Amiga 1200 vs Atari ST.

[Keatah]

Going back to the original question:

 

"I find myself curious about the Atari ST, but the impression I get is that they mostly have the same game library and a game developed for one of them will often be ported to the other. That said, i'm curious to know if there are reasons to get both of them for gaming? "

 

I went with the amiga at the time, because custom chipsets. Little did I know they would be a hindrance for future growth. But I thought the Atari was better marketed and it felt more a polished machine overall. More turnkey.

 

Weren't the Atari rigs clocked ever so slightly higher?

[+DarkLord]

Yes, the Atari ST runs at 8 mhz and I believe the Amiga runs at

7.14 mhz (although I think there is some variation between NTSC

and PAL models?).

 

It's why some games run faster on the ST...

[hwrd]

Yes, the Atari ST runs at 8 mhz and I believe the Amiga runs at

7.14 mhz (although I think there is some variation between NTSC

and PAL models?).

 

It's why some games run faster on the ST...

 

That would be part of the speed difference.

 

My understanding is that even in 16-colour 320x200, the video processor halts the 68000 of the Amiga to get the screen drawn.

(and this increases to a worst case with the dual scrolling mode)

 

This doesn't make the Amiga bad, but a powered up Amiga 68000 is more than 8/7.16 slower than an ST 68000.

 

 

To say the Amiga does better than the ST for games is mostly due to the eventual popularity of horizontally scrolling games of the later 80's (strongly due to arcade games and NES games).

 

If polygon games had become the "in thing" instead, the ST would have been considered the better games player now.

 

 

Both are fun though!

[Keatah]

I didn't use the ST much, outside of computer showrooms. But it indeed felt faster and crisper. Had it been available, I'd have gone with it from the get go.

[ParanoidLittleMan]

Yes, ST CPU runs at full speed in all regular video modes, while at Amiga there are diverse slowdowns caused by video generation and HW for screen draw. Something like slowing CPU by blitter in ST(E).

Scrolling self must not slowdown - it depends from how it is solved.

In any case sheer CPU power is better by ST some 10-15%, I guess.

[juansolo]

This is oddly relevant as I did this.

Quick personal history: I had an ST back in the day, I had it for college work, BBS's and of course gaming. I modded the shit out of it. It was the first machine I ever went to town on. It was in a tower case, had a internal SCSI HDD, 16mhz processor and was pretty silly. My brother later got an Amiga 500, so we had one of those too. Despite personally having way more history with the ST, even at the time, the superiority of the Amiga was pretty obvious.

 

Fast forward to last year and I'm on my nostalgia trip. I land myself an A1200 and am just amazed at how nice it still all works even today. It's handling of HDD and software is still slick and impressive and the system is a joy to use. I also picked up an ST (well 3...) and proceeded to try and recreate something along the lines of my original beastie and after the Amiga build I just found it painfully clunky. In the end the ST I kept was a simple 1040STF with a Gotek. It plays the few early games that were better than the versions ported to the Amiga, and that's about all I use it for.

 

The A1200 however sits on my desk next to my current main computer. It's just bloody lovely. The later games are way better than the ST equivalents. As for compatibility, the A1200 ain't no STE. Just about everything works, there's also a lot more enhanced games for the AGA machines. Running from internal CF is a doddle.

It's not all perfect, there are some quirks. If you want to run WHDLoad software you're gonna need a 4MB expansion for the trapdoor and they're quite expensive. You could put an 8MB in there, but that'll stop the PCMCIA port working (which you can use for ethernet or a CF card reader to transfer stuff to it). They also are prone to leaky caps (as is the A600, A4000 and CD32) so a cap job is becoming pretty much mandatory. Finally they're getting damned expensive!

 

But otherwise I think the performance of the machine is pretty much nailed on perfect for most games. It's speed bump over an A500 is really nice for some games that benefit from it, but it's not so much that it makes them unplayable. Adding a CF HDD to it costs buttons also, and it makes it a joy to use when you're done.

