Atari ST, the missunderstood computer

[calimero]

I'm not interested by the machines stories, only what they can do or not.

and because of this you do not know such rudimentary thing as difference between OCS and ECS?

Aside that, the ST tools/GUIs looked to me as gadgets, with repulsing interface in 4 colors.

so you never had SM124?

[dlfrsilver]

I'm not interested by the machines stories, only what they can do or not.

and because of this you do not know such rudimentary thing as difference between OCS and ECS?

I badly read, this can happen to anyone.

Aside that, the ST tools/GUIs looked to me as gadgets, with repulsing interface in 4 colors.

so you never had SM124?

Nope, i had from the start an SC1425 atari Screen.

[AtariZoll]

New day, and I'm sure new pile of more-less serious and accurate arguments will come here
My contribution would be:
Roger runs at 25 fps, using blitter a lot. Don't think that 25 fps is some real drawback. I know that 50 fps is possible with blitter (myself did some code for such scrolling), and even without blitter (Heartland 2000) but fps is not all. CPU time may be spent on game logic and other things, and even on Amiga RAM bandwith is limited, so if there is lot of scrolling and other RAM loading stuff, CPU will be slowed.

dlfrsilver: so, you got Amiga in 1992 , Amiga 600 with 2 MB precisely. Indeed, it was really much better than some Atari ST
I can say that in that year falling of both companies was started. Amiga for CAD ? You must be joking. No, in 1992 it was PC and almost nothing else, if not counting very expensive workstations.
So, we can now see things better: you talk all time about Amiga as it started with 2MB Amiga 600. Then we should forget ST, and refer only on STE

Considering power supplies: early C64 was with really poor designed power supply, and not only that. Chips were low quality. Overheat and primitive power regulator was main problem. Really not comparable with Atari ST switching power supply. And you talk again about things you don't know. No, capacitors cause not voltage raise in most cases, contrary - there will be lower output voltage. Since Atari ST PSU has voltage limiter done complete different than analogue 7805 in C64, voltage raise case is extremely unlikely and rare. I serviced lot of machines, and know exactly what talk. C64 was worst computer ever made considering quality of HW. Early Amiga 500s were better, but there was still that bad impression, reminding on C64. Atari ST was made much better, with better chips in first place.

[Retrogamer_ST]

dlfrsilver

What i meant was...

Both ST, PC and MAC was designed mainly for business use. All 3 computers had access to a suitable display mainly for business use. Database, spreadsheet, DTP, word processing, midi, CAD, and much more was done using these machines. Amiga was never in that category. It was more a home computer as you said.

In the office world Amiga would have been seen as a "home computer" lacking the vital software and the nessesary display for serious office work where compability and standard formats is a must. ST was a cheap and powerful alternative for a MAC back then but in the end it was mostly about PC thanks to it's open architecture where any company could make their own PC.

And you're right, Amiga was good for graphics, games, tracker music and demos. Even "Kane" in Robocop II was created using Amiga, but not on Amiga 500 off course. I think they used Amiga 4000 to render Kane.

For your knowledge.

Word Perfect was released for ST too and one of the worst word processors on the ST platform. (no i'm not kidding). Some of the very best applications for serious work was actually made in Germany and mono only.

What i say is...

ST and Amiga is two very different computers, aimed for different things, have different strengths and different weaknesses.

To compare these two computers based on the strengths of ONE COMPUTER ONLY, isn't fair. And that's what many people do when they compare ST and Amiga.

That was the reson for starting this thread. To compare in a fair way, you use both computers strengths but many people don't even know anything about the machine they want to diss.

[dlfrsilver]

Dlfrsilver: so, you got Amiga in 1992 , Amiga 600 with 2 MB precisely. Indeed, it was really much better than some Atari ST

You really think that is ? i would not say that. The RAM was only for me a way to get more comfort, but it didn't brought out more power or whatever.

I can say that in that year falling of both companies was started. Amiga for CAD ? You must be joking. No, in 1992 it was PC and almost nothing else, if not counting very expensive workstations.

Sorry to tell you this, but the amiga was still the best machine in 1992. The PC only overcome it in 1993.

Next, i have found that Pagestream 5 is still sold for Amiga 680X0 to this day for 150 dollars, and it's a professional software.

It's the best Desktop Publishing product for Windows, Macintosh and Amiga computers machine.

There are many others.

List of CAD professional programs for Amiga :

"At its beginning Amiga was considered to offer the most powerful graphic platform at a reasonable price."

It had various CAD programs available for it, such as :

X-CAD, IntelliCAD, DynaCaDD, MaxonCAD, IntroCAD, and even programs to design and test electronic circuits, such as ElektroCAD.

