Atari ST graphics hardware compared to PC EGA

[khph_re]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Yeah, totally, which is why they were widely adopted by businesses and eventually, because of their world wide market penetration, set a standard which we're using to this day.

Smh.

Mainly because they came with a monitor and often a hard drive, ran all the industry standard applications, and had ample room and slots customise.

The base machine for home non business use was pretty lousy, at least until the 386 and VGA became common.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by khph_re

The base machine for home non business use was pretty lousy, at least until the 386 and VGA became common.

Of course, but that's the whole point. It wasn't meant for home use, that was a field covered by microcomputers. The businesses didn't really care much about fun-related stuff, such as hardware scrolling, which is why CGA/EGA were perfectly fine for the tasks they were most interested in.

[nobody]

Actually they had all the serious applications needed for a business plus a hard drive to safely store your data. On the other hand i have seen business running a simple database even on Amstrad 6128. You needed fast data access and high res (Spectrum-C64 out) and safely store data (hard drive, Amiga-ST out, too expensive) and the applications (PC), in the end the PC ticked all boxes.

As a bonus you could stick a card inside and upgrade, give it a bit more life (Amiga-ST out again).

[grond]

Yet ironically PCs as a business really took off when they were capable enough for games, er, multimedia (sorry).

[nobody]

Even Hercules was ok for most of the stuff they were using. On the ST you needed an extra monitor for high res and extra cards-flicker fixers and monitors and hard drives on the Amiga. Way too much, in the end the PC was more cost efficient. I bet the Amiga was much more expensive if you add all these than a standard 286 clone with monochrome and a typical CGA card. Talking about double money, and still missing the applications.

[dreadnought]

Right, because before the Nineties PC was virtually unknown and struggling.

This anti-PC, parallel universe, revisionist streak is one of the most amusing things on this board

[grond]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

This anti-PC, parallel universe, revisionist streak is one of the most amusing things on this board

And you seem to find putting words into other people's mouths especially entertaining.

[khph_re]

Originally Posted by nobody

Even Hercules was ok for most of the stuff they were using. On the ST you needed an extra monitor for high res and extra cards-flicker fixers and monitors and hard drives on the Amiga. Way too much, in the end the PC was more cost efficient. I bet the Amiga was much more expensive if you add all these than a standard 286 clone with monochrome and a typical CGA card. Talking about double money, and still missing the applications.

Exactly, and Amiga interlace is a flickery mess. I did all my artwork in Imagine in that mode, and my eyes would strobe for hours afterwards. Surprised I don't need glasses!

If you wanted a high res small business computer that could play games, and you could afford it, the PC was fine.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by grond

And you seem to find putting words into other people's mouths especially entertaining.

Care for an example? Because I can provide quite a few.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Right, because before the Nineties PC was virtually unknown and struggling.

This anti-PC, parallel universe, revisionist streak is one of the most amusing things on this board

Who said the PC was 'virtually unknown and struggling'?

[grond]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Care for an example? Because I can provide quite a few.

No problem: since between your last comment and the next of yours there was only one comment agreeing with how PCs were good offerings for what they were used for (to which I agree, btw), there was only mine to which you replied:

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Right, because before the Nineties PC was virtually unknown and struggling.

Of course, the PC business was already many times bigger than any home computer business but this doesn't mean that my point was wrong. In any case my comment doesn't imply any of what you in an attempt at irony made of it. I hold my position that the PC business exploded economically and PCs became a thing to be seen in just any place only once they became games machines. That's precisely when PCs started to be sold in supermarkets and an infinite number of PC shops opened on highstreets around the world.

[AmigaHope]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

Who said the PC was 'virtually unknown and struggling'?

He was being sarcastic. In the 90's the Wintel duopoly was well-entrenched.

Though in the 80's, the IBM PC-compatible (particularly outside the US) *was* struggling in the home market, because the prices were out of reach of most home users.

The success of Microsoft/IBM-compatible systems stems entirely from the vast sums of money thrown at it by the business market, which had way more funding available than the average home consumer. When competition opened up via clones, it enabled the business market to fund vast R&D efforts that allowed it to catch up and then exceed the capabilities of product lines that targeted the home (the truly "personal") market.

In the home market, only Apple had the large-market profit margins to compete (because they targeted wealthy consumers, plus government money from the education market, plus a professional market in the desktop publishing and 2D art business). That's why they're the only traditional "home computer" company still around today.

Every other home computer company other than Sharp and Acorn wound up competing on slim margins and was pushed by the wayside. Sharp and Acorn could not compete because they only had a single country as their high-margin market. NEC was the last big "corporate market" high-profit-margin competitor but they lost out for the same reason -- only a single country market.

