The ATARI ST was great because.... - Page 3

CodyJarrett · 08 March 2006, 13:05

The debate will go nowhere and has little benefit...

dir_marillion · 08 March 2006, 13:05

hmmm.....

Just happened to know some things about the Atari platform, that's all. And I am writing to this place which is for that reason.

I am not the smart guy. I thought it was a discussing board and tried to offer my knowledge that was "right" or "wrong".

If someone wants to read from the others that Amiga was the best system since 1904 like some Beers, I have not problem with that.

I totally disagree with this opinion.

Thanks

dir_marillion · 08 March 2006, 13:07

goes nowhere ?

keropi · 08 March 2006, 13:09

what thread?

Galahad/FLT · 08 March 2006, 13:43

Ok, F-29 Retaliator was faster on Amiga, and that was a flight sim/arcade.

Early Amiga conversions of ST games only used the processor, but by using the blitter to do vectors instead, the Amiga was in fact faster than the ST. You are trying to compare an 8Mhz ST processor to a 50Mhz Blitter in the Amiga. Only the early ST vector stuff was faster, but the kind of speed increase you boast about is hardly noticeable.

Inferior to the C64, where to start:

Did the ST have hardware scrolling?
Did the ST have hardware sprites?
Was the sound chip in the C64 better than the ST's?

The ST had better graphics than the C64, but didn't have good enough hardware to throw it around the screen. FACT
The bulk of the work on the ST had to be done by the processor. FACT
The soundchip in the ST was a step back from the C64. FACT

As for developers: WJS Designs, Tiertex, Kremlin, Teque, plus many others, not forgetting publishers in house teams like Gremlin and Ocean etc, did ST and Amiga versions side by side, in many cases the same people did both versions. There was NEVER any kind of rivalry to make ST versions better than Amiga versions, that being the case, can you explain how the ST version of Shadow of the Beast remotely competes visually with the Amiga version? Most software companies didn't care too much about the ST. Read any of Richard Aplins startup-sequences in any of his conversions. His wasn't the only developers opinion that the ST was a pain in the ass. No software company mourned its demise either. The ST was and will always be remembered as the computer that given enough hardware to stand a chance. I mean its pathetic that it can't even see off the C64!

TOS was crap. There isn't much to add to this really. You will never convince me otherwise. My ST was an STFM, so it wasn't one of the first ones, so plenty of times to remove stupid bugs. It crashed... a lot!

The Sam Coupe was 8BIT with 16bit graphics. Basically it was better than the ST.

I'm well aware that the BBC Micro was 8bit, but you miss the point. I remember the BBC Micro with fondness. It was graphically better than the Spectrum and C64, sounded better than the Spectrum but worse than the C64, but didn't have the hardware of the C64. But at least it was a good comparitive machine. The ST however was not. Is was only JUST better than the 8bit machines it was supposed to replace and only in some areas. The Amiga in comparison to the 8bit machines, well it was better at doing everything than the 8bit machines, and certainly better than the ST as well.

It just irks me that people STILL keep banging on about the ST as if it was even remotely capable of being compared to the Amiga. I had one, I know the difference, I can claim to know something. The ST was rushed, had Atari waited and made as much effort with the ST that they did with their XL series, the ST 'could' have been a really great machine.

The Falcon and Jaguar had hardware flaws that meant they couldn't be used to their full capabilities. A bit like having a Ferrari Modena with a Ford Escort engine under the hood!

I used to be a developer, and NO-ONE I knew or talked to had any time for the ST or Jaguar.

The Amiga when I first saw it blew me away, the ST which I had before the Amiga didn't.

Tony Landais · 08 March 2006, 14:23

I never had any Atari and always been an Amiga fan but I loved the sound of the floppy drive on ST. On the other hand I hated OFS on Amiga... It was so slow and unstable (validatind disk and viruses). But bloody hell I was proud to be able to show Aegis animator emulated on my A500 to my ST friends

08 March 2006, 14:43

I have one of each but my ST has since died, from a games point of view the only difference was the sound and to me that wasnt worth the amount of shit it got, i still play both systems through emulators and are both great machines, i used to leave my amiga frineds stunned with some of the music demo's on the ST.

dir_marillion · 08 March 2006, 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

Ok, F-29 Retaliator was faster on Amiga, and that was a flight sim/arcade..

