Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Aug 2007 10:21 UTC
Amiga & AROS When it first arrived, the Amiga was a dream machine, and some have said it was ten years ahead of its time. The first installment of this multipart history of the Amiga looks at the events that led up to the birth of the company and the PC that bore its name.
Thread beginning with comment 259961
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
And what about....
by embleau on Wed 1st Aug 2007 15:19 UTC
Member since:

And what about the Atari ST line??!!

It was there along side the Amiga in every step of the way. It was just as advanced and some may urge more advanced as the Amiga. The article complained about "no respect" for the Amiga, but it doesn't mention Atari.... <Shrug> oh well.

Reply Score: 1

RE: And what about....
by PLan on Wed 1st Aug 2007 15:33 in reply to "And what about...."
PLan Member since:

The original ST wasn't in the same class as the Amiga.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: And what about....
by __xodam__ on Wed 1st Aug 2007 16:00 in reply to "And what about...."
__xodam__ Member since:

What ? All Atari ST had was a 68000, Amiga had that plus an army of custom chips and an OS putting atari gem in bed every night, sorry.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: And what about....
by leech on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 12:55 in reply to "RE: And what about...."
leech Member since:

The Atari ST really was inferior to the Amiga except where MIDI was concerned.

The Atari STe was much better, but still had crappy single tasking TOS and low color GEM.

The Atari ST line didn't get decent until the TT030 came out, which was too pricey (though I own one now after many years) and then the Falcon030. Then of course the morons at Atari decided after the Falcon030 was out for around a year that they were pulling out of the computer business forever and wanted to go with game consoles again, after their name had already been ruined by things such as the 5200 and the XEGS. Well maybe ruined is a bit harsh, and more likely it was stuck with the 2600. When people heard Atari, that's what they thought. With the Mega STe and TT030, they were trying to get into the serious DTP and workstation area, but being known for gaming screwed them for the most part there. They did (and still do) have a place in the music studio though.

Unfortunately the Jaguar was also a commercial failure, and as others have said about Marketing being the death of Amiga, the same was for all the Atari machines (including the Jaguar, which I also own). If they had released more than five commercials and played them at times other than late night, maybe they would have gotten a bigger install base, along with more developers.....

Oh well all is the past, much like the Amiga there are some small(er) projects which are trying to resurrect interest in the Atari line of computers. Even the Jaguar still has some home brew games being hacked together for it.

For the record, my Atari Mega STe has a 16Mhz 68000, and my Atari 1040ST has a 8Mhz 68000. If I recall correctly, the Amiga 500 had a 7.49Mhz 68000. Not much of a difference, and the custom graphics chip actually made them a lot faster. Ah, the good ol' days of the 16bit computers. Too bad the crappiest of them all won out.

Those were the good days where anything made for the Atari ST or Amiga would work on any of them, unless it actually stated 1mb of ram. Which pretty much everyone had.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: And what about....
by Vanders on Wed 1st Aug 2007 17:10 in reply to "And what about...."
Vanders Member since:

It was just as advanced and some may urge more advanced as the Amiga.

Not in any universe I've been in it wasn't.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: And what about....
by svengali on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 16:39 in reply to "And what about...."
svengali Member since:

No way. The ST was a vanilla 68K machine running a hacked up 68K port of MS-DOS with a hacked up incomplete 68K port of GEM. The Amiga was chock full of custom processors and ran a beautifully integrated and efficient custom multitasking OS that took full advantage of the hardware. There was no comparison.

And I'm saying this as a former ST owner who had previously owned and enjoyed several Atari 8-bit computers. I naively believed the ST would be the next generation Atari design with custom processors and all. Instead the Amiga was that, and no wonder; it was designed by former Atari people (see Jay Miner). Some of the Amiga's coolest capabilities (e.g., split-resolution graphics) had first appeared on the Atari 8-bit line. The ST on the other hand was the product of former Commodore management (see Jack Tramiel). It was all very interesting; Atari's talented techies had moved to Commodore, while Commodore's inept management had moved to Atari. The ST was my first great computing disappointment.

Don't get me wrong though. The Amiga wasn't perfect. The OS was chained to the custom hardware and achieved its multitasking efficiency by completely sacrificing robustness. The whole thing was essentially one big multithreaded process and wouldn't last a day in today's malware-ridden world.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: And what about....
by puenktchen on Thu 2nd Aug 2007 19:31 in reply to "RE: And what about...."
puenktchen Member since:

the tos of the atari st wasn't a port of ms-dos. it just looks like ms-dos because both were clones of cp/m.

i liked the crisp b/w screen of the ataris st, and there were some nice programms, but the amiga definitly in another league.

Reply Parent Score: 2