Basically it's my favourite computer of all time and I wish I could have afforded an A1200 back in the day. The fact it's still so much fun now is telling of just how awesome it is. The ST lives next to it mostly for nostalgia reasons, Super Sprint and Oids. That's pretty much it.

Edited April 21, 2018 by juansolo

[ParanoidLittleMan]

I'm shocked ! Another one who noticed that Amiga 1200 is ahead of ST ! Amiga 1200 for president !

[hwrd]

Back in '85, I followed the news for both the ST and Amiga, as both sounded like nice colour variants of the Apple Mac.

Quite a few people where I lived had a Mac, and I definitely had a good appreciation for it.

 

On paper, the Amiga 1000 looked definitely superior to the 520ST from a graphics perspective:

32 colours at 320x200

16 colours at 640x400

It was pretty easy to comprehend those numbers versus the ST's:

16 colours at 320x200

2 colours at 640x400

 

I was able to test a demo Amiga 1000 that Autumn (before I tried an ST), and I set the Amiga in 640x400. (this mode sounds better than low-res ST and hi-res ST). The entire screen flickered like an Atari 2600 Pacman ghost.

 

A few weeks later, I got to try an ST with both the colour and monochrome monitors. The monochrome desktop looked excellent, but I have to be honest and say the ST desktop looked toy'ish in "anything x 200"; and being honest, so does the Amiga desktop.

 

All of these systems are engineering compromises to what the architects envisioned. Blanket "the superiority of the Amiga" does not exist, nor does blanket "the superiority of the ST". They are both compromises from 1985, as the flickering hi-res on the Amiga OCS, and lack of horizontal hardware scrolling on the original ST, reveal.

 

All use of these systems at this point are for nostalgic reasons. A clearly faster computer came out from Compaq in '86 with a 80386 processor, a better sound machine was introduced in '86 with the Apple ][GS, and better graphics were available in '84 with EGA having 640x350 with 16 colours.

 

Like which ever one you want the most, but any superiority is only true inside one's head.

[+DarkLord]

This is oddly relevant as I did this.

 

Quick personal history: I had an ST back in the day, I had it for college work, BBS's and of course gaming. I modded the shit out of it. It was the first machine I ever went to town on. It was in a tower case, had a internal SCSI HDD, 16mhz processor and was pretty silly. My brother later got an Amiga 500, so we had one of those too. Despite personally having way more history with the ST, even at the time, the superiority of the Amiga was pretty obvious.

 

Fast forward to last year and I'm on my nostalgia trip. I land myself an A1200 and am just amazed at how nice it still all works even today. It's handling of HDD and software is still slick and impressive and the system is a joy to use. I also picked up an ST (well 3...) and proceeded to try and recreate something along the lines of my original beastie and after the Amiga build I just found it painfully clunky. In the end the ST I kept was a simple 1040STF with a Gotek. It plays the few early games that were better than the versions ported to the Amiga, and that's about all I use it for.

 

The A1200 however sits on my desk next to my current main computer. It's just bloody lovely. The later games are way better than the ST equivalents. As for compatibility, the A1200 ain't no STE. Just about everything works, there's also a lot more enhanced games for the AGA machines. Running from internal CF is a doddle.

 

It's not all perfect, there are some quirks. If you want to run WHDLoad software you're gonna need a 4MB expansion for the trapdoor and they're quite expensive. You could put an 8MB in there, but that'll stop the PCMCIA port working (which you can use for ethernet or a CF card reader to transfer stuff to it). They also are prone to leaky caps (as is the A600, A4000 and CD32) so a cap job is becoming pretty much mandatory. Finally they're getting damned expensive!

 

But otherwise I think the performance of the machine is pretty much nailed on perfect for most games. It's speed bump over an A500 is really nice for some games that benefit from it, but it's not so much that it makes them unplayable. Adding a CF HDD to it costs buttons also, and it makes it a joy to use when you're done.

 

Basically it's my favourite computer of all time and I wish I could have afforded an A1200 back in the day. The fact it's still so much fun now is telling of just how awesome it is. The ST lives next to it mostly for nostalgia reasons, Super Sprint and Oids. That's pretty much it.