I have not seen F-29 Retaliator on Atari side. When did it released ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

Early Amiga conversions of ST games only used the processor, but by using the blitter to do vectors instead, the Amiga was in fact faster than the ST. You are trying to compare an 8Mhz ST processor to a 50Mhz Blitter in the Amiga. Only the early ST vector stuff was faster, but the kind of speed increase you boast about is hardly noticeable..

I never tried to compare Amiga Games with Atari ST Games. Read better what I wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

Inferior to the C64, where to start:

Did the ST have hardware scrolling?
Did the ST have hardware sprites?
Was the sound chip in the C64 better than the ST's?.

STE had hardware scrolling and Blitter, check the game Sleepwalker !!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

The ST had better graphics than the C64, but didn't have good enough hardware to throw it around the screen. FACT
The bulk of the work on the ST had to be done by the processor. FACT
The soundchip in the ST was a step back from the C64. FACT?

I agree with that. SID chipset was far away better than ST and Amiga audio hardware. It was a real synthisizer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

As for developers: WJS Designs, Tiertex, Kremlin, Teque, plus many others, not forgetting publishers in house teams like Gremlin and Ocean etc, did ST and Amiga versions side by side, in many cases the same people did both versions. There was NEVER any kind of rivalry to make ST versions better than Amiga versions, that being the case, can you explain how the ST version of Shadow of the Beast remotely competes visually with the Amiga version? Most software companies didn't care too much about the ST. Read any of Richard Aplins startup-sequences in any of his conversions. His wasn't the only developers opinion that the ST was a pain in the ass. No software company mourned its demise either. The ST was and will always be remembered as the computer that given enough hardware to stand a chance. I mean its pathetic that it can't even see off the C64!?

I told you many times that Amiga Games was better than ST. You've just missed the point. I told that Vector Graphics had not to do with Blitter (as you think) - which does not run at 50MHz anyway :-), was faster on ST due to 8 MHz versus the 7.14MHz on Amiga side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

TOS was crap. There isn't much to add to this really. You will never convince me otherwise. My ST was an STFM, so it wasn't one of the first ones, so plenty of times to remove stupid bugs. It crashed... a lot! !

STFM was an ST with a floppy build in and a modulator build in, so it was from the first ones. First models was 260-520 ST and in 1996 STFM had already produced. TOS that was in ROM always crashed. Hmmm... this happened to me rarely.
To be honest, kickstart had always more crashes, than any computer I had.
Even to the stable releases such like the Commercial AmigaOS 3.1 :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

The Sam Coupe was 8BIT with 16bit graphics. Basically it was better than the ST.

I do not know about Sam Coupe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

I'm well aware that the BBC Micro was 8bit, but you miss the point. I remember the BBC Micro with fondness. It was graphically better than the Spectrum and C64, sounded better than the Spectrum but worse than the C64, but didn't have the hardware of the C64. But at least it was a good comparitive machine. The ST however was not. Is was only JUST better than the 8bit machines it was supposed to replace and only in some areas. The Amiga in comparison to the 8bit machines, well it was better at doing everything than the 8bit machines, and certainly better than the ST as well..

Did I missed the point ? Please ... help

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

It just irks me that people STILL keep banging on about the ST as if it was even remotely capable of being compared to the Amiga. I had one, I know the difference, I can claim to know something. The ST was rushed, had Atari waited and made as much effort with the ST that they did with their XL series, the ST 'could' have been a really great machine...

Wake Up, it's 2006 and nobody feels the war that you feel.
You have also a problem: You do not read well before you answer...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

The Falcon and Jaguar had hardware flaws that meant they couldn't be used to their full capabilities. A bit like having a Ferrari Modena with a Ford Escort engine under the hood!...

