Amiga 1200 vs Atari ST.

[Keatah]

Ofcourse but why these programs was not developed on PC in first place?

 

Because the authors happened to have the machines they had when they wrote them.

 

 

Because PC sux and it took at least five years for PC to catchup with Atari, Amiga, Mac...

 

That's ok. Good things don't necessarily happen over night. I will ask you why Atari and Amiga died out? Because they sux! See?

[zzip]

I would argue about "companies could compete with each other for better tech".

 

It can be said in another way:

 

--== it took 5 YEARS for _open_ PC to catch up with _closed_ Atari, Amiga, Mac... ==--

But look where it started from-- The original IBM PC was weak. Sure it was built like a tank and had a nice 80-colum display, but I swear it was slower than the Atari 8-bit line. Even turning it on, it would just sit there for 30 seconds to a minute before it decides "hmmm maybe I should boot"

 

And depending on your point of view about what's important in a computer it may have always been ahead.

 

We hobbyists tend to judge a computer on its graphics/sound/CPU speed/etc. But not everybody uses those standards. Many judge a computer on its software library, and in that regard PC always had a lead in apps that ST/Amiga couldn't match

 

 

And one more note:

even if you are prone to capitalists view of world, you can not celebrate PC as something "great" since PC KILL all alternatives (it was slow process but eventually it happened).

 

 

I'm not saying it's great. I was one of those people resisting jumping to the PC for as long as I could-- until I could no longer deny it had won. I'm just explaining how it happened.

Edited April 25, 2018 by zzip

[Keatah]

The IBM PC had a floating-point unit a full 4 years before the Amiga or ST or any 68000 based machine. In fact, the 8087 was the basis upon which the IEEE-754 standard was formed. Many future numeric processors would use that standard. Numeric Processors of today still use it even, just an updated version, naturally.

 

But why wasn't this standard was not developed on AtariST/Amiga in first place?

[pacman000]

The ST & Amiga developers thought workarounds were good enough? Like IBM thought CGA was good enough?

 

Anyways... PC v. Amiga & ST is off topic.

 

Back to the original question, If someone already has an Amiga, should they get an ST too?

[Keatah]

The ST was more a productivity machine than the Amiga. So, yes.

[phoenixdownita]

The ST was more a productivity machine than the Amiga. So, yes.

All the productivity SW in the world can be achieved on a contemporary PC.

Why would anyone go back to 80s tech for productivity is beyond me ... unless there's that one program that does not exist elsewhere and cannot be emulated correctly, and that applies to both Amiga and AtariST.

But that is such a tiny minority that to ask that if one has one should he get the other is hilarious if the answer goes into productivity software.

 

Games are a totally different beast due to emulation not being perfect, introducing lag, and other nuances, I understand if someones wants to play on original hardware (warts and all).

 

Finally I totally understand a lone soul here and there wanting to finally take a stab at STOS, or Blitz Basic or some other long dead tech for fun, ... hell yeah ... again for FUN, not productivity.

 

 

A few days ago I read the second part to the "If all you have is an hammer, everything looks like a nail"

which was rephrased as "if all you see is nails, then all you need is a hammer" (not strictly equivalent I know).... well the second half was "if all you see is bolts, then you MUST be nuts".

And there lies the truth, seeing one way only speaks about the beholder and not the world around it.

 

The PC won not because it was cheap (it was not), advanced (c'mon now) or expandable (many systems were), but because it was the business machine that workaholic people wanted to take home so they could get a leg up and keep working even when home. Eventually it was useful outside of "work at home" scenario, but that is another matter altogether.

There's really no reason one would need a full blown word processor/spread sheet home for the occasional mail to aunt Polly or for the monthly check balance ....

[zzip]

The IBM PC had a floating-point unit a full 4 years before the Amiga or ST or any 68000 based machine. In fact, the 8087 was the basis upon which the IEEE-754 standard was formed. Many future numeric processors would use that standard. Numeric Processors of today still use it even, just an updated version, naturally.

 

But why wasn't this standard was not developed on AtariST/Amiga in first place?

old x86 machines were slow, and since they ran lots of apps that dealt with crunching floating point numbers.. there was a real benefit to having hardware-accelerated computation.

