Atari ST vs. Amiga

[desiv]

Nice collection, I...

er..

 

what????

 

...NEW TRS-80 Model 100 with SD reader...

There's an SD Reader for the Model 100?? You have info???

Off to google looking for info... I never thought of looking for something like that for my Model 100!!!!

 

desiv

[Mr.Amiga500]

Falcon's, TT's, Clones, graphics cards etc.

 

Well, it's not really fair to compare the stock graphics of the Amiga 500 with a Falcon with graphics card. My question was if it was possible for the ST equivalent of the A500 could do what I have in my screenshots - without graphics card.

 

 

Also interlaced resolutions aren't something anyone would use on an Atari. I wouldn't even dream of trying it. And in my view, 2, 16, 256 colours isn't something you should be browsing with. Trust me I've been doing it for quite some time. In the end it was better to use 2 colours because rendering was much faster and it didn't really change the way things looked that much.

Those things though hurt performance. You are cramming up the bus and neither an amiga nor an ST have that much of a bandwidth....

 

I used Amiga 16 colour interlaced for all my browsing at home from 2002-2008. You say I shouldn't have been browsing with it? Oh well, too late now. Actually, it was a bit insane to do it, but I had fun browsing with my Amiga. It's only when most websites went CSS and started using monstrously huge RAM-sucking javascripts and flash (after 2006/7) that things started to be a major pain. I only rarely browse with Amiga now. (now I use BeOS)

 

 

There's an SD Reader for the Model 100?? You have info???

Off to google looking for info... I never thought of looking for something like that for my Model 100!!!!

 

If you haven't found it yet, take a look here.

[Christos]

You did show the 3000 as well. Anything you saw that was upto 800x600 was on a standard falcon.

 

About the interlace issue... I think I said I wouldn't be using it because it would give me headaches. If you did it and had fun that's great. I can tell you that in my case I had fun the first day.. after that I just got used to it and it got annoying in quite a few ways. Anyway, please let me know what exactly you'd like to see and I'll try to arrange it for you...

 

Of course bare in mind you can't get interlaced resolutions so you have to choose between 320x200x4bit, 640x200x2bit and 640x400x1bit

 

 

Also some information about your 500 would be nice. RAM, workbench version, hard disk or not, how much RAM your additions take etc...

Edited April 15, 2010 by Christos

[Mr.Amiga500]

You did show the 3000 as well. Anything you saw that was upto 800x600 was on a standard falcon.

 

No I didn't. Every screenshot was from an Amiga 500. I think you followed the wrong link in my signature - not the "Command Centre" link (showing my hardware), the "see Amiga 500 screenshots here!" link. Check those out and tell me if ST can do that without graphics card.

[Christos]

Yes you are right. I followed the wrong link... Anyway, easy answer no. Too large a resolution too big a colour depth.

[+wood_jl]

You did show the 3000 as well. Anything you saw that was upto 800x600 was on a standard falcon.

 

No I didn't. Every screenshot was from an Amiga 500. I think you followed the wrong link in my signature - not the "Command Centre" link (showing my hardware), the "see Amiga 500 screenshots here!" link. Check those out and tell me if ST can do that without graphics card.

 

I guess the short answer is "NO" the ST can not do that. You'd have to browse in 640x200x4 or 320x200x16. Either would suck, and be extremely slow and limited too. Browsing in interlace mode would suck as well. I don't think I'll be attempting to browse with ST or Amiga at all; good thing I don't have to!

[+DarkLord]

You did show the 3000 as well. Anything you saw that was upto 800x600 was on a standard falcon.

 

No I didn't. Every screenshot was from an Amiga 500. I think you followed the wrong link in my signature - not the "Command Centre" link (showing my hardware), the "see Amiga 500 screenshots here!" link. Check those out and tell me if ST can do that without graphics card.

 

Still can't find that link - can you repost it please?

 

Also, how much does all that slow your A500 down? Thanks.