I didn't understand the example. Atari had economical problems at that time, so how their capabilities could be used at a full way ? For the history, C-LAB bought the Falcon030 from Atari and "created" two models: MK2 and MKX Rack. C-LAB sold "new" Falcons with Cubase Audio to music studios. You can read articles about that on "Sound On Sound" magazine (sorry but this magazine is the probably the best in it's kind - synths and other studio equipment).
And I am wondering if Commodore pushed Amiga to use it's full capabilities. If the accelerators from the third party companies didn't exist, people would say today that Amiga was another victim of the new word Microsoft PCs. And Of course the last OS would be 3.1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

I used to be a developer, and NO-ONE I knew or talked to had any time for the ST or Jaguar.
The Amiga when I first saw it blew me away, the ST which I had before the Amiga didn't.

Ok

Galahad/FLT · 08 March 2006, 17:07

We have been talking about the ST not the STe.

The Amigas blitter ran at 50Mhz, most vector games on Amiga didn't use the processor solely to plot the graphics. Early ones did, later ones didn't.

The sad thing is that Atari used to be a major force to be reckoned with, the XL series were very good machines, they had years of experience over other companies.

The ST wasn't progressive for Atari. Their only trump cards were:
1). It came out first
2). It had midi ports

I really wished the Jaguar could have been a success, but just because a machine is 64bit, doesn't mean that its actually any good. Hence why the 8Bit PC Engine soundly trounced quite a few 16bit machines.

I think my interest in this discussion is at an end. The one good thing about the ST was the demo scene, but as most people realise, a good demo effect doesn't mean that a game can be so technically proficient.

commie1974 · 08 March 2006, 18:02

Hey, people, stop this argue...
If you want to read my opinion, the ST was just GREAT, because it was an ATARI! This says it all! Also Amiga was great, because it was an AMIGA! Both machines were pioneering back at their time and it is a fact that they can be reasonably be used even nowadays, with minor additions to their out-of-the-factory hardware... Just imagine a modern PC after 10 or even 20 years ;-) It just won't be able to do NOTHING, and mostly because noone will be interested in it then!! Older 8-16-32 bit machines had their own kind of personality and each one was charming in its own special way and this is the reason for which people are still strongly interested in them! All these modern no-name made-in-china DIY machines will simply NEVER be able to give this feeling to the user!
Personally I ADORE both Atari and C=/Amiga series (even the 8-bit machines) and I think that each one has its special advantages/disadvantages, but they all just SUPER!
Everyone of us has to understand that ANY difference between them was a good reason for software developers to do all their best to exhaust each machine's abilities and even for their producer companies to make efforts for better hardware and OSs.
Sadly, nowadays, this thing is not happening anymore, all computer systems and software globally are extremely and boringly similar to each other and this is the worst thing for all of us computer users: In a couple of years, there will be no choice! We will all be obligated to use the same hardware, the same software and the magic of those past years will be forever lost!
So, instead of fighting here, just please try to keep ALL those great machines of the past alive, as they really deserve ;-)

NOB · 08 March 2006, 18:23

The truth to the facts!The amiga outclasses the ST.

Toni Wilen · 08 March 2006, 18:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

The Amigas blitter ran at 50Mhz

50MHz? Blitter (and mostly everything inside Agnus) runs at the usual ~3.5MHz "color clock". (1/2 of the CPU clock)

No other comments

pbareges · 08 March 2006, 18:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by dir_marillion

Wake Up, it's 2006 and nobody feels the war that you feel.
You have also a problem: You do not read well before you answer...
Ok

WELL I CAN FEEL IT !!

AND I GUESS YOU'RE NOT TOO MUCH OF A GOOD READER YOURSELF...I CAN HARDLY THINK OF A BETTER ARGUED EXPLANATION OF THE FACTS!!!

ARE YOU A MASOCHIST ?

