bit machines(except the c64), the lazy programmers direct ported the speccy version, instead of making a native one. I like the speccy as well, but in the 8 bit arena are more machines i leke, for example msx machines. For a 8 bit machine the had a graphics similar(not quite) to a 16 bit machine), all with a z80!!!. Just compare a msx version of a speccy game, and then compare it with a japanese msx game, you will see the difference.
Sorry for the bit of topic, amiga forever!!!!!

There were several generations of MSX, later ones were comparable to 16bit machines, early ones most certainly were not.

[SilentBob]

I've tested some MSX1 games and they were certainly not comparable to any 16-bit titles. The MSX2/2+ spec was somewhat more impressive though. The MSX Turbo-R included a RISC CPU running at 7.1 MHz, which probably allowed for some nifty software to run, but I've never seen any of it personally.

[dlfrsilver]

@dr Marillion : About the NASA thing, the engineers had to fight against their bosses
because they wanted to use windows NT PC to perform the tasks.

The nasa guy explain that they used A2000/4000 turbo boosted, and said that these
machines are calculating with no delays or timing errors. 680X0 are superior and more
accurate than intel X86 processors as they said. And easier to program ^^.

(another quite near information about this, you know the french military plane, called Mirage 2000 ? His onboard calculators (both of them) are using 2 PCB board with each a 68020 processor running at 25 Mhz. just because the 68k is a very accurate processor ^^. this info is btw still classified secret defense today LOL).

Well just to finish, happy or not, the amiga has the soft and hardware tools to drive
Musical Instruments Digital Interface. Danny elfman, Chris Huelsbeck, Richard Joseph,
etc.... I just point the result. Why did they choose amiga for composing instead of atari ? try to guess why ^^.

Picked on wikipedia :

Sampling
The Amiga was one of the first computers for which one could buy cheap accessories for sound sampling and video digitization. This meant that not only could the Amiga produce computer-generated images and sound, but users could input "real" images and sound for editing, composition, and use in computer games.


Sound
The original sound chip supported four real-time sound channels (2 of them earmarked for the left speaker and 2 for the right) with 8 bits' resolution for each channel. Software such as Octamed used software mixing to increase this to 8 or more virtual channels, and astute composers could mix two hardware channels to achieve 9 bits' resolution, or all four to achieve 10 bits' resolution, which approaches the limitations of human hearing. In the PC/Amiga rivalry, the quality of the Amiga's sound output, and the fact that the hardware was ubiquitous and easily addressed by software, was the standout feature of Amiga hardware that the PC lagged behind for years.

[DopPie]

While I usually do not contribute to this kind of sensless discussion on which dinosaur was better than the other dinosaur I somehow did. Must be the commodore/amiga virus that lives within me.
Anyway I was reading dr Marillion comparison between the Falcon030 and the A1200 and I can only say that (after doing some research) he is right about the A1200.
The Falcon 030 looks better in comparison of RAW specs. Nowhere I have been able to find evidence of the 030 being hooked to a 16 bit bus.
Falcon spec sheet
[Edit: The keen eye spied that this spec sheet is listed under the 16bit catagory. The sheet itself however states the machine has an 32/32 bit architecture]

I have no idea how fast it really feels when using it. I must say a stock A1200 crawls when using 640x256 in 8 bitplanes. It is just begging for fast ram. Having no hands on experience with the falcon I can say nothing about it. But still I am impressed by the specification sheet of the falcon.

As for price I have no clue either. This IS important since the price of the machine is used by the consumer to class the machine. Maybe the A1200 is outclassed here and an A4000/040 is a better object for comparison.

As for the OS I'm in the dark too. Yes, I hear saying one should not call TOS an OS but anything that operates a system is an operating system. I read the OS that was standard on the falcon has preemtive multitasking. I wonder how it 'feels' when using it.
There is no denying in the fact that AmigaOS was probably designed better from the start. So it is very likely that, despite the impressive specs, the OS the falcon was operated with still lagged behind.