 

Why are people still trying to compare the A1200 to an ST/STe?

 

If you're gonna do that then fine, lets match the Falcon up against the A1000. Sound good/fair?

 

Honestly, it's not hard to figure this stuff out:

 

ST - A1000/500 (etc)

 

Falcon - A1200

 

And you can throw the TT in there vs the A3000 if you'd like or the STacy vs the Commodore

portable...Oh wait, they didn't release a portable.

[MrMaddog]

 

Why are people still trying to compare the A1200 to an ST/STe?

 

 

Might as well compare an Amiga 1200 to a 486 PC...

 

 

As far as I'm concern, I got an STe for college work as well as games so it worked fine for me. Yes the Amiga was better for games, but so was the Genesis which was more available in the States. And of course PC's blew them all out of the water so Microsoft "won" the war.

[Atari030]

 

That would be part of the speed difference.

 

My understanding is that even in 16-colour 320x200, the video processor halts the 68000 of the Amiga to get the screen drawn.

(and this increases to a worst case with the dual scrolling mode)

 

This doesn't make the Amiga bad, but a powered up Amiga 68000 is more than 8/7.16 slower than an ST 68000.

 

 

To say the Amiga does better than the ST for games is mostly due to the eventual popularity of horizontally scrolling games of the later 80's (strongly due to arcade games and NES games).

 

If polygon games had become the "in thing" instead, the ST would have been considered the better games player now.

 

 

Both are fun though!

 

Spot on. Darklord and HWRD nailed it, I said it before too. You can't compare the A1200 to an ST, they are generations apart. The STFM came out in 1985, roughly the same time as the 1000. The A500 was released later, the STe was released later again to counter that. Those machines are the same generation and comparable.

 

The TT and the 3000 were released the same year, the A1200 and the Falcon was released in the same year also. Easy comparisons. But, Darklord is bang on, the A1000 is crap compared to the Falcon. Of course the A1200 is better than an STFM for the same reasons. The A1200 was crap compared to a Cray or a Quadra 630.

 

Should you have both? I have A500, A2000, A3000, A4000, CD32, 520STM, 520STFM, 1040STFM, 1040STe, MegaST, MegaSTe, TT030 and Falcon030. Just love em all, as I said before, I love Atari more as that is what I grew up with and you can't quantify that. I think the ideal scenario is A500, STe, A1200 and Falcon. You have all bases covered for most folks.

[juansolo]

 

Why are people still trying to compare the A1200 to an ST/STe?

 

 

Because that was the OP's question... His question was (paraphrasing): I have an A1200, is it worth me also getting an ST to play games on. Mainly because they do play mostly the same games (unlike the Falcon, PC or IIGS), just the A1200 all round, tends to play them better being a slicker, better specced, and more compatible piece of kit. Which was what he was asking. So unless you're nostalgically invested in the ST and you already have a A1200. No an ST probably isn't worth getting if you just want to play the games on it. Which was exactly the situation I was in. But as I said, I still bought the ST (well 3: STF STFM STE) because of my history with them.

 

Maybe I should have been less verbose in my reply. I wasn't really trying to restart some sort of format war thing! Just give my honest opinion as someone with a lot of history with both machines.

Edited April 22, 2018 by juansolo

[ParanoidLittleMan]

....

All of these systems are engineering compromises to what the architects envisioned. Blanket "the superiority of the Amiga" does not exist, nor does blanket "the superiority of the ST". They are both compromises from 1985, as the flickering hi-res on the Amiga OCS, and lack of horizontal hardware scrolling on the original ST, reveal.

 

All use of these systems at this point are for nostalgic reasons. A clearly faster computer came out from Compaq in '86 with a 80386 processor, a better sound machine was introduced in '86 with the Apple ][GS, and better graphics were available in '84 with EGA having 640x350 with 16 colours.

 

Like which ever one you want the most, but any superiority is only true inside one's head.

hwrd: your view of this is pretty much wrong. Nobody here, not even hardcore Amiga fans claimed that mentioned machines were generally superior. We all knew that there were stronger computers.