It's incredible how far you can go in terms of bad faith!!..it reminds me of myself, trying to persuade people that ST could sustain a comparison with amiga refering to the same old crap : CPU clock, MIDI ports, guru meditations, games library...JUST BEFORE SWITCHING !!..

Never too late....It`s still time for you to make your coming out!! COME ON!!! BE HONEST!!

dlfrsilver · 08 March 2006, 19:49

I personnaly own an atari, hehe, and i also own midi and digital hardware for sound
specially created on amiga. Bars n pipe is a professionnal sound tool, used by professionnals.....See what i wrote earlier....

the amiga didn't have midi ports or standard hardware for sound, but hey
once again i pick up the good example : Our friend Richard Joseph, well known for
his wonderful soundtracks, has used midi sound sytem on both machine, amiga and
atari. I have some personal pics of his recording sound studio, he has atari st
with cubase and everything that come with it. On the other side he also has
an amiga with a midi system connected on it, and guess what, while a
standard amiga can push very near CD quality music and sound, the result he
had with amiga + midi ports system is just incredible, look how awesome
his soundtracks are ! Owning a copy of his original game master's soundtracks,
the amiga "ports" of the originals are extremmely faithfull.

If steinberg had looked at the amiga DIGITAL audio possibilities, and had converted
cubase on it, atari would had loose even on this side.

dir_marillion · 08 March 2006, 20:28

Hehe, great comment Commie :-)

Dlfsilver, who is R.J. ? Amiga has 22KHz - 8 bit sound which is not very near to 44KHz 16KHz CD quality. No problem if you believe that the 14bit stereo +++ in AHI is true :-)

TIP: Some sounds (low KHz sounds like electric guitars and bass) with amiga filter are nice when you listen them (especially into the games). But if you listen the 16bit editions of these sounds, in the same time, from a real CD, you can understand the difference.

The most of the small PC speakers refer 150-250 Watts. Are they true too?

Steinberg never looked Amiga because:

a. MIDI IS DIFFERENT THAN AUDIO (I am tired to writing it)
b. Companies always look the base machine and Atari had build in midi ports
c. Atari TOS was single-tasking so it had not timing errors
d. Atari had 640*400 B/W at 72KHz which it was and it is a workable resolution for a musician
e. TOS was enough and very stable to support it's developing.

Of course when Amiga had it's first Zorro-2 Audio Cards like Toccata, was too late.
Steinberg had already start developing on Mac PPCs and Pentium PCs... the next VST generation...

...and yes if Spectrum had an UltraSPARC III processor that was 64 bit, it could run Solaris 10.

spiff · 08 March 2006, 20:42

Gamer 4 life
Guest
AND PLUS WHOEVER SAID SONY PPL ARE SMARTER THAT MICROSOFT PPL O M F G YOU GUYS NEED HELP DO U KNOW THAT WITHOUT MICROSOFT THERE WOULD BE NO FREAKIN INTERNET OR PROBABLY ANYTHING WAT HAVE U BEEN DRINKIN I MEAN SONY JUST MAKES CRAPY STUFF LIKE THEIR DVD’S DONT PLAY BURNED CD’S NOR DOES THE CD PLAYERS.........SO YA MICROSOFT KICKS ASS AND SO DOES THE NEXT BIG ASS SELLING XBOX 2 BABY

oh.. I'm sorry, this was the ATARI thread.. not the PS3, my bad.

BippyM · 08 March 2006, 20:44

mwahahahahahahahahaha.. spiff smokes a spliff

Galahad/FLT · 08 March 2006, 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toni Wilen

50MHz? Blitter (and mostly everything inside Agnus) runs at the usual ~3.5MHz "color clock". (1/2 of the CPU clock)

No other comments

As I am led to believe by a hardware designer, if the blitters speed was equated in the same speed terms as the 68000 processor, its speed equates to 50Mhz. I'm not referring to its actual clock speed, but what speed it is in comparison to getting the processor to do the same task.