Anyway in general I'd say Atari's where behind the Amiga technically. But the last flagship the falcon is sure did some catching up. Not so surprising since the Commodore management where too busy smoking sigars and forgot about investing into development.

Fun thread! But since I am not a Paleontologist I'm going back to give my dino a spinn. Got beaten by the SWOS AI and am after some revenge ;-)

[dlfrsilver]

Galahad told it so well, what's the point of having a ferrari with a berline motor inside ?

It has what we call in french a "goulot d'étranglement". It means that the machine has inside his architecture a chip that lower her specs.

The A1200 doesn't suffer this. You miss some fast ram ? you add it up.
there with the falcon you can't change the bus which seems to be the problem.

[demoniac]

Since no one bother checking for the NASA topic on the web...

http://www.amiworld.it/interviste/gr...rview-eng.html
http://www.polyphoto.com/upchug/AEcastro.html

[DopPie]

hehe I'm still here doing some searching. Maybe I am a Paleontologist afterall ;-). I am looking for an architectural overview of the Falcon. Ofcourse when a system has a 16 bit chipset and an 32 bits cpu it is a total waste of cpu cycles.
As for chipsets; it is common for all computer systems that the chipset will lag behind and some point. The AGA chipset is better bypassed as much as possible when having anything over an 030 inside (example is FLBIT). If the falcon suffers from this kind of CPU vs. chipset miscmatch out of the box, the designers must have goofed up somewhere. So that's what I'm looking for; an architectural overview of the falcon to pinpoint the bottleneck. Just out of curiousity

[Anubis]

Originally Posted by demoniac

Since no one bother checking for the NASA topic on the web...

http://www.amiworld.it/interviste/gr...rview-eng.html
http://www.polyphoto.com/upchug/AEcastro.html

No wonder we lost couple spacecrafts rescently... must be XP issue....

WOnder where is that post saing that they probably used it to play games...

[dlfrsilver]

The best piece of text to argue to dr Marillion is this :
" There is no room for error in the acquisition and processing of this data. It must be accurately calculated and reliably sent from the hanger to distant space centers around the world participating in the mission. All in real time and without interruption. Since Hanger AE also supports some telemetry from the space shuttle, that importance is even greater since human lives are on the line."

WOW amiga is accurately computing to preserve human lives ? OMFG !!

So what Marillion, the amiga is doing real time ? doohhh ^^ all your speech about
timing errors is bullshit, that's the proof ^^.

[DopPie]

http://www.vintage-computer.com/vcfo...hp/t-2144.html

Found something on the pricing issue. Seems pointless comparing the two machine just by raw specs. The A1200 wins due to sheer price/performance ratio.


This is fun too: http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/bristow.jpg

[demoniac]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

The best piece of text to argue to dr Marillion is this :
" There is no room for error in the acquisition and processing of this data. It must be accurately calculated and reliably sent from the hanger to distant space centers around the world participating in the mission. All in real time and without interruption. Since Hanger AE also supports some telemetry from the space shuttle, that importance is even greater since human lives are on the line."

Just to be fair, that part was written by the Bob Castro/Amiga Atlanta and not the words of NASA scientists. However, I would find it difficult to believe that NASA would have allowed anything with timing errors to be part of the control center. Let the dissecting continue...

[dir_marillion]

[quote=dlfrsilver]@dr Marillion : About the NASA thing, the engineers had to fight against their bosses
because they wanted to use windows NT PC to perform the tasks.

The nasa guy explain that they used A2000/4000 turbo boosted, and said that these
machines are calculating with no delays or timing errors. 680X0 are superior and more
accurate than intel X86 processors as they said. And easier to program ^^.

(another quite near information about this, you know the french military plane, called Mirage 2000 ? His onboard calculators (both of them) are using 2 PCB board with each a 68020 processor running at 25 Mhz. just because the 68k is a very accurate processor ^^. this info is btw still classified secret defense today LOL)[.quote]

It's very late here in Greece 2:15 AM (I've just returned from my Job) and I am not sure If I am dreaming or I am still reading the text above: 68020 is more accurate than Pentiums ? Did I understand it ok ?