[kool kitty89]

It's in his signature... but here: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?app=gallery&module=user&user=12824&do=view_album&album=499

 

 

I guess the short answer is "NO" the ST can not do that. You'd have to browse in 640x200x4 or 320x200x16. Either would suck, and be extremely slow and limited too. Browsing in interlace mode would suck as well. I don't think I'll be attempting to browse with ST or Amiga at all; good thing I don't have to!

 

How about an accelerated falcon running in 640x400 highcolor or 800x600x256 colors via SVGA or an AGA amiga with PPC accelerator? (let alone 3rd party video card)

Edited April 16, 2010 by kool kitty89

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

I hear you can get non-flickering high-res B&W on an ST, but if it's B&W then how good can browsing be? I'd rather have a slightly flickering 16-colour high-res Amiga.

 

Wow, I was always into Commodore and the Amiga but I forgot just how awesome a 16 color Workbench can look. Get's me all excited about Amiga again.

[Christos]

It's in his signature... but here: http://www.atariage.com/forums/index.php?app=gallery&module=user&user=12824&do=view_album&album=499

 

 

I guess the short answer is "NO" the ST can not do that. You'd have to browse in 640x200x4 or 320x200x16. Either would suck, and be extremely slow and limited too. Browsing in interlace mode would suck as well. I don't think I'll be attempting to browse with ST or Amiga at all; good thing I don't have to!

 

How about an accelerated falcon running in 640x400 highcolor or 800x600x256 colors via SVGA or an AGA amiga with PPC accelerator? (let alone 3rd party video card)

 

 

Standard falcon

 

 

Accelerated

[+DarkLord]

Okay, thanks for the link. Some nice shots there.

 

Not a stock A500 though, correct? I mean that shot is showing

2 megs of Chip RAM plus other RAM. What all have you done to

it? Thanks.

 

Also, if I missed it I apologise, but what about speed? If you

don't have an accelerator, then I'd imagine all that downloading

and dithering of images (esp. to a "new" site) would be pretty

darned slow...on a stock A500.

 

Thanks.

[Mr.Amiga500]

 

Standard falcon

 

 

Accelerated

 

I definitely prefer the accelerated video. Wow - with the accelerator, browsing seems pretty snappy. That's like the equivalent of an A1200 or A4000 with 060 and graphics card though.

 

 

Okay, thanks for the link. Some nice shots there.

 

Not a stock A500 though, correct? I mean that shot is showing

2 megs of Chip RAM plus other RAM. What all have you done to

it? Thanks.

 

Also, if I missed it I apologise, but what about speed? If you

don't have an accelerator, then I'd imagine all that downloading

and dithering of images (esp. to a "new" site) would be pretty

darned slow...on a stock A500.

 

No, it's not a stock A500. Some of those screenshots would be impossible because some software requires an 020 minimum and it would be way too slow otherwise. The graphics are stock (no graphics card). All the screenshots can be done on a stock 16Mhz A3000, of course... which I also have.

 

I listed my specs on a few pages in those links, but here it is again: Amiga 500 with Viper 520 accelerator (33Mhz 020, 8Mb Fast RAM, 3.0 ROMs) and 2Mb Chip. Pages with lots of images are pretty darned slow, but the pages I used to visit regularly (like BBC news) were pretty reasonable.

[Christos]

 

Standard falcon

 

 

Accelerated

 

I definitely prefer the accelerated video. Wow - with the accelerator, browsing seems pretty snappy. That's like the equivalent of an A1200 or A4000 with 060 and graphics card though.

 

 

Okay, thanks for the link. Some nice shots there.

 

Not a stock A500 though, correct? I mean that shot is showing

2 megs of Chip RAM plus other RAM. What all have you done to

it? Thanks.

 

Also, if I missed it I apologise, but what about speed? If you

don't have an accelerator, then I'd imagine all that downloading

and dithering of images (esp. to a "new" site) would be pretty

darned slow...on a stock A500.

 

No, it's not a stock A500. Some of those screenshots would be impossible because some software requires an 020 minimum and it would be way too slow otherwise. The graphics are stock (no graphics card). All the screenshots can be done on a stock 16Mhz A3000, of course... which I also have.