Toni Wilen · 08 March 2006, 21:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galahad/FLT

As I am led to believe by a hardware designer, if the blitters speed was equated in the same speed terms as the 68000 processor, its speed equates to 50Mhz. I'm not referring to its actual clock speed, but what speed it is in comparison to getting the processor to do the same task.

Unacceptable non-technical explanation. Try again

_ThEcRoW · 08 March 2006, 22:27

Why people focus on arguing in that type of discussions???. Both of them (amaiga an atari) were fantastic machines, and they are today, for those who still have their machines living.
It's very sad, that nowadays appear such childish behaviour from people.

08 March 2006, 13:05	#42
dir_marillion Randy Rhoads Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Jupiter Age: 50 Posts: 116	hmmm..... Just happened to know some things about the Atari platform, that's all. And I am writing to this place which is for that reason. I am not the smart guy. I thought it was a discussing board and tried to offer my knowledge that was "right" or "wrong". If someone wants to read from the others that Amiga was the best system since 1904 like some Beers, I have not problem with that. I totally disagree with this opinion. Thanks Last edited by dir_marillion; 08 March 2006 at 15:28.

08 March 2006, 13:43	#45
Galahad/FLT Going nowhere Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: United Kingdom Age: 50 Posts: 8,986	Oh dear.... Ok, F-29 Retaliator was faster on Amiga, and that was a flight sim/arcade. Early Amiga conversions of ST games only used the processor, but by using the blitter to do vectors instead, the Amiga was in fact faster than the ST. You are trying to compare an 8Mhz ST processor to a 50Mhz Blitter in the Amiga. Only the early ST vector stuff was faster, but the kind of speed increase you boast about is hardly noticeable. Inferior to the C64, where to start: Did the ST have hardware scrolling? Did the ST have hardware sprites? Was the sound chip in the C64 better than the ST's? The ST had better graphics than the C64, but didn't have good enough hardware to throw it around the screen. FACT The bulk of the work on the ST had to be done by the processor. FACT The soundchip in the ST was a step back from the C64. FACT As for developers: WJS Designs, Tiertex, Kremlin, Teque, plus many others, not forgetting publishers in house teams like Gremlin and Ocean etc, did ST and Amiga versions side by side, in many cases the same people did both versions. There was NEVER any kind of rivalry to make ST versions better than Amiga versions, that being the case, can you explain how the ST version of Shadow of the Beast remotely competes visually with the Amiga version? Most software companies didn't care too much about the ST. Read any of Richard Aplins startup-sequences in any of his conversions. His wasn't the only developers opinion that the ST was a pain in the ass. No software company mourned its demise either. The ST was and will always be remembered as the computer that given enough hardware to stand a chance. I mean its pathetic that it can't even see off the C64! TOS was crap. There isn't much to add to this really. You will never convince me otherwise. My ST was an STFM, so it wasn't one of the first ones, so plenty of times to remove stupid bugs. It crashed... a lot! The Sam Coupe was 8BIT with 16bit graphics. Basically it was better than the ST. I'm well aware that the BBC Micro was 8bit, but you miss the point. I remember the BBC Micro with fondness. It was graphically better than the Spectrum and C64, sounded better than the Spectrum but worse than the C64, but didn't have the hardware of the C64. But at least it was a good comparitive machine. The ST however was not. Is was only JUST better than the 8bit machines it was supposed to replace and only in some areas. The Amiga in comparison to the 8bit machines, well it was better at doing everything than the 8bit machines, and certainly better than the ST as well. It just irks me that people STILL keep banging on about the ST as if it was even remotely capable of being compared to the Amiga. I had one, I know the difference, I can claim to know something. The ST was rushed, had Atari waited and made as much effort with the ST that they did with their XL series, the ST 'could' have been a really great machine. The Falcon and Jaguar had hardware flaws that meant they couldn't be used to their full capabilities. A bit like having a Ferrari Modena with a Ford Escort engine under the hood! I used to be a developer, and NO-ONE I knew or talked to had any time for the ST or Jaguar. The Amiga when I first saw it blew me away, the ST which I had before the Amiga didn't.