 

Just like the 68000 machines were graphics intensive and benefited from hardware accelerated blitter chips, they had blitters before accelerated graphics cards appeared on PC

 

Blitter wasn't a crucial need to early PCs, and fast floating point was as crucial for early 680x0 systems

Edited April 25, 2018 by zzip

[Keatah]

The PC's customizability allowed it to fit into many market segments. While other systems had expansion capabilities, none were like the PC. Apple II came close, but it was from a different era.

[phoenixdownita]

Given it costed an arm and a leg to expand it when the craze of the 90s hit, I remember upgrading something every month if not more often (case, CPU, HDD, second HDD, VideoCard, MotherBoard, IDE Ctrl, CD ROM Ctrl, SoundCard and round and round) ... it was a hubris festival that costed so much for not much more than bragging rights. Yes there were noticeable bumps especially when 3D Gfx accelerator came around (gosh it is still the case today) but for the rest it was an interesting exercise in accelerated obsolescence at best and the expansion slots fueled it.

 

If this is any indication:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272595/global-shipments-forecast-for-tablets-laptops-and-desktop-pcs/

laptops are outselling desktops 2:1 and there's no real "expandability" in those (maybe add RAM, change/add SSD and that's it ... thank god).

 

In the end it was a winning characteristic likely for the wrong reasons but that alone given the cost involved does not justify how the platform came to be the only one surviving to these days (many factor were at play) ... when they moved from ISA/EISA to VLBUS I had to change IDE ctrl which revealed slow HDD so change that too and of course Gfx Cart which revealed my monitor sucked at 800x600, then onto PCI and change again Gfx card (IDE now was integrated) and monitor (because 1024x768 needed that 17") then when the CPU changes the Slot. mobo must be changed and then RAM with SIMM/DIMM/DDR-DIMM etc...etc... .... right now still mostly the GPU is discrete [if the user so chose] on a PCIe and for audiophile some audio board, the rest is on the chipset and the slots go mostly unused .... aside niche markets as it should be (data acquisition card, specialized IO etc...etc...).

 

 

 

 

Wrt Amiga 500 vs Atari ST for games:

basicailly when the chipset was usable properly the Amiga games tended to have more frames (as it could offload more) and better audio [relatively speaking that is], when the chipset did not matter (3D for example) the Atari ST had the edge (as it had a faster CPU and a faster Gfx for pure framebuffer usages).

[Keatah]

Given it costed an arm and a leg to expand it when the craze of the 90s hit, I remember upgrading something every month if not more often (case, CPU, HDD, second HDD, VideoCard, MotherBoard, IDE Ctrl, CD ROM Ctrl, SoundCard and round and round) ... it was a hubris festival that costed so much for not much more than bragging rights. Yes there were noticeable bumps especially when 3D Gfx accelerator came around (gosh it is still the case today) but for the rest it was an interesting exercise in accelerated obsolescence at best and the expansion slots fueled it.

 

I will admit, though, I baggie-chased graphics cards for a short amount of time and built a $5,000 Pentium 4 rig with lotsa bling. Having been on both sides I can safely and validly say that acquiring bragging rights for a fast PC is always a costly endeavor. Years later I would recover some of the funds, but not all.

 

Gaming PC's rarely had "economy" or "efficiency in mind. And gamers put little in their minds to begin with, nor are they known for their financially intelligent choices. Ditto for frequent upgraders. Maximum PC was soon building $10,000+ rigs that were outdated by the next processor stepping - their problem.

 

It is important to always stay a step or two behind top-of-the-line. And having learned a lesson early on, I can safely say I've saved tens of thousands of dollars over the years.

 

 

In the end it was a winning characteristic likely for the wrong reasons but that alone given the cost involved does not justify how the platform came to be the only one surviving to these days (many factor were at play) ... when they moved from ISA/EISA to VLBUS I had to change IDE ctrl which revealed slow HDD so change that too and of course Gfx Cart which revealed my monitor sucked at 800x600, then onto PCI and change again Gfx card (IDE now was integrated) and monitor (because 1024x768 needed that 17") then when the CPU changes the Slot. mobo must be changed and then RAM with SIMM/DIMM/DDR-DIMM etc...etc... .... right now still mostly the GPU is discrete [if the user so chose] on a PCIe and for audiophile some audio board, the rest is on the chipset and the slots go mostly unused .... aside niche markets as it should be (data acquisition card, specialized IO etc...etc...).