So ?

So, we can now see things better: you talk all time about Amiga as it started with 2MB Amiga 600. Then we should forget ST, and refer only on STE

whatever. The Amiga 600 is above the STE no matter what. Not only the workbench v2.0(5) is better than any GEM desktop, but it's better than the ol d A500 which was already stronger than it......

Considering power supplies: early C64 was with really poor designed power supply, and not only that. Chips were low quality. Overheat and primitive power regulator was main problem.

I agree. I have the breadbin version of the C64, and my computer has the VIC II problem, with vertical bars. For that matter, i bought lately a lumafix64 to correct the problem, as well as heat sink specially made for the c64 chips.

Really not comparable with Atari ST switching power supply. And you talk again about things you don't know. No, capacitors cause not voltage raise in most cases, contrary - there will be lower output voltage. Since Atari ST PSU has voltage limiter done complete different than analogue 7805 in C64, voltage raise case is extremely unlikely and rare. I serviced lot of machines, and know exactly what talk. C64 was worst computer ever made considering quality of HW.

The STF and STE PSU badly aged. When i compare to the PSU of my A500 not minding the one for my A1200 (or A600 !), those went ALL leaking, spitting their crap over the PSU PCB.

The Amiga PSU got superior quality components, and where better factored. As a result, when i recapped my main Amiga PSU yesterday, none of the capacitors had leaked.

As Exxos said, the Capacitors in the ST PSU have to be replaced, because they're causing faults on the disk drive, and maybe others faults, and some of them are really crap, with only one being better than the other one.

Early Amiga 500s were better, but there was still that bad impression, reminding on C64.

The Amiga 500 can't be compared at all with the c64. The c64 (breadbin) seems to be made by amateurs when you look at the motherboard, the Amiga 500 has a very clean and well designed motherboard.

The hardware quality of the A500 is also one of the reason of its higher price. The ST was cheap because they used low quality components from the Start.

You can't have both quality parts AND the low price. At this time, the components were way more expensive than they were today, so costs had to be cutted off on the ST/E range.

[/quote]Atari ST was made much better, with better chips in first place.[/quote]

I don't agree on this matter. I find the STF and the STE very fragile either the case, the internal shielding,....

[Retrogamer_ST]

[simonsunnyboy]

That ad says it all, Retrogamer_ST I'm fully with you at the point that he ST was to be a Mac rival. And honestly it did compete well enough with the Amiga for the other uses, simply in being cheaper and more affordable.

[dlfrsilver]

the Amiga 1000 price was a pure mistake. Commodore rectified it by lowering the price for the A500 (which is better than the A1000).

But aside that, saying that the ST got 1mb floppies => that's purely wrong. ST floppies are IBM 720kb double sided. The Amiga has 880kb in disk format.

If you got using a trackloading system, you can have up to 6,8kb of data per track (Factor 5 games for instance).

You see, the ST was cheaper because it had cheaper components, and cheaper caracteristics. When you want more, you pay more.

This even with commodore stupid start price for the A1000.

[AtariZoll]

Lot of inaccurate claims here - not surprise, of course.
In 1987, when A500 was launched prices were practically equal, at least in Germany. Amiga 1000 is different story, as it targeted not gamers.

U can use trackload in case of Atari ST too, as some games did.
I never seen leaking capacitor in some Atari. For instance, old 520 ST PSU from 1987 still works by me as power supply for USB switch
And DrIknowEverything silver forgets that Atari used mostly 800 KB on 720 KB IBM drives
But this really becomes boring ...

[galax]

Can we ignore the Amiga fanboy rantings and talk some more about the ST?

The ST designers went for the maximum possible CPU speed, instead of tying the CPU clock to the video output frequency, which I think says something about their design goals.

The cheap SLM 804 laser printer which had no 'brain' was a stroke of genius- a fraction of the price of other laser printers at the time, which had to have powerful computers built into them. At the time there was no DTP system that could come anywhere near to an ST+ SLM 804 in price.

As has already been mentioned, the 72Hz high res paper-white monitor had no competition in the ST's price range. At the time an ST with Spectre GCR outperformed a ~$3K Mac.

Built in MIDI ports could have been left out to save a few dollars, and it's easy enough to add MIDI ports to most (even 8-bit) machines. This was another great addition though, and opened up another whole market for the ST- musicians who wanted to just plug MIDI cables into their ST, rather than mess around with different adapters, compatibility problems, etc. As I understand it the ST's responsive interrupt handling also benefited the timing of MIDI handling, this might apply to any 68K machine though.