08 March 2006, 14:23	#46
Tony Landais Zone Friend Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: uk Posts: 426	Good old time... I never had any Atari and always been an Amiga fan but I loved the sound of the floppy drive on ST. On the other hand I hated OFS on Amiga... It was so slow and unstable (validatind disk and viruses). But bloody hell I was proud to be able to show Aegis animator emulated on my A500 to my ST friends

08 March 2006, 20:28	#55
dir_marillion Randy Rhoads Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Jupiter Age: 50 Posts: 116	Hehe, great comment Commie :-) Dlfsilver, who is R.J. ? Amiga has 22KHz - 8 bit sound which is not very near to 44KHz 16KHz CD quality. No problem if you believe that the 14bit stereo +++ in AHI is true :-) TIP: Some sounds (low KHz sounds like electric guitars and bass) with amiga filter are nice when you listen them (especially into the games). But if you listen the 16bit editions of these sounds, in the same time, from a real CD, you can understand the difference. The most of the small PC speakers refer 150-250 Watts. Are they true too? Steinberg never looked Amiga because: a. MIDI IS DIFFERENT THAN AUDIO (I am tired to writing it) b. Companies always look the base machine and Atari had build in midi ports c. Atari TOS was single-tasking so it had not timing errors d. Atari had 640400 B/W at 72KHz which it was and it is a workable resolution for a musician e. TOS was enough and very stable to support it's developing. Of course when Amiga had it's first Zorro-2 Audio Cards like Toccata, was too late. Steinberg had already start developing on Mac PPCs and Pentium PCs... the next VST generation... ...and yes if Spectrum had an UltraSPARC III processor that was 64 bit, it could run Solaris 10. Last edited by dir_marillion; 08 March 2006 at 20:48.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
unreal was so great !!!!	turrican3	Nostalgia & memories	34	15 March 2009 10:55
ATARI ST-E versus ATARI ST-FM ?	megajetman	Retrogaming General Discussion	19	18 March 2006 01:09
Atari Legend. Finally an Atari ST database similar to HOL!	Fred the Fop	Retrogaming General Discussion	23	04 December 2004 06:46
EBAY Amiga / Atari ST / Atari 2600 stuff	Eggsplosion	MarketPlace	0	09 October 2004 21:01
Great	Ian	Retrogaming General Discussion	7	20 December 2001 20:32

08 March 2006, 13:05	#41
CodyJarrett Global Moderator Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: UK Age: 46 Posts: 6,160	The debate will go nowhere and has little benefit...

08 March 2006, 13:07	#43
dir_marillion Randy Rhoads Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Jupiter Age: 50 Posts: 116	goes nowhere ?

08 March 2006, 13:09	#44
keropi . Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Ioannina/Greece Posts: 5,040	what thread?

08 March 2006, 14:43	#47
ripsnort Posts: n/a	I have one of each but my ST has since died, from a games point of view the only difference was the sound and to me that wasnt worth the amount of shit it got, i still play both systems through emulators and are both great machines, i used to leave my amiga frineds stunned with some of the music demo's on the ST.

08 March 2006, 17:07	#49
Galahad/FLT Going nowhere Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: United Kingdom Age: 50 Posts: 8,986	We have been talking about the ST not the STe. The Amigas blitter ran at 50Mhz, most vector games on Amiga didn't use the processor solely to plot the graphics. Early ones did, later ones didn't. The sad thing is that Atari used to be a major force to be reckoned with, the XL series were very good machines, they had years of experience over other companies. The ST wasn't progressive for Atari. Their only trump cards were: 1). It came out first 2). It had midi ports I really wished the Jaguar could have been a success, but just because a machine is 64bit, doesn't mean that its actually any good. Hence why the 8Bit PC Engine soundly trounced quite a few 16bit machines. I think my interest in this discussion is at an end. The one good thing about the ST was the demo scene, but as most people realise, a good demo effect doesn't mean that a game can be so technically proficient.