 

I listed my specs on a few pages in those links, but here it is again: Amiga 500 with Viper 520 accelerator (33Mhz 020, 8Mb Fast RAM, 3.0 ROMs) and 2Mb Chip. Pages with lots of images are pretty darned slow, but the pages I used to visit regularly (like BBC news) were pretty reasonable.

 

Hopefully you didn't miss the fact that the accelerated falcon was playing an mp3 while browsing. And yes, also, in the standard falcon video, resolution is 768x576 with 256 colours. If I had lowered the colour depth to 16 colours the speed would have been much higher.

 

On your other notes, you are using an accelerated machine. Make sure that when we try to compare we should compare on equal grounds. So, how much of that is possible on an A500 512K chip, 512K fast (to give you an edge on speed )?

[Mr.Amiga500]

On your other notes, you are using an accelerated machine. Make sure that when we try to compare we should compare on equal grounds. So, how much of that is possible on an A500 512K chip, 512K fast (to give you an edge on speed )?

 

Yes, let's be fair. Show me an ST screenshot (pre-STE) with 020 accelerator and extra RAM without graphics card that's better than my screenshots.

 

Meanwhile, here's a screenshot from a 512K unexpanded A500 (no fast RAM, no accelerator, no graphics card, WB 1.3, floppy-only):

(had to use WinUAE to take the screenshot because copper rainbow is not picked up in actual screenshot, but this is the actual, exact config from my unexpanded A500 in the 80's... I swear )

Edited April 16, 2010 by Mr.Amiga500

[Christos]

So.. you want to compare desktops from 1987? Fair enough.. that's easy.. Though it would be hard to find s/w from 1987.. Oh well, I'll go for the Mega4 then... released in 1987

 

Edit: I am actually creating the version 2 of a software pack so I don't think what I'll end up showing would have been possible in 1987. Not because of machine limitation but because the necessary software wasn't available or impossible to find now..

Edited April 16, 2010 by Christos

[kool kitty89]

On your other notes, you are using an accelerated machine. Make sure that when we try to compare we should compare on equal grounds. So, how much of that is possible on an A500 512K chip, 512K fast (to give you an edge on speed )?

 

Yes, let's be fair. Show me an ST screenshot (pre-STE) with 020 accelerator and extra RAM without graphics card that's better than my screenshots.

Pre STe could include MEGA-ST with blitter, so equal to STe graphics.

However, STe or not, all you add is the blitter, which won't help a static desktop... It's still limited to the Shifter's 320x200x16, 640x200x4, and 640x400 mono modes, Without higher resolution, you can't dither like the Amiga. (not to mention the Amiga has 5-bitplanes or 6 with halfbrite)

 

I'm not sure if the resolution is hard coded to 320x200 or if it can be altered as long as it stays within the 32 kB screen page limit-- not altering the display more (physical resolution output), just how it's clipped for the NTSC (or PAL) screen. 320x204 would be the actual limit for that page size and color depth, but clipping horizontally would allow for other things, like 304x215 or 288x224. (both of the latter would do better jobs fitting on TV screens or composite monitors calibrated to TV overscan limits --same would go for amiga though except it already used 320x256 standard for PAL)

 

Then again, I'm not sure how flexible the amiga is in that respect too. (might have somethign to do with a certain amount of vblank time)

Edited April 17, 2010 by kool kitty89

[atarian63]

Falcon's, TT's, Clones, graphics cards etc.

 

Well, it's not really fair to compare the stock graphics of the Amiga 500 with a Falcon with graphics card. My question was if it was possible for the ST equivalent of the A500 could do what I have in my screenshots - without graphics card.

 

 

Also interlaced resolutions aren't something anyone would use on an Atari. I wouldn't even dream of trying it. And in my view, 2, 16, 256 colours isn't something you should be browsing with. Trust me I've been doing it for quite some time. In the end it was better to use 2 colours because rendering was much faster and it didn't really change the way things looked that much.