It is much more difficult to upgrade a system for speed than it is functionality & variety. This is across the board. Any computer.

The purpose of the expansion slots is classically misunderstood. They are there to allow customization and add functionality. Not increase speed.

When I got the 486 in 1993, I didn't really know a lot about soundcards or "multi-media". But having 8 slots on-board allowed me to add a 2nd parallel port, an internal modem, a 3rd and 4th hard disk, soundcard, joystick, cd-rom, and 2nd bank of simm slots. And just recently I got a 10/100 Nic for nearly free. All NEW FUNCTIONALITY. And that's a winner!

I did one speed-up mod. And that was to add 256K of off-chip L2 cache.

No other platform would let you create the machine of your choice. On your budget & schedule. It's only your fault if you abuse that versatility.

[ParanoidLittleMan]

The ST & Amiga developers thought workarounds were good enough? Like IBM thought CGA was good enough?

 

Anyways... PC v. Amiga & ST is off topic.

 

Back to the original question, If someone already has an Amiga, should they get an ST too?

Of course that should. If he hates ST then can use it running some crappy, poorly coded games to prove how ST is bad. If he likes ST (are such at all among Amiga people ? ) then he can run well done Atari SW and enjoy it. If he is neutral then of course should get ST too - to see is being neutral OK If he has too pushy wife should get too - then can better hide behind 2 computers instead one

[DracIsBack]

But look where it started from-- The original IBM PC was weak. Sure it was built like a tank and had a nice 80-colum display, but I swear it was slower than the Atari 8-bit line. Even turning it on, it would just sit there for 30 seconds to a minute before it decides "hmmm maybe I should boot"

 

 

I don't quite remember it that - we had an XT with horrible CGA graphics and tinny sound. I also had an Atari 130XE. The PC did take a bit to boot up, but I also remember the Atari could be brutally slow when it came to loading things off the disk relative to the XT

Edited April 26, 2018 by DracIsBack

[zzip]

I don't quite remember it that - we had an XT with horrible CGA graphics and tinny sound. I also had an Atari 130XE. The PC did take a bit to boot up, but I also remember the Atari could be brutally slow when it came to loading things off the disk relative to the XT

The IBM disks might have been faster, but it's apps were slow. I'm not sure I had an XT, I think it was original (My school gave them away because they were old, so I took one).

 

It's performance was pathetic, it definitely felt slower than an Atari 8-bit. But the build quality was amazing, and it had a great keyboard that could not be matched.

[pacman000]

Going back to the original question... Are there any games where you prefer the ST version to the Amiga version? Which ones? Why?

 

(Op asked if he should get an ST for games if he already had an Amiga; decade old specs debates don't help; this may. )

[ParanoidLittleMan]

Plenty of ST versions is better:

Microprose F1 GP, Microprose Golf, Flight of the Intruder, Resolution 501, Potsworth & Co., ....

[Nebulon]

I'm actually finding quite a few games on the Atari ST that -- to my knowledge -- weren't released on the Amiga. Official releases of games like Missile Command, Moon Patrol, and Asteroids. Oids, of course. And a variety of arcade clones that are unique to the ST (like Kid Kong).

 

And yes, there are also some that were released for both systems that seem to run a bit better on the ST (Death Sword Barbarian and Time Bandit for instance). I imagine those are typically games that were originally written for the ST and then ported to the Amiga... games that just relied on the 68000 and not much else.

 

The experience of using an Atari ST or STe is (for me) quite a different experience than using an Amiga.

[Keatah]

In the case where games weren't written specifically and exclusively for the amiga and its custom chips, the ST would be the better choice, if only for the less cluttered and less weighed down architecture. The Amiga was a real stinker in that respect.

[high voltage]

 

Umm, comparing the A1200 to a 1040 is like comparing the Atari Falcon to the A500... Just sayin'.

 

Still an STe though, rarely used.

Edited April 26, 2018 by high voltage

[ParanoidLittleMan]

I'm actually finding quite a few games on the Atari ST that -- to my knowledge -- weren't released on the Amiga. Official releases of games like Missile Command, Moon Patrol, and Asteroids. Oids, of course. And a variety of arcade clones that are unique to the ST (like Kid Kong).