Now that monopoly has been achieved, it doesn't matter that Windows-based computers are now made with low profit margins. The battle was already won. Apple is only to compete with their high margins in the luxury market.

[gimbal]

Why is this even under discussion? The history of the PC is well-documented to infinity and beyond. Everyone is both correct and wrong if you put up a time range as non-specific as "before the 90's", you just have to pick whatever exact timeframe fits your needs.

[chb]

Originally Posted by nobody

Even Hercules was ok for most of the stuff they were using. On the ST you needed an extra monitor for high res and extra cards-flicker fixers and monitors and hard drives on the Amiga. Way too much, in the end the PC was more cost efficient. I bet the Amiga was much more expensive if you add all these than a standard 286 clone with monochrome and a typical CGA card. Talking about double money, and still missing the applications.

CGA has exactly the horizontal refresh rate as an OCS Amiga - 15.6 kHz. CGA hires hence is identical to Amiga hires in resolution and refresh rate (actually the Amiga can show a bit more pixels thanks to overscan). You can even connect a CGA monitor to the Amiga via the RGBI pins.

Hercules was 720×350 at 50 Hz refresh rate, so just slightly better. Both were absolutely no match for the ST's 640x400@70Hz. And you didn't need an extra monitor if you did not use color. Most people that used their STs for productive work had just the SM124. If you needed moderately high-res, flicker-free graphics at a low price there was no competition for the ST in the 80s.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by grond

Of course, the PC business was already many times bigger than any home computer business but this doesn't mean that my point was wrong. In any case my comment doesn't imply any of what you in an attempt at irony made of it. I hold my position that the PC business exploded economically and PCs became a thing to be seen in just any place only once they became games machines. That's precisely when PCs started to be sold in supermarkets and an infinite number of PC shops opened on highstreets around the world.

Your comment did not exist in a vaccuum. We were talking about PCs as business machines, and you implied that they weren't really doing well in this market in the Eighties, and only exploded when PC gaming become a thing. Both these things are not true, hence my "revisionism" remark.

The other part (anti-PC) perhaps does not apply to you personally, but is a part of a trend I've observed on this and other forums. Eg this thread's discussion about technical (if a bit mismatched) gfx comparison was quite interesting, but then we inevitably had to hear about "unimaginative PC devs", "horrible EGA" and so on.

This probably stems from some sort of nostalgic brand loyalty and sour grapes feeling, because PCs did eradicate everybody else, even if it happened indirectly (and Apple only started to matter again in the iPod era). That does not make it any less silly though.

I'm sorry for derailing this thread, but this is my pet peeve, and I sometimes can't help myself and butt in on these occasions.

[grond]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Your comment did not exist in a vaccuum. We were talking about PCs as business machines, and you implied that they weren't really doing well in this market in the Eighties,

No, I did not imply that, these are the words that you put into my mouth.

and only exploded when PC gaming become a thing.

This may still be true even though the PC had a strong market before that. It became a few magnitudes larger with the advent of the "multimedia PC".

[nobody]

Originally Posted by chb

Most people that used their STs for productive work had just the SM124. If you needed moderately high-res, flicker-free graphics at a low price there was no competition for the ST in the 80s.

True but didn't really took off. Better than the Amiga for serious work (databases etc) for sure. I wonder if some business actually used it instead of PC and what applications it had.

[Foebane]

Originally Posted by chb

Most people that used their STs for productive work had just the SM124. If you needed moderately high-res, flicker-free graphics at a low price there was no competition for the ST in the 80s.

Obviously, Jack Tramiel was aiming for an all-purpose computer, not a gaming (and as it turned out, ideal for video editing) system as the Amiga is.

Unfortunately, video editing for SD television back then involved interlace flicker.

[grond]

Originally Posted by Foebane

Obviously, Jack Tramiel was aiming for an all-purpose computer, not a gaming (and as it turned out, ideal for video editing) system as the Amiga is.

Unfortunately, video editing for SD television back then involved interlace flicker.

Well, the Amiga would probably have been more successful if it hadn't been tied to TV-frequencies even if it then had missed any video capabilities. The video stuff was something to brag about but few users actually made any use of.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Foebane

Obviously, Jack Tramiel was aiming for an all-purpose computer, not a gaming (and as it turned out, ideal for video editing) system as the Amiga is.

Commodore wasn't aiming for strictly gaming market either. They also had big ideas about business uses, hence A2000, Sidecar, etc. Check this Amiga World issue (Nov 1985): https://archive.org/details/amiga-world-1985-11 ...it's all about "white collar Amiga".

But in the long run, nothing could stop the advance of the clones...