Those things though hurt performance. You are cramming up the bus and neither an amiga nor an ST have that much of a bandwidth....

 

I used Amiga 16 colour interlaced for all my browsing at home from 2002-2008. You say I shouldn't have been browsing with it? Oh well, too late now. Actually, it was a bit insane to do it, but I had fun browsing with my Amiga. It's only when most websites went CSS and started using monstrously huge RAM-sucking javascripts and flash (after 2006/7) that things started to be a major pain. I only rarely browse with Amiga now. (now I use BeOS)

 

 

There's an SD Reader for the Model 100?? You have info???

Off to google looking for info... I never thought of looking for something like that for my Model 100!!!!

 

If you haven't found it yet, take a look here.

I would certainly think so and with the ST display it would look much clearer.

[atarian63]

On your other notes, you are using an accelerated machine. Make sure that when we try to compare we should compare on equal grounds. So, how much of that is possible on an A500 512K chip, 512K fast (to give you an edge on speed )?

 

Yes, let's be fair. Show me an ST screenshot (pre-STE) with 020 accelerator and extra RAM without graphics card that's better than my screenshots.

 

Meanwhile, here's a screenshot from a 512K unexpanded A500 (no fast RAM, no accelerator, no graphics card, WB 1.3, floppy-only):

(had to use WinUAE to take the screenshot because copper rainbow is not picked up in actual screenshot, but this is the actual, exact config from my unexpanded A500 in the 80's... I swear )

Probably nice for amiga but still has the comic desktop and is fuzzy on a real display. Never saw a sharp amiga display. Heck most customers who bought them bought the 520 video adapter for TV use.

[Divya16]

On your other notes, you are using an accelerated machine. Make sure that when we try to compare we should compare on equal grounds. So, how much of that is possible on an A500 512K chip, 512K fast (to give you an edge on speed )?

 

Yes, let's be fair. Show me an ST screenshot (pre-STE) with 020 accelerator and extra RAM without graphics card that's better than my screenshots.

Pre STe could include MEGA-ST with blitter, so equal to STe graphics.

However, STe or not, all you add is the blitter, which won't help a static desktop... It's still limited to the Shifter's 320x200x16, 640x200x4, and 640x400 mono modes, Without higher resolution, you can't dither like the Amiga. (not to mention the Amiga has 5-bitplanes or 6 with halfbrite)

I haven't read this thread, but Mega ST w/blitter doesn't equal Mega STe. I have a Mega STe-- it has better sound than Mega ST and bigger palette (4096 colors-- same as Amiga). Amiga's 5 and 6 bitplane modes are limited to 320*yyy (384*yyy in overscan) not available in high resolution for original Amigas.

[Mr.Amiga500]

Meanwhile, here's a screenshot from a 512K unexpanded A500 (no fast RAM, no accelerator, no graphics card, WB 1.3, floppy-only):

(had to use WinUAE to take the screenshot because copper rainbow is not picked up in actual screenshot, but this is the actual, exact config from my unexpanded A500 in the 80's... I swear )

Probably nice for amiga but still has the comic desktop and is fuzzy on a real display. Never saw a sharp amiga display. Heck most customers who bought them bought the 520 video adapter for TV use.

 

Well, of course it "still has the comic desktop". It's an unaltered desktop from the 80's (the way I had it back then on stock A500). You know of any desktop from the 80's that doesn't look comic?

Did you look at my later screenshots in the signature link? They're much less "comic".

 

I don't know what you mean about being fuzzy on a real display. Maybe it flickers a bit, but it's not "fuzzy" on Commodore RGB. I've never used a 520, but the 520 is composite and that is fuzzy - RGB isn't.

Edited April 17, 2010 by Mr.Amiga500

[atarian63]

Meanwhile, here's a screenshot from a 512K unexpanded A500 (no fast RAM, no accelerator, no graphics card, WB 1.3, floppy-only):

(had to use WinUAE to take the screenshot because copper rainbow is not picked up in actual screenshot, but this is the actual, exact config from my unexpanded A500 in the 80's... I swear )

Probably nice for amiga but still has the comic desktop and is fuzzy on a real display. Never saw a sharp amiga display. Heck most customers who bought them bought the 520 video adapter for TV use.