08 March 2006, 18:02	#50
commie1974 Amiga? What's that?!? Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Piraeus-Greece Age: 50 Posts: 256	Hey, people, stop this argue... If you want to read my opinion, the ST was just GREAT, because it was an ATARI! This says it all! Also Amiga was great, because it was an AMIGA! Both machines were pioneering back at their time and it is a fact that they can be reasonably be used even nowadays, with minor additions to their out-of-the-factory hardware... Just imagine a modern PC after 10 or even 20 years ;-) It just won't be able to do NOTHING, and mostly because noone will be interested in it then!! Older 8-16-32 bit machines had their own kind of personality and each one was charming in its own special way and this is the reason for which people are still strongly interested in them! All these modern no-name made-in-china DIY machines will simply NEVER be able to give this feeling to the user! Personally I ADORE both Atari and C=/Amiga series (even the 8-bit machines) and I think that each one has its special advantages/disadvantages, but they all just SUPER! Everyone of us has to understand that ANY difference between them was a good reason for software developers to do all their best to exhaust each machine's abilities and even for their producer companies to make efforts for better hardware and OSs. Sadly, nowadays, this thing is not happening anymore, all computer systems and software globally are extremely and boringly similar to each other and this is the worst thing for all of us computer users: In a couple of years, there will be no choice! We will all be obligated to use the same hardware, the same software and the magic of those past years will be forever lost! So, instead of fighting here, just please try to keep ALL those great machines of the past alive, as they really deserve ;-)

08 March 2006, 18:23	#51
NOB Zone Friend Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Germany Age: 52 Posts: 424	The truth to the facts!The amiga outclasses the ST.

08 March 2006, 19:49	#54
dlfrsilver CaptainM68K-SPS France Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Melun nearby Paris/France Age: 46 Posts: 10,412	I personnaly own an atari, hehe, and i also own midi and digital hardware for sound specially created on amiga. Bars n pipe is a professionnal sound tool, used by professionnals.....See what i wrote earlier.... the amiga didn't have midi ports or standard hardware for sound, but hey once again i pick up the good example : Our friend Richard Joseph, well known for his wonderful soundtracks, has used midi sound sytem on both machine, amiga and atari. I have some personal pics of his recording sound studio, he has atari st with cubase and everything that come with it. On the other side he also has an amiga with a midi system connected on it, and guess what, while a standard amiga can push very near CD quality music and sound, the result he had with amiga + midi ports system is just incredible, look how awesome his soundtracks are ! Owning a copy of his original game master's soundtracks, the amiga "ports" of the originals are extremmely faithfull. If steinberg had looked at the amiga DIGITAL audio possibilities, and had converted cubase on it, atari would had loose even on this side.

08 March 2006, 20:42	#56
spiff Oh noes! Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Neverland Posts: 766	Gamer 4 life Guest AND PLUS WHOEVER SAID SONY PPL ARE SMARTER THAT MICROSOFT PPL O M F G YOU GUYS NEED HELP DO U KNOW THAT WITHOUT MICROSOFT THERE WOULD BE NO FREAKIN INTERNET OR PROBABLY ANYTHING WAT HAVE U BEEN DRINKIN I MEAN SONY JUST MAKES CRAPY STUFF LIKE THEIR DVD’S DONT PLAY BURNED CD’S NOR DOES THE CD PLAYERS.........SO YA MICROSOFT KICKS ASS AND SO DOES THE NEXT BIG ASS SELLING XBOX 2 BABY oh.. I'm sorry, this was the ATARI thread.. not the PS3, my bad.

08 March 2006, 20:44	#57
BippyM Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Derby, UK Age: 48 Posts: 9,355	mwahahahahahahahahaha.. spiff smokes a spliff

08 March 2006, 22:27	#60
_ThEcRoW Amiga NetRunner Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Spain Age: 45 Posts: 941	Why people focus on arguing in that type of discussions???. Both of them (amaiga an atari) were fantastic machines, and they are today, for those who still have their machines living. It's very sad, that nowadays appear such childish behaviour from people.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)