What we talk about are cheap computers made for home use, affordable for millions. And were sold in that quantity. That self is one big quality.

When designing graphic HW for some home computer, in those times main factor was that it work on televisions. So, please don't come here with some EGA - which is btw. much worse, despite higher res, because limited color number. You forgot to mention in your overview important factor: available color palette. Amiga 1000 was made for TV video, so with interlaced video, with aim of using for some video work. In that time VHS video recorders were in usage, with low res. Even 640x200 is a bit too much for average TV. What you call toyish - 320x200 is actually res what looks good on TVs from that time. And there were 512 colors, not 16 in case of ST.

So, first thing by design was TV compatibility. Then another important things: price of RAM, speed of RAM, speed of CPU - yes, you need faster CPU with larger video RAM, otherwise games will be slow (as were on MSX for instance) . Atari made graphic system so, that used 32KB RAM in all video modes. That made possible work without slowing CPU. Amiga has more video modes, with larger RAM usage, and with available RAMs from that time it was possible only with CPU slowdown.

Flickering of Amiga was problem only for those who know nothing about video standards (like who ? ) . Same could be said for lack of scrolling by ST. There are many games with great scrolling for bare ST. Good programmer can do it all with CPU and RAM.

Actually, when I thinking better about all it, main problem with this new machines with 68000 CPU was that programmers just could not programm them well. It took some 4 years until big % of SW was able to pull out max from HW.

[ParanoidLittleMan]

 

Because that was the OP's question... His question was (paraphrasing): I have an A1200, is it worth me also getting an ST to play games on. Mainly because they do play mostly the same games, just the A1200 all round, tends to play them better being a slicker, better specced, and more compatible piece of kit. Which was what he was asking. So unless you're nostalgically invested in the ST and you already have a A1200. No an ST probably isn't worth getting if you just want to play the games on it. Which was exactly the situation I was in. But as I said, I still bought the ST because of my history with them.

 

Maybe I should have been less verbose in my reply. I wasn't really trying to restart some sort of format war thing! Just give my honest opinion as someone with a lot of history with both machines.

What OP made is just stupid. I could open thread: Atari ST vs Atari 2600 . Is it worth to buy some 2600 when I have ST ?

It's totally subjective. There is people who bought some system because only 1 game. There is people having 50 diverse retros.

And thread title/name is just bad, provocative.

My answer is: there is no vs. Atari and Amiga can live in peace in my room. Go to some football match if you want to be a fan ..

[juansolo]

What OP made is just stupid. I could open thread: Atari ST vs Atari 2600 . Is it worth to buy some 2600 when I have ST ?

It's totally subjective. There is people who bought some system because only 1 game. There is people having 50 diverse retros.

And thread title/name is just bad, provocative.

My answer is: there is no vs. Atari and Amiga can live in peace in my room. Go to some football match if you want to be a fan ..

 

Then I am confused then why people answered the thread at all. Only to ignore the OP and answer questions that weren't asked at all ...for 4 pages?

 

I answered his question because I happened to have done the same thing recently (being more invested in the games than the platforms running them). I didn't think it was stupid or provocative.

[calimero]

Juansolo, I appriciated your info regarding A1200 memory limitation regarding pcmci slot. I did not know that it can not be used if you put 8GB.

 

But topic is really offtopic

There is no sense to compare A1200 to ST

Edited April 22, 2018 by calimero

[ParanoidLittleMan]

 

Then I am confused then why people answered the thread at all. Only to ignore the OP and answer questions that weren't asked at all ...for 4 pages?

 

As may see, many of us just said that topic is bad. Ignoring it is one way. Other way is to explain why it is bad.

[Keatah]

It's fun to compare machines, both closely similar, and radically different. It's part of the hobby. Neither machine is good or bad. They just are.

[hwrd]

hwrd: your view of this is pretty much wrong. Nobody here, not even hardcore Amiga fans claimed that mentioned machines were generally superior. We all knew that there were stronger computers.

Flickering of Amiga was problem only for those who know nothing about video standards (like who ? ) . Same could be said for lack of scrolling by ST. There are many games with great scrolling for bare ST. Good programmer can do it all with CPU and RAM.