 

Well, of course it "still has the comic desktop". It's an unaltered desktop from the 80's (the way I had it back then on stock A500). You know of any desktop from the 80's that doesn't look comic?

Did you look at my later screenshots in the signature link? They're much less "comic".

 

I don't know what you mean about being fuzzy on a real display. Maybe it flickers a bit, but it's not "fuzzy" on Commodore RGB. I've never used a 520, but the 520 is composite and that is fuzzy - RGB isn't.

That is true they all seem archaic now on fuzzy, that was always a customer complaint on Amiga,not sure why,maybe font or the "softness" of the type of monitor,whereas an ST monitor color or mono was always crisp (ok goldstars ST monitors were much less so). This has been beaten to death here, sorry to bring it up. I do recall see some customer ST machines with pretty cool custom desktops back in the day,people with much more free time than I had. Jealous..

[kool kitty89]

I haven't read this thread, but Mega ST w/blitter doesn't equal Mega STe. I have a Mega STe-- it has better sound than Mega ST and bigger palette (4096 colors-- same as Amiga).

Right, I spaced on the master palette there, but regardless, the fixed resolution is a pretty big limiting factor. I know the STe added the DMA sound too, but that doesn't really matter in terms of graphics, plus the MEGA STE is different from the STe, different form factor (box rather than console iirc) and included a 16 MHz 68000 stock, plus wasn't released until 1991, so that's after the TT030 with 640x480x16 and 320x480x256 noninterlaced graphics. (and Amiga 3000 was out too)

 

Amiga's 5 and 6 bitplane modes are limited to 320*yyy (384*yyy in overscan) not available in high resolution for original Amigas.

Are there limits on the vertical resolution or interlace in those modes? Did the ECS change that?

High-res is supported for 4 bitplanes, right?

 

Well, of course it "still has the comic desktop". It's an unaltered desktop from the 80's (the way I had it back then on stock A500). You know of any desktop from the 80's that doesn't look comic?

Did you look at my later screenshots in the signature link? They're much less "comic".

 

I don't know what you mean about being fuzzy on a real display. Maybe it flickers a bit, but it's not "fuzzy" on Commodore RGB. I've never used a 520, but the 520 is composite and that is fuzzy - RGB isn't.

 

Heh, you don't have those problems on a stock Amiga 500 on a composite monitor or TV though, no chrma int he composite video. Not only does that eliminate a lot of the "cartoony" feel of workbench, but also makes for a clearer picture on such monitors due to the lack of the chroma signal corrupting luma. (just like CGA modes disabling colorburst, or s-video or component video) The only limits then are the monitors calibration and dot pitch, and of course colors of similar intensity being indistinguishable. (a problem with grayscale in general)

 

I was a bit surprised to find that the A500 removed RF and color composite video support given it being aimed at the home market (especially for games), rather ironic given that early STs lacked composite/RF support, but later versions had RF and composite video. (the A1200 added composite video again, I think the 600 did too, not sure about the 500+)

Edited April 17, 2010 by kool kitty89

[yerzmyey]

Well, 5 cents from me.

I have both computers and I like them a lot.

I bought my first Amiga 500 in 1994 and my first Atari ST - in 1995.

For me games and demos looks on both platforms more/less the same.

 

Hardware: Amiga 500 is simply better from the hardware side.

 

Software: if A500 coders would push their machine to these limits that Atari ST coders achieved - then for a long time Amiga500 would be a Federation Starship USS Enterprise. Or more.

[Tempest]

Wow, seven years later and my thread is still going.

 

Tempest

[DracIsBack]

Wow, seven years later and my thread is still going.

 

Tempest

 

If any women were looking in from the outside world, they'd probably be laughing their butts off that this argument over long-dead computers, with long-dead technology, from long-dead companies has carried on for 7 years.

 

Doesn't rival the A8 vs. C64 thread though.