[Retrogamer_ST]

At first when i bought my new Atari ST i expected lots of gaming in the same way as my Atari 130 XE. But after a short while i found myself using more and more serious apps. And when i bought a brand new Atari SM 124, serious apps was a big part of Atari ST for me. I used Calamus, Pro 24, Cubase, Band in a Box, DX Editor, Hyperdraw, K-data, K-spread, ST Writer Elite, First Word Plus, Protext 5.0, GFA Draft, Canvas, Everest Texteditor, Hyperpaint, Script, Signum and many more.

I really enjoyed serious apps very much and the monochrome screen was excellent to use.

Off course i used some colour apps too, like Spectrum 512, DeLuxe Paint ST, Degas Elite, Crack Art, Ani ST (aegis animator), Cyber Paint II for exemple.

I think that Atari managed to create a cheap, slick, straightforward computer that was easy to use and well suited for some clever programming. Just look at MROS, Photochrome or similar.

No kickstart, no workbench, just turn it on and off you go. Besides that, while Amiga's GUI looked like a homebrew or a PD desktop, ST's GUI looked slick and professional thanks to Digital Research. MAC fonts was often used in high resolution, that says it all.

[Atari74user]

I find the STF and the STE very fragile either the case, the internal shielding,....

I too don't agree with this sentiment, my faithful Atari ST has been set up since 1985, it has not been used every day of course, but it has never seen the attic in 30 years! The Atari ST in no sense has been fragile in my experience, one of the most rock solid purchases I have ever made, but again we will all have different experiences! Not everything that rolls of the produciton line is perfect, you get duffs! The only thing I have ever had to get done is a repair due to my own failing as an electrician, and to restore the case due to that awful yellowing.

It is a shame that the Atari ST v Amiga debate still invokes so much anger, exactly what I was saying at the start of the thread. People to date still get bogged down in one-upmanship, when actually none of it matters. In this day and age a lot of why we remain passionate about our old tech is nostalgia, doesn't matter what technicalities you throw at it, it becomes an emotion. No matter what, the Amiga will never mean anything to me, I have a respect for the rivalry at the time and I don't dis-like the Amiga at all, it just has no connection with me. I have a connection with the C64, even though I had an 800XL, I played on on my friend 's C64 as a kid so much, hence decided to get one myself for that beautiful SID sound, but Amiga, nope not for me no matter what! Even down to the casing, I know a lot of people find the Atari ST design boring, but I don't like the Amiga 500's design, always reminded me of a lego brick, but then others will like it, again because of nostalgia and our own experiences. Hang on a minute https://ideas.lego.com/projects/82519

Of course opinion is what makes us different, and that's healthy, but again people get so angry about this sh!t, it's amusing, still to this day!

I think we have a 'love child' spin off, interesting: http://zgodzinski.deviantart.com/art/At ... -444851855

[dlfrsilver]

U can use trackload in case of Atari ST too, as some games did

That's exact, but i was talking about storage and trackloading. You will never churn out 6.8kb a track on ST, even with a drive with slowed down motor.

I never seen leaking capacitor in some Atari. For instance, old 520 ST PSU from 1987 still works by me as power supply for USB switch
And DrIknowEverything silver forgets that Atari used mostly 800 KB on 720 KB IBM drives

All my STF and STE had their PSU which went leaky. I can confirm this since i had to recap them all. Goo spilt everywhere, like a dirty pant of a guy after being too much drunk

Whatever, i was only pointing that the ST had not the bigger floppy capacity the amiga had. Same for drive speed, the best trackloaders on the amiga outperforms the ones availables on ST.

[Retrogamer_ST]

Compare this. Workbench for the office? No way, it looks like some low resolution PD desktop on a home computer, everything presented in glorious interlace. In fact, even the mouse pointer looks like a toy...

Take a look at the lower desktop, that's office...

[calimero]

@dlfrsilver

why do you polluting our space?

[AtariZoll]

...
Of course opinion is what makes us different, and that's healthy, but again people get so angry about this sh!t, it's amusing, still to this day!
..

As I see most anger is not because someone claims that something is better (Amiga in this case), but because false arguments behind that claim.

Just to point on last one here: "That's exact, but i was talking about storage and trackloading. You will never churn out 6.8kb a track on ST, even with a drive with slowed down motor." - that's pure nonsense, because machines use same floppy drives, and same data density on floppies. Even with 1772 FDC resync, so not allowed all bit combinations by writing, it is possible.
Then, it is well known that Amiga is slow with floppies, and partial reason for that is right trackwise disk operation - it is always slower than accessing just needed sector(s) . Nobody claimed that Atari ST had bigger floppy capacity. It is just that some call those drives 1MB from some stupid reason.