Maybe tommorow will be a new day for us...

[dlfrsilver]

Yes, that's also the reason. My father is an ex-aeronautical engineer, explained me
that for safety reasons, INTEL processors are not allowed for accurate calculation
in military works. The motorola 680X0 is the reference processor and is very stable.


Human lives doesn't have to support intel/windows lagging computation. I mean here
that with windows, the program rom on calculator board of the mirage 2000 is running
in low level. That's the required thing to fly in security. You pick up an intel processor,
you use it with a Windows NT, and there's big danger, because with win NT you stay
in high level. You don't hit directly the hardware. The amiga applications are banging
low level right away, ensuring there's no lag.
Few milliseconds are just way too much when in real situation.

that's the plain difference, amiga computers were choosen because
they can do real time processing, aeronautics can't be wrong.

[Nexjen]

It's only the games that matter and how well they run. Each has a special place in everybody's hearts.

[blade002]

One thing i know about the Falcon was that it had 16 bit sound as standard and a 1.44 floppy ( not sure about the floppy ). I remember reading a few articles years back when the A1200 and Falcon came out, and alot of people werent happy with Commodore's lack of advancement in comparison.

But i saw no drama's with my A1200 other than the crappy idea of using an 020 and not an 030. But then thats why i bought the Blizzard!..

[Galahad/FLT]

Biggest mistake Commodore made with the A12oo was not updating the soundchip and not increasing the blitters power. Give the A12oo more bitplanes to deal with and leave it with the same power chip as before! Nice one

[_ThEcRoW]

@Galahad
Perhaps not comparable to 16 bit machines, but compare those japanese games with european ones of that time. You will see what i mean.

[dir_marillion]

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

Biggest mistake Commodore made with the A12oo was not updating the soundchip and not increasing the blitters power. Give the A12oo more bitplanes to deal with and leave it with the same power chip as before! Nice one

Galahad, the biggest mistake of Commodore and Atari was their fight

Does Escom's Amiga had motherboard "bug" fixes from Commodore's Amiga ?

[dlfrsilver]

I own an atari 1040 STFM, and the point to me is that when you say atari
can drive MIDI and amiga doesn't have anything to be as good, i just can argue to say no. I don't see the point about fighting, as atari would have never win anyway.

the falcon has on the paper delicious specs, but if you take an amiga configuration
matching the falcon is terms of processor/Memory/sound system, the falcon is deadly beaten.....

the A1200 can bear up to 256 mb of memory, can use any HDD disks with PFS system
installed, on A1230, the 68030 is running at 50 mhz and has a FPU running at 50 Mhz too.

also, don't forget that the 68030 has mainly here only some more instructions, that's all, compared with a 68020.

[dir_marillion]

Originally Posted by dlfrsilver

I own an atari 1040 STFM, and the point to me is that when you say atari
can drive MIDI and amiga doesn't have anything to be as good, i just can argue to say no. I don't see the point about fighting, as atari would have never win anyway.

the falcon has on the paper delicious specs, but if you take an amiga configuration
matching the falcon is terms of processor/Memory/sound system, the falcon is deadly beaten.....

the A1200 can bear up to 256 mb of memory, can use any HDD disks with PFS system
installed, on A1230, the 68030 is running at 50 mhz and has a FPU running at 50 Mhz too.

also, don't forget that the 68030 has mainly here only some more instructions, that's all, compared with a 68020.

Read above, find the link I gave to Keropi, Atari Falcon has the fastest 060 accelerator ever !!! 200 mips and takes Dimms up to a total of 512MB, faster than any Amiga 68k Accelerator !!! Has also DSP that Amiga never had.!!! DSP is 16 Mips at the main (like Amiga4000/040-25 at sysinfo), working parallel with it's build-in 030 and could be used for graphics and 16 bit music realtime compressions/decompressions/fills etc ... and has VGA build-in connector for monitor that no Amiga had and ... and ... so please stop comparing the specs between them!!!

And I can assure you that Falcon has a high density Flopppy, as I have a falcon since 1994 !