Atari Explorer and the Tramiels

[manicx]

Originally posted by Antiriad
So i repeat: gaming kept the Amiga alive in the short term, but the price was the misconception of it as a mere console with a keyboard. [/B]

You come to my words now:

gaming kept the Amiga alive in the short term, but ..... killed it in the long term! As I said, people discovered what Amiga is capable of only because of its users. Unfortunately, due to commodore mistakes, we never got in our hands the infamous AAA chipset or a chipset capable of handling 3D graphics. That's where the Amiga died.

[FromWithin]

Heh. This is cool. It's like being 15 again!

Originally posted by manicx
Assumptions make me laugh. If this and if that. In case of a broken Amiga drive what do you do these days and how much do you pay? What about Kylwada and Catweasel. You should also contact Eyetech and ask them to make some 1.76 drives for you. They may even be able to find 4-5 in eBay. Things is that PCs rule the world...

Yes, PCs rule the world these days, but the Amiga had a better floppy drive. The fact that the ST used a FAT file system variant is irrelevant. It's not a valid argument to claim that the ST was better because 15 years later, PCs can read its disks.

Seems you are a fast reader and you miss important parts in posts. I said that the whole Atari architecture was lacking not just the soundchip. It seems that some people want to argue all time.

In fact, you said "YM2149 delivered its job really well." It's job was to provide audio for a home computer, a job which it did not exactly impress with.

Have you wondered why they were Atari ports? Now here's a question for you. I personally know Steve Camber of the Infogrames glory and Yak, and they both answered this in the past, but I leave this to you to speculate....

I don't know their personal reasons, but the main reason across the industry is that the ST was cheaper and had a bigger market share and there was no financial incentive for companies to re-write a game for the Amiga when the development time would not be covered by the loss of revenue from making a straight ST port. Or, if the game was made by a third-party, no financial incentive at all from the Publisher.

WB was simply unusable from floppies. You wanted to format a floppy disk and you had to boot from floppy and wait 1 minute to boot up. You wanted basic file operations and it was the same. That's why people developed tools that were booting faster and were doing this things better. I remember, most of my friends back then, never bothered booting WB from floppy to do anything at all. They all had a floppy disk called EGA Team with tools and utilities.

Immediacy of the GEM screen appearing was a good thing, but it sacrificed a huge amount of flexibility. WB was not at all unusable from floppies. Just because you didn't like waiting or couldn't use the CLI does not make the Workbench inferior to GEM. It was better in every other way.

To be honest, WB1.3 was much better than TOS,

It seems that some people want to argue all time.

C'mon, R&D sucked. You speak about R&D in the 80's but where the hell was R&D when they released A500+, A600, and CD32? They even released A1200 in 92 whereas this machine should have been developed and released at least 3 years earlier... They totally lost the plot in exactly the same way Atari did. that's why they lost the game. They never saw the rise of 3D graphics...

You misunderstood my point there. I agree that Commodore's R&D should/could have been much better, but you suggested that in the industry in general, technology and R&D were moving forward at a fast pace, which is untrue. It took more than 10 years for the industry to catch up to the Amiga, and the reason it did (games-wise) was because a 33MHz 486 with a chunky display was much faster than a base Amiga with bitplanes, giving rise to, as you say, much better 3D.

My main point, and excuse me if I am bit rough, is that some people lost the meaning of home computing. The meaning of home computing is to have a computer that is fun, brings creativity and helps you in office works at home.

You're right. Computers are just tools, and if they do the job for you, then fine. But you can't come in here and say the ST is better than the Amiga and not expect a come-back from it.

So who cares if YM2149 was infrerior to Paula? ... Who cares if the graphics were better in Amiga games?

You do, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

The ST had the highres monitor that helped him fight against the PCs and Macs and Amiga only did this with AGA Amigas

It didn't help the fight against PCs or Macs at all, but those musicians certainly liked to pay through the nose for them (even though by using the mono out on the Amiga and turning the contrast down on your TV, you could get almost the same display ) And the A3000 (best Amiga they ever built) had a built-in filcker-fixer so you could use any PC monitor - a long time before AGA.