[FedePede04]

I'm not a blinded Amiga fan boy.

Ok you nearly had me fool here. But you are THE BIGGEST Amiga fanboy i ever have came across.

Sorry to tell you this, but the amiga was still the best machine in 1992. The PC only overcome it in 1993.

keep dreaming.

i had first ordre a 486DX 50 MHZ in 92, but i cancel the order, and got me a 486DX 33 Mhz with Opti local bus, (Opti local bus was full 32bit bus running the speed of the CPU. it was for the graphic card)

i also had a SB Pro II in it, with 18 channels FM sound and stereo 8bit samples.

and an other thing, many of the game that was release in that period use 256 color vga mode.

So I would have bet, that my computer would had come out on top, and if i had bought it with a 50MHZ cpu when the gab would just have been bigger.

and NOW for the most beautiful part.
the computer that kill you beloved Amiga (also Atari)
Was the PC a computer with out any custom chips

[FedePede04]

i think this thread is a little silly, with out no doubt, the ST was a good computer for many things, and maybe it was made to compete with the MAC.

but i only bought it for two reasons one for playing games and second to code on, the reason why i did not buy an Amiga was the A500 was not released yet.
so in the end, i could not care any less for any serious programs,(I did start using midi program later on),
and i don't think that i was only one felling this way, so i do think that it's a valid point to compare the ST only as a gaming computer.

The ST was very seldom in Denmark, and it was very hard to get stuff for it, so I remember that at one point i call many computer store in Zealand, and non had any stuff for it, i than started to call stores that sold for companies, and one replay i got often was, that the only sold PC and not toys.
so i don't think that it was use in many Danish firms, probably only the small ones, that did not had the moneys to PC.

So maybe the Amiga was a better Gaming computer compare to the ST, but I still had a really great time and lot's a fun memories owing one and i have never regret my decision.

[FedePede04]

btw i also really like the GEM, it loaded so fast, where workbench took ages to load, i know that you could bypass it, but then you only had the cli and that was just pure crap.

and i also think to remember that the floppy disk keep breaking on the Amiga, so you constantly have to repair them, maybe also a reason why not to use it as a computer for serious work

[dlfrsilver]

As I see most anger is not because someone claims that something is better (Amiga in this case), but because false arguments behind that claim.

Most of my claims are perfectly right, as well as some of yours.

That's pure nonsense, because machines use same floppy drives, and same data density on floppies. Even with 1772 FDC resync, so not allowed all bit combinations by writing, it is possible.

Sorry, but you're wrong here. The drives inside the amiga are NOT hardware compatible with the ones used in the ST nor in the PC. If you want to use an ST or a PC compatible drive on amiga you need to add a small circuit inside.

I have such a drive inside one of my A600 and also in my A1200. It's a PC drive modified to allows amiga disk reading.

I got many atari ST protected software thru my hands, and none of them use 6,8kb per track. Not even Chambers of Shaolin from Thalion

Then, it is well known that Amiga is slow with floppies, and partial reason for that is right trackwise disk operation - it is always slower than accessing just needed sector(s) .

That's also wrong. It's a myth quite well distributed between ST users, but it's not true. Most amiga software are using hardware trackloaders, and not Amigados file system, and out of slow trackloaders (that some ST games also have heh, nobody's perfect ), most trackloaders are fast, some of them even being lightning fast.

The Amiga is doing trackloading when there are no files, but in Dos mode with files, it does sector access (which is slow). It's pure non-sense to load a track when you want to access a sector, and the amiga is not doing that.

Nobody claimed that Atari ST had bigger floppy capacity. It is just that some call those drives 1MB from some stupid reason.

that's right

[Xerus]

And anyway the Falcon is limited to 640x480. Even the A500 is going above that

http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=25543
It's just an example, the Falcon can do better...
If you wanted the same thing with an Amiga at this time, you had to buy an expensive Picasso, gfx card with a pc chip inside

...CAD... Sorry to tell you this, but the amiga was still the best machine in 1992. The PC only overcome it in 1993.

Yes, you're right, in the Twilight Zone
Autocad, CATIA (and many others) already existed even before that amiga has been designed
The king of CAD was the PC and ST had conquered the european market for home computers.
For Amiga, ECS (for the non-interlaced 31KHz) arrived too late to be taken seriously in this market (sad thing because the A3000 is an excellent computer); same problem for DTP, MIDI, etc.
The reason is that Amiga was originally designed to be a console, so a machine which must be connected to a TV / Monitor 15KHz.
It's in his genes and that it was prejudicial to the end, to make up for being behind.
Ironically the last Commodore machine... will be a (outdated) console with the Amiga technology, a return to the roots in a way

[Retrogamer_ST]

The reason is that Amiga was originally designed to be a console, so a machine which must be connected to a TV / Monitor 15KHz. It's in his genes and that it was prejudicial to the end, to make up for being behind. Ironically the last Commodore machine... will be a (outdated) console with the Amiga technology, a return to the roots in a way

Not even that. In swedish ads for Amiga CD32, Commodore made fun of Sega and then bragged about the "Worlds first 32 bit games console".

