Do not bother. I email Jerrmy long time ago to fix his article on ArsTechnica regarding Amiga history:

"It was at this point that Atari "loaned" Amiga $500,000 to continue operations for a few more months. This poisonous deal was put together by none other than Jack Tramiel."

this is utterly wrong! Jack Tramiel had nothing with Atari Inc. - Amiga contract: link

I told him (Jeremy Reimer) that many people would quote his text from Arts Technica as reference to this false claim but he did not bother to fix it...

They're identical.

If there was commercial demand for the ST/TT/Falcon, Atari would not have had only 150 employees in 1993, and even if they did, they wouldn't cut off a healthy arm in the vain hope that the Jaguar would sell even better than the oh-so-successful ST.

Medusa, Hades and Milan are akin to the Pegasos or AmigaOne. Hardly what I would call a commercial market. I followed the ST scene quite closely at the end of the 90s, and what struck me was how few were using Falcons, let alone Milans or Hadeses. Most people were content to use STs, even though they had both the MK-X, the Hades and the Milan to choose from. If the Milan had been released to the Amiga world, it would have been a resounding success.

Note that they write ST and PC products. Even a mildly successful PC range would boost sales numbers measured in dollars without boosting ST sales numbers.

for last time: I believe, and Atari Corp. believe as well, that there was no future for non-Wintel machines beyond 1993.

if grandmother had balls than she would be a grandfather :D (sorry, local joke)

yes, many used ST in homes but there was lot of people that used TT and clones for professional work. I bought TT with graphic card from Holland and on harddrive were bunch of magazines done in Calamus... but one of probability is that Atari clones was not commercial success (producers lost money).

Please read other K-10 reports (from later years) and you will find that Atari PC line was always bellow 15% in Atari computer sales.

It would be really interesting to see where Jeremy Reimer found ST sales numbers... I am still pretty sure that chipmunk website would be best option in finding how many pieces of some computer had been produced ;)

Could somebody explain me why some people try to sugarcoat the ST on an Amiga board?
Suicidal tendencies?

Have you seen this Pacmania version?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GOHSmtAvHY

That's 50 hz with full overscan top and bottom borders on the STe.

Some of us are fans of both. It's sad the bitter rivalry is still about :(

Did you contact Jeremy Reimer?

Jeremy's numbers reflect marketshare.
And just because Atari expressed an increase in sales (overall, not with the ST line on its own) in the 10-Q for that particular year, that does not create a direct correlation to increased marketshare. Marketshare is a dynamic thing, and the market can contract or expand in a given year. So even if Atari had, let's say, a 25% increase in overall sales that doesn't mean their marketshare would increase at the same rate. In fact, it could even decrease. If PC/DOS clones or other competitors had a good year, too, it could actually decrease Atari's marketshare even if they sold more than the previous year.

Also, his spreadsheet reflect ST Sales. The 10-Q gloms together both ST sales and "PC Products", which could mean just about anything. It also doesn't say how much was ST sales vs "PC Products". So, while you're quick to point fingers and shout about treason, you may want to read the wording a bit more carefully. There is more left to interpretation here than you think, and we don't have access to all of Jeremy's original sources.

Jeremy's put clearly "units sold", Atari ST units sold for:

1987 - 400.000
1988 - 350.000


We talk about units sold, not marketshare.


So in "ST and PC Compatibles" category we have increase of 25.5 million (or 36%) in revenue in 1989.:

http://milan.kovac.cc/pics/AtariCorp...e-increase.png
and Jeremy and you decrease ST sales by 50.000 STs.
- you concluded that entire increase in revenue come from solely "PC compatible" computers, monitors, printers, modems... ?

That is MAIN problem with his "study" - you can not verify it! Not by his sources!


it is quite difficult to answer on three forums on same post but this certainly will boost your google score :)

It is sad, but i don't get the impression from eab that there is a deep seated rivalry or even dislike of the ST range. However there does seem to be a real dislike of the Amiga when you read through the threads on Atari-forum. I'm not quite sure why.

Because no-one that had an Amiga wished they got an ST instead, so they saw the ST as the cute little brother of the Amiga that wasn't quite as good but was still a nice machine.

On the other hand, every ST owner secretly wished they had got an Amiga, so publicly they came up with thousands of reasons why the Amiga wasn't the machine for them, and why it actually sucked.

Guess those public reasons got burned in pretty deeply for some people.

Joking of course :-)

I would say that attitude of alpine9000 ("every ST owner secretly wished they had got an Amiga") is one of reason why atari users "dislike the Amiga", or more precisely: Amiga users.

explanation: Amiga users will dismiss any ST advantages over Amiga; there is no chance that they will admit that e.g. ST had superior monitor for long time work. Or that OS was fast and easy - all they will do is continued, notorious, glorification of Amiga and attitude that 'ST was nothing more than Amiga for poor man'.

Which brings us back to alpine9000 comment: "(ST users) came up with thousands of reasons why the Amiga wasn't the machine for them" - he can not accept that Amiga really was not machine for some of us (and this is obviously problem to many Amiga users... they can not accept this fact).

I personally grown with ST (from 1986.). I learned programing, database, DTP, 3D, graphics programs... and find it far more usable (faster, easier to use and to experiment) than Amiga 500 that we bought in ~1992. (mainly for games; and no one would denied that Amiga was superior for games but I personally prefer ST for work.)

Especial annoying (and dangerous for history) are stories that perpetuate this myth that Jack Tramiel did want Amiga chips so he can create ST (or that Jack even sign 'poisonous' $500.000 loan agreement with Amiga Corp.!). I have feeling that main source of this claims (stories) come from R J Mical and Dave Needle but I am still in process of gathering and documenting informations so I can not claim this with certainty.

Your certainly a queer sort of a rooster to get so worked up over such a little thing.

Only an idiot would refute that.

I do not understand this.

Hey, to each his own, I'd say! If anyone prefers the ST, they're free to do so. I, for one, prefer the Amiga. Better monitor for long time work? Better working computer? Nah, mates... those won't do it for me. With all things accounted for, the Amiga is a special computer for all the reasons plus one (and yes, even its downfalls contribute to its "specialness"). Though I feel no dislike nor antipathy towards the ST (I like all old-school 16bits computers without exception), I absolutely LOVE the Amiga. Who's gonna dare say I can't?

Like trixster I also find it odd (in a funny way) how bitter ST users still are towards the Amiga, while we - amigans - are all but accepting and understanding towards STans (is that even a word?). :D

I had a good laugh.