Jump to content

Photo

Amiga 1200 vs Atari ST.


113 replies to this topic

#101 pacman000 ONLINE  

pacman000

    Dragonstomper

  • 777 posts

Posted Yesterday, 6:38 AM

Both apples & potatoes taste good baked.

 

Both apples & potatoes have skins.

 

Both apples & potatoes come from plants.

 

;)



#102 zzip ONLINE  

zzip

    River Patroller

  • 2,245 posts

Posted Yesterday, 7:41 AM

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.


I have to disagree about EGA being better. It had a smaller color palette, not every EGA card supported 640x350 @ 16. Some only supported 640x350 @ 2 colors. Also being ISA-based it was very slow.

The first graphics card that was clearly better was MCGA in 87 (and the better known VGA from the same year). But the speed problem wasn't resolved until later bus architectures with higher bandwidth, like Vesa Local bus, PCI

#103 hwrd OFFLINE  

hwrd

    Space Invader

  • 19 posts

Posted Yesterday, 8:02 AM

I see your point.  As you said, I think the "clearly better" is what VGA represents.

 

How about "the least worse of what was available for a high res colour display" is what EGA would represent in '85, being compared to Mac, ST, and Amiga.

EGA was definitely not a superset of the capabilities of the others.

 

I think I am pushing it a little, but I am trying to imagine '85 again (talk about nostalgia...  heh heh heh).



#104 ParanoidLittleMan OFFLINE  

ParanoidLittleMan

    Stargunner

  • 1,120 posts

Posted Yesterday, 8:27 AM

VGA is where graphic on PC started to be really good and competent. But in early years, it was very slow in full color mode. I had 1MB Trident ISA VGA card about 1992. In true color mode it took some 5 secs to just fill entire screen. Not some large res (don't remember what was it exactly). That card could be faster with better RAM. But then would cost much more. As said, it's all mostly about RAM prices and speed.

Modern cards have more RAM than full truck with Amigas and Ataris.

It's easy now to say how PC is superior. But truth is that all they learned each from other. Crucial point was when manufacturers (mostly in Taiwan) went on making custom chip sets for PC motherboards. That was exactly in years when Atari and Commodore went out of business. People wanted more standard machines, peripherals, compatible SW, and speed. To add that Motorola started to lose against Intel in those years too. I say it, who never liked Intel CPU coding. 


Edited by ParanoidLittleMan, Yesterday, 8:27 AM.


#105 Keatah ONLINE  

Keatah

    Missile Commander

  • 20,086 posts

Posted Yesterday, 9:46 AM

No one developer ever ever liked intel programming, especially stack and addressing/memory map related items. And. Yet. The ENTIRE INDUSTRY embraced the model and supported it at every turn. The 286 was loathed and everyone wanted 6809 and 68000 or PowerPC. And..yet.. x86 rules the roost. So someone is bullshitting someone and hating just to hate, because bandwagon.



#106 zzip ONLINE  

zzip

    River Patroller

  • 2,245 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:31 AM

No one developer ever ever liked intel programming, especially stack and addressing/memory map related items. And. Yet. The ENTIRE INDUSTRY embraced the model and supported it at every turn. The 286 was loathed and everyone wanted 6809 and 68000 or PowerPC. And..yet.. x86 rules the roost. So someone is bullshitting someone and hating just to hate, because bandwagon.


Simple. Developers don't code for what they like, they code for where the sales are.

Anyway I think relatively few developers had to touch x86 assembly, as PC has always had a broad selection of high-level languages.

And 286 did suck for assembly language (this is what I learned on). 386 improved things somewhat.

#107 Keatah ONLINE  

Keatah

    Missile Commander

  • 20,086 posts

Posted Yesterday, 10:49 AM

I suppose so. I remember in x86 class back in the day the most distracting things were the groans and frequent F*** YOU. Most of it surrounding memory and segments.

 

But Someone had to like the platform and recognize something good in it for it to rise above the other 16-bit rigs. What was the force that overcame the crap memory model? I always thought it was "standards" and consistency, stuff partly enforced by the BIOS. Like for example, all videocards had certain interrupt vectors and that didn't change from Compaq to Packard Bell to Gateway.. All PC-XT/AT standards.

 

Perhaps it was the highly professional marketing and no references to kiddie games?



#108 zzip ONLINE  

zzip

    River Patroller

  • 2,245 posts

Posted Yesterday, 12:04 PM

I suppose so. I remember in x86 class back in the day the most distracting things were the groans and frequent F*** YOU. Most of it surrounding memory and segments.


Yup, I never touched x86 assembly after my assembly class

 

But Someone had to like the platform and recognize something good in it for it to rise above the other 16-bit rigs. What was the force that overcame the crap memory model? I always thought it was "standards" and consistency, stuff partly enforced by the BIOS. Like for example, all videocards had certain interrupt vectors and that didn't change from Compaq to Packard Bell to Gateway.. All PC-XT/AT standards.
 
Perhaps it was the highly professional marketing and no references to kiddie games?


Well consider the audience for the Amiga/ST/Mac:

* multimedia enthusiasts (Amiga)
* Musicians (ST)
* Designers and desktop publishers (Mac)
* Gamers who weren't smitten by the NES

contrast that to the PC audience:

* business apps

When was the last time your boss sent you a spreadsheet or word doc? When was the last time he/she sent you a MIDI file or CAD drawing? The former was and still is a much more common use of computers. People wanted to bring their work home and they wanted 100% compatibility with their PC at work. If they couldn't afford $4000 for a genuine IBM, maybe they could swing $1000 for a clone.