 

 

A quote previous in this thread:

"Despite personally having way more history with the ST, even at the time, the superiority of the Amiga was pretty obvious."

 

 

Flickering is a problem because it exists in reality. What you are doing is a logical fallacy called "moving the goalpost" ( It doesn't matter whether the systems were made for tv or not, they did look toy'ish. Explaining the "tv approach" to the system design would not make it any less flickering or toy'ish. I still like them though, even given this.

 

I don't think it is required for anyone to detail every point someone else might view applicable (i.e., palettes). This is a discussion forum, not an essay repository. Weak little jabs commented in your response illustrate a likelihood that you fear someone responding with a view beyond your own.

 

I would agree that the Amiga OCS is a stronger games player, but would definitely say the original ST series is a stronger computer. That ST is faster, full OS (TOS) sitting in ROM, faster floppy drives (with a graphic display system that lends itself to displaying the drive icons quicker). Now, once can say the icons are ugly and I won't try to counter argue that.

 

I did not start this reply haughtily, proclaiming you are generally wrong. And I appreciate your response, although you give the appearance of being afraid of others opinions.

[ParanoidLittleMan]

"fear someone responding with a view beyond your own." Yes, my dear hwrd (what would be it ? Hardware retro doctor ? ) - I'm so scared from opinions of shallow people with low knowledge.

Let's go in more details considering video solutions of home computers in those years:

Color monitors were expensive. Price of it was beyond price of some ST in years 1986-1989. Making some non-TV compatible video stage would mean forcing people to buy monitor. Actually, Atari did it partially - they made hi-res mode at ergonomic 70 Hz for professionals. But that was B/W monitor, not that expensive. Atari and Commodore solved it much better than Apple, who made first MACs monochrome only, not to mention how MACs costed way more. 'Toyish' resolution of 320x200 was actually about ideal resolution achievable for color mode in those years. From several reasons:

Resolution of TVs was low. Forcing something like 640x400 would result in not seeing clear all pixels.

Even more important was that computers were not enough fast to deal with larger video RAM. Talking about affordable computers, not some workstations costing 100K $ .

And palettes were special solution to have more colors without large video RAM. I say this because this is discussion forum, and you just rejected it like something irrelevant. It is it, especially after your mentioning of EGA, what is known as not good for games - well for most, even those without Dr title

There were some handheld LCD consoles with even smaller res. launched some years later. That's what can we call toys.

STs were used by lot of people for serious work. And even Amigas, mostly in video area. Btw. did you hear about flicker-fixer for Amiga ?

Amigas used practically same floppy drives as STs, most of computers. Slower work on Amiga was because there is no special floppy controller chip, and it works track wise, not sector wise.

Honestly, your comment sounds for me like some early PC owners. who was able to pay fortune for PC with color monitor about 1985-6 .

And since 386 was mentioned: Prices were very high even in 1990. I knew engineer who boughy PC with 386SX (slower than TT) and color monitor for some 5000 DEM. Although, it was with VGA then, what was much better than EGA. Not typical home computer user.

I can say only that designers made good solutions with video stage in case of Amiga and ST, and followers. It was all according to state of technology, prices. available peripherals in those years. There were some mistakes in some other things, but that's long story .

Edited April 22, 2018 by ParanoidLittleMan

[hwrd]

"fear someone responding with a view beyond your own." Yes, my dear hwrd (what would be it ? Hardware retro doctor ? ) - I'm so scared from opinions of shallow people with low knowledge.

 

I stopped at that point.

 

Child.

[ParanoidLittleMan]

Just another one, who thinks that being smart is underestimating cheap and economic solutions.

[juansolo]

WTAF?

 

I'm out. This is too weird for me.

[Keatah]

As both the Amiga and ST failed to keep up with industry progress, they became amusing diversions alongside real computers like the 386 or 486.

[ParanoidLittleMan]

Level of expertise of many posters here is amazing ! Now some CPU type is computer. Now 64 colors is better than 512 . We need now to compare apples with potatoes ... Should continue ?