And while Amiga CD32 was a repacked Amiga 1200, running showelware from A500 and A1200, Sega Saturn was true 32 bit gaming and something completly new in 1994.

Commodore wasn't even around anymore when Saturn was released less a year after Commodore released CD32 and shortly after went bankrupt.

Compare that ad to Atari's "Power without the price" and you will soon see the difference.

[Retrogamer_ST]

The big difference between Amiga and Atari ST is that...

Amiga had only one side

ST had two



That's why most comparisons between the two computers is a story of to compare the strength of one machine only and then say, this computer is the best.

The computer that supposed to be a games console from the beginning has better scrolling and more hardware sprites in this game...

And how do the games console manage Cubase? Or stand up in office work?

No comparison?

Well...

[AtariZoll]

While I agree with Retrogamer about that ST was designed and suitable for "2 sides", it is not correct to say that Amiga was only for gaming. It could serve for diverse serious apps, so CAD for instance. Only that it would require some expensive graphic extensions, or user should suffer with interlaced display and slowed CPU in high resolutions (what Drsilver forgot to mention, of course).

I see about Atari ST design, concept, philosophy as: doing universal, low priced machine by current trends in 1984/5, what is step further in compare to popular 8-bit machines. So, it should be 16 bit CPU, min 256 KB RAM, with better graphic than 8-bitters. Later is where deciding what is really useful is hard choice. SW: WIMP (so mouse too), floppy and FAT16 support . MIDI was something special, I really can not imagine what or who dictated it. In any case, MIDI support was not expensive, I would say max 20 $ in production costs.
The realization: same guy, who designed C64, with custom chips helping gaming and slow CPU went different way: fast CPU and only necessary support chips. Why HW sprites when CPU can do it all enough fast ... Blitter was from start in concept, but came 2 years later - I guess that from economic and slow development reasons. And CPU works really at full speed most time, regardless from graphic mode. Only slows by some instructions like dbxx and DMA activity.
Expansions - that is part what I don't like in concept. Amiga did it much better with it's expansion bus, what made expansions much easier and popular.
Actually, that's only thing in Amiga, what I consider really better. Especially because it costs really not much. And Atari did some expansion buses in later models, but that was 3 type in 4 models - not really encouraging. As we see, mass storage is still solvable well via ACSI port. What is harder are diverse accelerators, graphic extensions, or just simple ROM expansion, replacement.

After so many years here is something what I did not read anywhere: important factor in ceasing of Atari and Commodore was something you would not expect: fact that they were first multimedia machines. That meant built in sound and better graphic (more colors in first place). And that was actually some kind of "closed architecture" - in HW and in OS - as it supported built in graphic and sound directly. PC design, with it's motherboards, which did not contain any graphic and sound, but many expansion slots was ideal for fast development of those 2 things. And that's what exactly happened in 90-es. In few years graphic cards developed a lot - became capable of very quality video playback and 3D gaming with nice textures. Similar was with sound. Something like that was just not possible with integrated graphic and sound on motherboards.
The key word here is fast development. Now we have lot of mainboards with integrated graphic. And sound on mbo is mandatory. But that's because it reached stage (years ago) where further development is not really possible in mean of perceptual value. And even if it is integrated, you can easily add card, what will replace onboard one.
So, I would say that basic design - what means small dimension keyboard computer was what killed Atari and Amiga at the end. Even models in desktop case were not equipped with enough expansion slots, and quantities of manufactured TTs. Falcons were too low to attract card manufacturers.

[Retrogamer_ST]

To be more clear about "one side"

1.Amiga 500 was no business machine in it's orginal state. It was all bout interlace and colours, gaming, demos, graphics and tracker music. While ST actually was made to be a business machine that you could use for games as well, a good allround computer both at home and in the office.

2.Amiga isn't only about games off course. But that's how people often compare the computers. This game looks better on Amiga. Amiga has better colour graphics and a bigger pallette. Then Amiga has 4 channel sound, hardware scroll and hardware sprites. This game sounds better on Amiga.

And so on...

The only thing such people seems to know about Atari ST is, Atari ST is a games computer that wasn't as good as Amiga.