To sum up, I laugh when people show up to say Amiga was better because.... or ST was better because.../

But you are the one who showed up to say that the ST was better! Eh?

This'll probably go on forever. I chose the Amiga route and was very happy with it. If you chose the ST route and you were happy with it too, then fine.

[manicx]

Originally posted by FromWithin

In fact, you said "YM2149 delivered its job really well." It's job was to provide audio for a home computer, a job which it did not exactly impress with.

I said: "It was the whole ST architecture that lacked, not the sound chip." Jeez, why do people always pick up other things when they want to win an argument? BTW, you forgot to add the word "I" when you say not impressed with (you express a personal opinion, let's not forget....

Immediacy of the GEM screen appearing was a good thing, but it sacrificed a huge amount of flexibility. WB was not at all unusable from floppies. Just because you didn't like waiting or couldn't use the CLI does not make the Workbench inferior to GEM. It was better in every other way.

Agree but don't forget that WB was supposed to be a GUI OS not just a command line one. As I said, I had no problem with my HD, but most of my friends with bogstandard A500s had.

It seems that some people want to argue all time.

Guess again: selective use of text... "BUT TOS delivered its purpose more efficient and effectively than WB1.3."

You misunderstood my point there. I agree that Commodore's R&D should/could have been much better, but you suggested that in the industry in general, technology and R&D were moving forward at a fast pace, which is untrue. It took more than 10 years for the industry to catch up to the Amiga, and the reason it did (games-wise) was because a 33MHz 486 with a chunky display was much faster than a base Amiga with bitplanes, giving rise to, as you say, much better 3D.

Erm you forgot something there. Game consoles!!!!

You're right. Computers are just tools, and if they do the job for you, then fine. But you can't come in here and say the ST is better than the Amiga and not expect a come-back from it.

It was actually a discussion based on an article regarding the Tramiels. Antiriad cam and started the Amiga Vs Atari war. The ST was not useless as most Amiga users think. It was just another 16bit home computer...

You do, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

By having both computers and by being a developer to both, all I can say is that comments like the above belong people who never came across both computers.

It didn't help the fight against PCs or Macs at all, but those musicians certainly liked to pay through the nose for them (even though by using the mono out on the Amiga and turning the contrast down on your TV, you could get almost the same display ) And the A3000 (best Amiga they ever built) had a built-in filcker-fixer so you could use any PC monitor - a long time before AGA.

Well it helped the development of excellent software for ST. Now, how many chose this instead of the PC/MAC it comes to the preference of each one. As for the comment about contrast, sorry but it is runty. I could see people doing this (including my self) and I laughed! As for the A3000, the cost of that beast made this computer to fail.

But you are the one who showed up to say that the ST was better! Eh?

No it was somebody else who commented on the Tramiels' article. I came here to say whatever I have to say with arguments and after being a user of both computers.

This'll probably go on forever. I chose the Amiga route and was very happy with it. If you chose the ST route and you were happy with it too, then fine.

Wrong again. I chose the ST/Amiga route and I have a more complete view from somebody who only chose one!

[Fred the Fop]

This website's owner has made a nice comparision of the two 16 bit giants of the 80's.

http://www.larwe.com/museum/atarist.html

It makes for interesting reading and will show that the STE 's sound was a vast improvement over the ST and STfm.

[Antiriad]

I came along to correct some of the innaccuracies in the article.
As i find historically innaccuracies in regards to the history of computing (something ever more common these days sadly) such as making out the ST was the equal, equivalent or superior to the Amiga infuriating.

[manicx]

[Antiriad]

Sorry if this thread has gotten ugly ! I dont want to go on about it.

[Twistin'Ghost]

Originally posted by Antiriad
Sorry if this thread has gotten ugly ! I dont want to go on about it.

Actually, I quite enjoyed your responses and I always love hearing someone setting the record straight when it's so poorly twisted in knots. Consider me a big fan, dude!

[Pyromania]

Originally posted by manicx
TOS was a lot better than WB1.3. After all how many of us actually used WB1.3? It was useless in those floppy disks. The ST had the OS in ROM, and unfortunately that was the way to go. But instead, Amiga Vs Atari wars didn't let people to see clearly what was usefull and what was not. We only got used to the WB with A1200s and the cheap IDE HDs...

Hahahahahahaahahahahahahaha

TOS better than 1.3? It is not even better than Workbench 0.1. Sorry to put a fellow Greek on the spot.

[manicx]

To be honest, WB1.3 was much better than TOS, BUT TOS delivered its purpose more efficient and effectively than WB1.3. It was booting in seconds, provided basic funtions for 16bits, and was more easy to use. Atari was also more open minded in delivering multi-languange support for it. I was hired by them in 1990 and developed a Greek ROM. Also bear in mind that ST could boot TOS from floppy as well.

As I said, WB 1.3 was brilliant if you had a HD, but with the release of A500, WB 1.3 was cursed to remain an unexplored OS to most. I was lucky to have that work back then. I apparently collected enough money to buy me the HD for the A500 (an Alpha Data if I am not wrong).

This is a better explanation about what I meant up there... And I think it's 100% true....


This is a more appropriate

[Fred the Fop]

"Business is war. I don't compromise, I win." - Jack Tramiel

BAAHAHAHAHAHHA...AAAA!!!!

[IanS]

This is an argument that will never be won. Firstly, a lot of this is completely subjective. Secondly, even the hardware arguments are debatable. I recall that the ST was cheaper than the Amiga, so subjectively, how do you decide on what represents value for money? The Amiga may have been better, but only if you had the money to buy it.

Here is a thought for you to ponder. Like it or not, historically, it is likely that without Jack Tamiel, neither machine would have existed in the forms they did. He certainly revived the Atari name for a while. After all, Nolan Bushnell sold up to Warner etc, who in turn sold to JT when the bubble had burst.

I didn't own an ST, but I had and used various Atari 8 bit machines. My first Amiga was an A1200. However, these arguments raged all through the late '70s right through the '80s and in to the present day. If it wasn't ST v Amiga, it was C64 v Dragon 32/64, v Spectrum v Oric Atmos v BBC micro v ZX81 v Vic 20 v Texas Ti 99/4a v anything that existed. Precious few actually care which was better, because they all had their merits, and they are all long gone.

Only Apple has managed to stay afloat. IBM is a mere shadow of itself in terms of 'PC' design and sales. Long live competition.

[Mark Wright]

These arguments can only be answered in retrospect if you were really *IN* to computers when the 8-bit to 16-bit crossover occured in your country (or "territory" as the media pundits would have it.)

People who were *IN* to computers tended to be the younger user who were normally dependent on someone else to fund the purchase of a computer. Ideally, for Christmas. Or maybe a birthday. Or a special present, or something like that.

The ST/Amiga wars only came about because of BAD DECISIONS and once the computer of choice was purchased, THAT WAS IT. You HAD to defend your choice. You CONVINCED yourself that your decision was RIGHT.

Let's face it...

Many Commodore 64 users bought an Atari ST in a hurry for two reasons: 1) they were really *IN* to computers and there was a lovely new 16-bit machine available that was affordable and 2) it was released before the Amiga had hit their (or parents') price bracket.

Right? Any arguments there?

Once it was acknowledged that the Amiga outperformed the ST in terms of specs, former Commodore 64 and ZX Spectrum/Amstrad/Schneider/MSX/Atari 8-bit/whatever users decided to buy an Atari ST for THREE further reasons: 1) it was STILL cheaper than an Amiga, 2) it had more software than an Amiga and (most importantly) 3) they had friends who already owned Atari STs and could PIRATE software from them.

Right again?

During 1988 it became obvious through demos, games software, utility software, advocacy through magazines and usergroups, sound demonstrations, availability of PD software, media hype, levels of piracy (sad but TRUE although the ST had a nasty UK piracy following) that the Amiga was fast overtaking the ST.

In 1990, every single fact you can point to - sales, specs, support, users, availability of PIRATE software, you name it - proved that the Amiga was superior to the ST in EVERY SINGLE WAY with ONE exception....

...the inclusion of a MIDI port.

That's all.

Nothing more, nothing less.

A MIDI port that would've cost around thirty UK pounds to add to an Amiga and with better software (Music X, Bars & Pipes, even Octamed!)