What people don't seem to realize is this type of buyer wasn't wowed by the slick multimedia demos that the Amiga/ST would produce because it they were not computer enthusiasts. They simply saw the computer as a means to an end. The number of sound channels/colors/MHz/ram weren't as important to them as whether it could run Lotus 1-2-3.

So I think it was a combination of the PC having all the serious apps and being an open architecture that lead to its domination. The open architecture lead to competition and innovation. Atari truly offered "Power without the Price" in 1985, but by the early 90s, that had flipped and PC hardware was cheaper.

Also the horrible memory model affected asm programmers, but if you were developing in C/C++, The PC had better compilers/development tools for that. And after the 386, you could code in C and not have to worry about memory segmentation in your code. After Windows 95, the TSRs were gone, and the weird memory model didn't affect end-users anymore either.

#109 poobah OFFLINE  

poobah

    Stargunner

  • 1,633 posts
  • Location:Beavercreek, Ohio

Posted Yesterday, 5:07 PM

No one developer ever ever liked intel programming, especially stack and addressing/memory map related items. And. Yet. The ENTIRE INDUSTRY embraced the model and supported it at every turn. The 286 was loathed and everyone wanted 6809 and 68000 or PowerPC. And..yet.. x86 rules the roost. So someone is bullshitting someone and hating just to hate, because bandwagon.

 

Segmented memory was the devil.  6 different memory models in Borland C.......



#110 atarian63 OFFLINE  

atarian63

    River Patroller

  • 4,227 posts
  • Location:columbus ohio

Posted Yesterday, 6:42 PM

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.

I am the opposite, I most game on my ste and the a500 mostly gathers dust except for a few games now and then.



#111 ParanoidLittleMan OFFLINE  

ParanoidLittleMan

    Stargunner

  • 1,120 posts

Posted Today, 1:14 AM

When I said that did not like x86 ASM programming, I did not mean because segmented memory. I never did something larger. It is just that 68000 registers, memory addressing modes are better structured. 68000 is true 16-bit, while x86 has some 8-bit characteristics. Big part of possible 16 bit combinations is valid opcode. And that may be the reason why 68000 was not well expandable later. There was simply no enough space to add new registers, many new operations. Intel managed to keep basic register model and to expand it. Motorola was forced to go Risc way (Power PC). But today technology allows Risc speed with Cisc CPUs.

 

I don't agree that target users for PCs were only business people. Surely not after 1990. It became good for gaming when VGA, sound cards and faster CPUs arrived. Prices of monitors went down too.

Real multimedia came little later - with CD drives, faster CPUs made possible quality video playback ...  I remember talk with some Amiga fan, about 2000, who bragged how his accelerated Amiga 2000 (or something like that) can play well video clips. I asked what resolution - and he said something about 160x100 .  I said 'sure, that was worth of giving over thousand DM for accelerator' In that time we could play DivX/DVD on PC well .



#112 Keatah ONLINE  

Keatah

    Missile Commander

  • 20,086 posts

Posted Today, 6:51 AM

I'm fairly confident CISC achieved RISC speeds many years ago. And continues to the be architecture style of choice. It has to be. Since speed and density are hitting walls today, the way forward is more capable instruction sets and more parallelism.

 

It should also be noted that a modern intel microprocessor is really a mix of risc and cisc if you adhere to the traditional (and outdated) definitions. There's a microprocessor within a microprocessor executing uops. The definitions of RISC/CISC have become bloated in attempt to cover the rich mix of features and styles in today's microprocessors. So I don't even think it is an applicable way of describing the architectures. It's become like discussing a 3-bladed propeller vs 4-bladed propeller. In the Jet age.

 

The 1990's was the decade of "Multi-Media"! All those sound card and CD-ROM bundle kits. There was a HUGE push into the consumer space. Fer'chrissakes, even my local drugstore had them for sale!

 

I, too, remember that postage stamp video stuff. While the PC had it, the PC showed signs of evolving and increasing its capabilities. And did. Whereas the Amiga had stagnated. Yes. 1000DM accelerator for video, bwahahahaha!!


Edited by Keatah, Today, 6:56 AM.


#113 zzip ONLINE  

zzip

    River Patroller

  • 2,245 posts

Posted Today, 7:31 AM

I don't agree that target users for PCs were only business people. Surely not after 1990. It became good for gaming when VGA, sound cards and faster CPUs arrived.


After 1990, yes.. but the PC would never have gotten to that point if it hadn't been for all the people who bought them in the 80s mostly to run business apps. If you look at most PC games from the 80s, they were inferior to other ports. It certainly wasn't gamers buying them in the 80s

#114 ParanoidLittleMan OFFLINE  

ParanoidLittleMan

    Stargunner

  • 1,120 posts

Posted Today, 7:58 AM

I meant term Risc regarding execution times, better said cycle counts for instructions. Latest CPUs are actually faster that classic Risc CPUs - can execute even multiple instructions in 1 clock cycle. That needs of course lot of logic, but there are millions and millions of gates for it.

 

Surely, PC was not targeting gamers in beginning. And IBM had not some big ambitions with whole project. But it went that direction. I guess market was what made it - gamers are good customers :)






1 user(s) are browsing this forum

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users