Retrogamer_ST wrote:Just pick the one who suits your needs best.
Retrogamer_ST wrote:I would say like this.
Compare games, compare colurs, sprites, just name it, but don't forget to compare the serious side as well if you want to do a fair comparison between Atari ST and Amiga.
Amiga won't even get close to the sheer quality of the SM-124 monochrome screen. A pin sharp rock steady display, no scanlines and 70hz refresh rate. That's why Atari ST was so good for serious use.
Amiga might win for games but it won't even touch ST for serious use.
It's a tie
Just pick the one who suits your needs best.
Frank B wrote:I think the ST was a hell of a lot cheaper than the Amiga or the Mac.
My ST was 269 pounds. The a500 was 399. Even in 1990 the ST was fantastic value for money.
We won't see another machine like the Amiga, ST/Falcon/STe or Archimedes any more.
Atari74user wrote:To be honest, I don't get why people are still obsessed with the Amiga v Atari ST topic, it's done already, but each to their own of course.
rabindranath72 wrote:When I got an ST, only the Amiga 1000 was around. I (well, my family; I was a kid back then) simply could not afford it. And for a much lower price, I got a second disk drive, and the monochrome monitor. I never cared much about graphics and sound; the games I loved didn't really need all the bells and whistles of the Amiga (Sierra and SSI games, mostly). But the monochrome monitor, the OS in ROM (which simplified day to day operation A LOT; everyone who has tried to work on an Amiga with only one floppy drive knows that even trivial things can be a royal pain in the ass!) and the huge amount of RAM meant that it was a very flexible machine.
I used it well within the university years, until the need for a PC became insurmountable.
AtariZoll wrote:I don't think that Atari ST is really misunderstood . It's just that we now see lot of silly comparisons, YouTube videos showing how Amiga is better. Of course, that new generations have no clue about details, and I don't think that most even cares at all.
spudisgood wrote:I have used both machines over many years and I can honestly say I still can't pick a favourite, though when pushed, I would say I find the ST a lot more fun.
It is the little things that I find more charming with the ST.
I think the case for example, is much nicer than the Amiga 500 and seems much better made. I always found Amiga cases quite low quality plastics, would stain yellow very easily, compare the amount of yellowed ST's to the amount of yellowed Amigas for example..
The sound of the disk drive, the quirky but friendly TOS, I prefer the operating system booting from ROM than off a floppy disk...
I have owned many ST's and Amigas over the years and have always found the ST's to be more reliable and of a better build quality.
In terms of sheer hardware and software, I can't really argue with the points already made regarding the Amiga being better for gaming, one place where the ST really suffers in gaming is the sound chip - no comparison to the stereo sound on the Amiga games.
Graphically, there isn't much difference between the ST games and Amiga 500 games IMO, the Amiga being better.
The ST was definitely a more serious machine, and a better all-rounder than the Amiga.
I think there is a level amount of pros and cons for both machines, which makes it so difficult for me to choose a favourite, which is why I have alternated between using the two platforms over the years and own both machines.
What is quite tragic IMO is the Falcon - which was by all accounts a far superior machine to the Amiga 1200, and really should have been much more successful. It would have possibly even meant that Atari would still be in the home computer market today.
Retrogamer_ST wrote:AtariZoll wrote:I don't think that Atari ST is really misunderstood . It's just that we now see lot of silly comparisons, YouTube videos showing how Amiga is better. Of course, that new generations have no clue about details, and I don't think that most even cares at all.
In fact, many of the people who compare the computers isn't even aware of the monochrome screen. And when you point it out, they are as confused as they are surprised. Atari ST a serious computer, as PC and MAC? A business machine?
Retrogamer_ST wrote:Agreed in most of what you say. Another thing to point out is that even if Falcon and Jaguar wasn't the success Atari hoped for, at least they tried something new unlike Commodore who just repeated the same Amiga concept over and over again. CD32 was nothing else then a repacked Amiga 1200.
Retrogamer_ST wrote:It was not a thread about ST vs Amiga.
It was a thread about that most people seems to have missunderstand what Atari ST is. Then they compare the computers very unfair. It's like comparing SNES to Amiga and then say, look, SNES have better graphics and more sound channels. Then they forget that Amiga has a keyboard and runs serious appz as well.
Retrogamer_ST wrote:Computer wars can be fun even if it's hard to compare such different machines, but when people compare the same thing over and over again because it's the only thing that could be compared, it's unfair.
This is a fair comparison between two completly different computers created for different things.
Amiga has more on screen colours
Well, ST has built in MIDI
Amiga has custom chips for graphics
Well, ST has a high resolution monochrome screen
Amiga has Monkey Island II
Well, ST has Cubase and Notator
Who's the winner?
It depends of what you want to do.
“Are you seriously trying to tell us that Steinburg did what Atari themselves couldn’t and hardly anyone else ever did, and coded up some proper operating-system level multitasking on a machine which otherwise never saw any software co-operation above the level of a Desk Accessory? ”
That’s exactly what they did. Steinberg created MROS or ‘music realtime operating system’. This was a true real time OS that could run multiple MROS compatible programs simultaneously, while giving the highest priority to midi timing. Hence the GUI could slow down, but your midi timing never suffered.
MROS was revolutionary at the time, and allowed other useful features such as sharing device drivers between software and could be updated independently from the software it ran.
The reason you don’t hear about it much is that the cracked versions of the Steinberg Atari products generally broke MROS enough to prevent mutiple programs, the MROS Switcher, and other useful features from working. Those of us with a handful of dongles and a MIDEX however had a rather powerful system.
dlfrsilver wrote:A standard Amiga 2000 with a multisync monitor can perfectly use for productivity use a resolution of 1280x512 which is far superior to what even the high res ST monochrome screen can do. Of course, in this configuration the screen flickering doesn't apply.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests