Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th Feb 2011 00:09 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Oh. My. God. When I read this, and browsed the website, my face went like this. Do you remember the Amiga? That fun little computer that was miles ahead of its competition, but in recent years has been dragged through the mud by one shady figure after the next? Here's a new one: Amiga, Inc., the one 'run' by Bill McEwen, has partnered with a company called IContain to slap the Amiga logo on a bunch of low-end, incredibly sad products. Whether this is another shady deal I don't know, but worthy of the Amiga? I don't think so. I'm not putting this in the Amiga category, by the way. I refuse to. Forget it. It's going into our generic category. Fitting. Update: As was pointed out over at AmigaWorld.net, not only are these nothing more than brandless OEM products with Photoshopped logos, the website itself is just a standard, unmodified WordPress theme. Oi. Doesn't instil a lot of confidence, now, does it?
Thread beginning with comment 463931
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by ebleau
by ebleau on Fri 25th Feb 2011 08:55 UTC
ebleau
Member since:
2010-04-28

"That fun little computer that was miles ahead of its competition"

Sorry.. I call foul on this statement.. The Atari ST, STE, Mega2/4, TT, and Falcon... all spanked the Amiga in Graphical and musical. Atari poorly marketed it's computers thus lost. Remember the Checkered bouncing ball demo of Amiga? the one that they claimed no other home computer can do. Funny... Atari ST was able to do it and more... they did the same with a bouncing Atari A that rotated and had a Scrolling rainbow pattern on one side and a checked pattern on the other... that was something that amiga at that time couldn't do with it's graphics chip.

Amiga compared to the PCs, C64, 8-bit Atari computers, and TRS-80.. yes.. no competition, but do not discount the ST and above....

Reply Score: -5

RE: Comment by ebleau
by Dr.Mabuse on Fri 25th Feb 2011 11:06 in reply to "Comment by ebleau"
Dr.Mabuse Member since:
2009-05-19

Later ST's were undoubtably more powerful, but by then the PC was already king.

When the Amiga 500/1000/2000 were in their prime, the ST didn't stand a chance. :-P

(Okay, I'm trolling, but I couldn't resist)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by ebleau
by fx__ on Fri 25th Feb 2011 12:14 in reply to "Comment by ebleau"
fx__ Member since:
2006-03-31

You are joking, right?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by ebleau
by Athlander on Fri 25th Feb 2011 12:44 in reply to "Comment by ebleau"
Athlander Member since:
2008-03-10

I miss those playground Amiga vs. ST arguments (we had an Amiga but I was an Archimedes fan...)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by ebleau
by leech on Fri 25th Feb 2011 15:12 in reply to "Comment by ebleau"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

Being an Atari Mega STe owner back in the day, I can totally disagree with this.

The Amiga 500 had far better graphics capabilities than the Atari ST. The only ones that could beat it were the TT030 and Falcon (and it was more of a tie on the TT030)

The Amiga has all sorts of custom resolutions, HAM8 mode, etc. The only thing cool the original Atari STs had were built-in MIDI. They could do a static 512 color picture, but the HAM8 would go up to 4096. The STe was basically an upgrade to try to compete with the Amiga better, with a 4096 color pallete and Stereo sound, but it still had the normal ST resolutions of 320x200x16, 640x200x4 and with a 'high' res monitor you could do 640x400x2.

One thing the Atari ST had over the Amiga was simplicity. Even a moron would have trouble not knowing how to load up software on it. Then again that also kind of what sucked about it, if you wanted to do things like multitask, you had to buy extra software, something the Amiga did out of the box.

But sadly, at the time of their release, they both kicked the crap out of Mac and PC, yet here we are, Mac and IBM PC prevailed. I've always had this theory that the crappiest technology always survives longer than the better one. Betamax vs. VHS. Amiga+ST vs. Mac/IBM PCs, Hair Metal vs. Grunge (though with music it really all depends on which group of suckers the RIAA can swindle), HD vs. Bluray (well, I guess that is differing opinions, I didn't care either way, but would have rather not had one that Microsoft favored anyhow).

A lot of this is due to the USA. It seems to me the Europeans are just far more intelligent, or maybe just don't bow down to name brands like we do. The Amiga and Atari computers were always far more popular over in Europe than in the US, which is odd, considering they were made from American companies.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by ebleau
by westlake on Sat 26th Feb 2011 08:04 in reply to "RE: Comment by ebleau"
westlake Member since:
2010-01-07

But sadly, at the time of their release, they both kicked the crap out of Mac and PC, yet here we are, Mac and IBM PC prevailed. I've always had this theory that the crappiest technology always survives longer than the better one. Betamax vs. VHS. Amiga+ST vs. Mac/IBM PCs, Hair Metal vs. Grunge.


You have to look at the system as a whole:

Beta in the U.S. was introduced when most TVs had only an antenna input - and no such thing as a digital comb filter.

The VHS cassette could record an entire movie or football game. Extended play matters when the cassette itself is a significant expense.

The Whiz-Bang features of the Amiga don't matter in a market that is looking for a rugged and reliable office machine. The IBM keyboard.

They don't matter to a developer who is porting his small business accounting system from CP/M to MS-DOS.

The MS-DOS PC was commercially viable alternative before the cloning of the IBM PC BIOS.

The OS was cheap and the wide-open competition in the hardware market would drive the platform forward relentlessly.

Reply Parent Score: 1