It's a grossly overlooked fact but PIRACY very often drives the take-up of new machines, and with an established userbase of ST owners, others jumped on board safe in the knowledge that, following a 300 quid outlay, they could secure new software for free. Once the Amiga scene was rampant, more and more users jumped on board the SUPERIOR machine when they could afford it.

Don't get me wrong; I *loved* my ST when it was the only 16-bit machine I had ever seen (the music on Goldrunner! The playability of Super Sprint! The cartoonish realism of Road Runner!) but when I saw an Amiga my jaw hit the floor and I was hooked. The ST looked like a Speak 'n' Spell.

Just some personal feelings..... hope I haven't bored anyone!

[Twistin'Ghost]

Originally posted by Mark Wright
Just some personal feelings..... hope I haven't bored anyone!

I liked it.

[Unknown_K]

The fact most of you people are missing is that most people follow the early adopters in making their computer purchasing. If your rich friend purchased an atari 800 back in their day you were more inclined to do the same thing. This stampede to the trendy computer allowed developers to target it and make lots of software that keeps the stampede going. Once people switch to the new trendy machine the old ones dies a fairly quick death.

[manicx]

Cubase was better than any amiga sequencer. Hardwarewise the Amiga was superior to the ST, but I don't think MIDI was only the only way for the ST being so popular. Atari had this magic B/W monitor that suited more to business software. Mo surprises why business software appeared more to the ST back then. The Amiga went up in terms of business software after 1991-92.

Another aspect that ST was preferred by people, was that it was much easier to do programming with it. Let's face it, we are talking about 198X! ST was much easier to do programming simply because you knew where you were standing. I used to love playing with assembly back then and I can assure you that when I moved to the Amiga, I was lost. What you could do on the ST on your own, you needed 2-3 people to do it on the Amiga. That's why most Amiga games were ST convertions. I believe that the Amiga was explored to full depth, 8-9 years after it was released. Same goes for the STE and Atari Falcon. STE and Falcons were great machines that were probably never explored to full depth. I tried to do some programming to Falcon once, and I almost smashed it! Too difficult. DSP here, blitter there, well known limitations in the hardware etc...

I agree that the Amiga hardware was superior and it was not just piracy that sold STs (after all, Amiga pirates made piracy a science ).

[CodyJarrett]

Originally posted by manicx
Another aspect that ST was preferred by people, was that it was much easier to do programming with it. Let's face it, we are talking about 198X! ST was much easier to do programming simply because you knew where you were standing. I used to love playing with assembly back then and I can assure you that when I moved to the Amiga, I was lost. What you could do on the ST on your own, you needed 2-3 people to do it on the Amiga. That's why most Amiga games were ST convertions. I believe that the Amiga was explored to full depth, 8-9 years after it was released.

There was only a short period where most Amiga games were poor ST conversions - after that period programmers got to grips with the computer. Remember that the ST also had a headstart on the Amiga, so ST programmers had started using the machine sooner than their Amiga counterparts. It is also possible that early programmers were treating the Amiga like an ST in their coding and that companies wanted to quickly get their ST back catalogue onto the new Commodore beast.

Most machines have the same sort of evolution - they are released; there is a period when programmers are learning how to use it; well-written games are then released; later the machine is pushed to its limits.

So, I wouldn't say that an Atari ST had the advantage of being easier to use...

[manicx]

It was easier to do the programming, not easier to use. On the ST you had 68000, graphics, audio, memory. On the Amiga you had shitloads of chips. If you have ever tried to do some assembly coding you should know what I mean. Also, programming to the ST=> more potential as you had the Amiga version almost ready. The opposite was not easy. Companies didn't care if a game was better on the ST or the Amiga. All they could see was two (one?) markets that could be beneficial to them. The ST users didn't have their computers long before the Amiga users had their Amigas. I don't believe that a few months changed anything....

A typical example of a game was Kick Off 2. It was written on the ST. The code was virtually the same (68000 assembly) but the Amiga chips allowed better manupulation of the graphics. Hence, the ST had no background for the field but the Amiga had. The code was the same though, only the graphics changed.