 

And yes, there are also some that were released for both systems that seem to run a bit better on the ST (Death Sword Barbarian and Time Bandit for instance). I imagine those are typically games that were originally written for the ST and then ported to the Amiga... games that just relied on the 68000 and not much else.

 

The experience of using an Atari ST or STe is (for me) quite a different experience than using an Amiga.

If game is heavily optimized for certain computer, it may be harder to port to different one, even when it is with same CPU. Because video system may determine complete concept of graphic draw, what simply will not work well on other (talking about concept). So not enough to change specific code parts which draw on screen, but whole concept, what means usually changing complete graphic database.

I seen plenty of games ported from Amiga, with IFF files, which convert it on fly to format good to ST. That is bad practice, costs time and RAM. Why not put it on disk already converted ?

Bad coding, not putting needed effort in project are of main reasons for not well made games.

[Atari030]

 

Still an STe though, rarely used.

 

 

If I were you I would get into STe specific games, like Zero 5, Substation and Sleepwalker. You probably already have Zool and the like if you come from the Amiga camp. There are quite a few options and the difference between the STe and an A500 isn't that great compared to an STFM. But, you can still run most STFM games as well. So you have a lot of options.

[+DarkLord]

 

Still an STe though, rarely used.

 

Shame that....

 

I think other posters have already mentioned STe specific games but let me throw something else

out there....

 

The demoscene. Sure, the Amiga has lots of great demos but if you're looking for something that

is different from the Amiga, you can find lots of great STe demos that are just pure eye-candy.

 

Also, just because it's fascinating what an STe can do, check out PPera's video players for the

STe - swear, looks like watching a DVD (almost).

 

Start investing a little time into that "rarely used" machine and you might just be pleasantly

surprised!

[EzdineG]

Going back to the original question... Are there any games where you prefer the ST version to the Amiga version? Which ones? Why?

 

(Op asked if he should get an ST for games if he already had an Amiga; decade old specs debates don't help; this may. )

I hate to be that guy, but I think Defender of the Crown was better on he ST. It looked as good IMO, and had several elements added to the game that weren’t in the Amiga version.

 

As for the music, well it’s just a matter of personal preference

[phoenixdownita]

I hate to be that guy, but I think Defender of the Crown was better on he ST. It looked as good IMO, and had several elements added to the game that weren’t in the Amiga version.

 

As for the music, well it’s just a matter of personal preference

To be fair Commodore did release Defender of the Crown II for CDTV and CD32 which contained the "missing" elements from the original vanilla Amiga "unfinished" version.

All in all Defender of the Crown was a jaw dropping gfx marvel at the time .... game-wise ... well I played it to no end just because but I can't really remember enjoying it aside from watching the beautiful artwork.

[zzip]

To be fair Commodore did release Defender of the crown II for CDTV and CD32 which contained the "missing" elements from the original vanilla Amiga "unfinished" version.

All in all Defender of the Crown was a jaw dropping gfx marvel at the time .... game-wise ... well I played it to no end just because but I can't really remember enjoying it aside from watching to the beautiful artwork.

I tried to play it, but usually to frustration. What is the secret to winning a joust? Best I could do was have a draw.

[phoenixdownita]

I tried to play it, but usually to frustration. What is the secret to winning a joust? Best I could do was have a draw.

Well like the AtariST version of the first chapter there was no sure way to win it, there was a fair amount of luck involved, unlike instead the original Amiga version in which with certain characters it was just "watching a movie" by placing the cursor in a particular "pixel" ahead of time .... talking about a bad experience.

 

Not sure if Defender Of the Crown II was actually the port of the Atari ST version or the "completion" of the original, if it was a port of the Atari ST it would be ironic in a weird sort of way.

The Atari ST version also had a bug/weird behavior during castle assault, if memory serves you had to leave only 1 soldier back at your castle and when attacked chose a particular kind of defense (can't remember) and have instantaneously your troops back to the castle when needed (ca't remember if you actually doubled the army this way or simply got to enjoy simultaneous attack/defense). I can't remember if this bug was AtariST only or common to all the other ports, but I remember using it quite often (which at the end made winning a much easier proposition more or less like the Amiga version joust trick to get money).