753 replies to this topic

[wood_jl]

OldAtarian, on Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:13 PM, said:

The only saving grace for the ST was that it was a helluva lot cheaper than the comparable Amiga model.

Ha ha!  I love how you attempt to trivialize PRICE, by referring to it as "the only saving grace."  PRICE IS EVERYTHING.  Price is FIRST consideration of EVERYTHING.

In 1985, a complete 520ST system cost about the same as a Commodore 128 system, and you know they weren't selling Amiga 1000s for the same price they were selling C128s.

There was a significant price difference, for some time.  The ST was close enough to the Amiga to give a similar 16-bit home computer experience - similar resolutions, etc.  But sure, Amiga's impressive, too.

[desiv]

Agree.
I've seen people put down the C64 and say "it was just cheap and that's the only reason it sold."
While I'm sure that wasn't the only reason..  It is a good one..
Same for the ST..

Personally, I went Amiga and  I love the machine, etc, yada, yada, preemptive, yada....  
But, I fully admit, had the store I walked into had an ST on sale with Magic Sack (sp?) demoing on it, I probably would have bought the ST and been an ardent ST supporter..
They were very similar machines.  In the vast majority of games and apps, there wasn't a huge amount of difference...

And the ST was less expensive...
The Amiga had some design advantages (that made it more expensive), but the ST didn't die because it didn't have those.
At the same time, it didn't die (neither did the Amiga) because it was too cheap or too expensive...
They all died (Macs too) because they weren't PCs.

Apple lasted longer because their niche (Desktop Publishing) was a better nice that music or video, and it carried them enough until they scored with a different product, which allowed them to go PC and continue as a PC..
(I tend to think Macs died when the went PPC, but that's another religious argument .

But as for the ST and Amiga, they are just different shades of the same coin really..
Both were better than their competition, and for both, it didn't matter.

desiv
(Did I mention, Amiga rulez!!!  Sorry, late 80's flashback for a second there.. :-)

[OldAtarian]

wood_jl, on Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:17 PM, said:

OldAtarian, on Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:13 PM, said:

The only saving grace for the ST was that it was a helluva lot cheaper than the comparable Amiga model.

Ha ha!  I love how you attempt to trivialize PRICE, by referring to it as "the only saving grace."  PRICE IS EVERYTHING.  Price is FIRST consideration of EVERYTHING.

In 1985, a complete 520ST system cost about the same as a Commodore 128 system, and you know they weren't selling Amiga 1000s for the same price they were selling C128s.

There was a significant price difference, for some time.  The ST was close enough to the Amiga to give a similar 16-bit home computer experience - similar resolutions, etc.  But sure, Amiga's impressive, too.

No, price is NOT first consideration of everything. A person who wants to buy a Corvette is going to buy a Corvette regardless of how much it costs because it's the car he wants and it does what he wants it to do. He's not going to settle for a lower performing car just because it's cheaper. The ST was the cheaper, lower performing car of the 16-bit era while the Amiga was the Corvette.

And yes, the C64 did as well as it did because of aggressive price cutting. The machine with the largest market share at the time the C64 was released was the TI99 and Tramiel set out to destroy it. He used MOS Technologies as a bludgeon against TI so he would have pricing power over components that TI didn't have with the 99. When Atari came out with the 1200XL, it was $200 more than the C64 and they weren't making outrageous markups on them, either. Nobody could compete with the C64's pricing. The C64 wasn't anything special, other computers were already doing the same things that the C64 did years earlier. Commodore was just doing it for hundreds less than anybody else and that's what made the difference. If they had been priced in line with other computers of the day, they wouldn't have done nearly as well because they would have been a newcomer in a field of computers that were already established and had all the capabilities that the C64 had, so why would anyone want to change?

And before anyone questions the "newcomer" remark, I don't count the PET or VIC 20 because the PET was a business machine that almost nobody would have had in their homes and the VIC 20 wasn't much more than a games console with a keyboard as that is what is it was originally conceived as. The C64 was the first serious home machine that Commodore had that could compete with rival systems with more memory or graphics power than the VIC 20 came with out of the box, hence, a newcomer.

Edited by OldAtarian, Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:43 PM.

[OldAtarian]

DarkLord, on Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:08 PM, said:

Depends on what you were doing. Whole heckuva lot of German "business" type users would beg to differ about what machine they preferred. As well as a whole bunch of musicians worldwide.  

As far as catch up goes - the TT was superior in several aspects to comparable Amiga's of the time. Both brands had advantages. And as far as I'm concerned, once the Falcon arrived, playing catch up was o v e r . . . Before anyone asks, yes, I've owned Amiga's as well, up to the A1200.

YMMV.

Atari still hadn't caught up with the Falcon030. By 1992 when the Falcon was released, both Apple and Commodore had released 68040 based systems, or were about to, and their 68030 machines were all clocked higher than the 16mhz chip in the Falcon. They also had more software and peripheral support than Atari did. And mentioning the fact they were more successful in Europe doesn't really say much at all. The US is the largest market for consumer goods in the world, and Atari failed to capture more than a niche market here with the ST. European sales and sales to niche markets were never going to be enough to keep Atari afloat in the computer marketplace, as evidenced by the termination of all computer lines as the Jaguar as nearing release.

[Tempest]

Wow, eight years later and this thread I started is still going. Awesome.

BTW I love my Amiga 1200 and rarely use my Mega STE.  Odd how things work out sometimes.

[atarian1]

OldAtarian, on Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:32 PM, said:

DarkLord, on Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:08 PM, said:

Depends on what you were doing. Whole heckuva lot of German "business" type users would beg to differ about what machine they preferred. As well as a whole bunch of musicians worldwide.  

As far as catch up goes - the TT was superior in several aspects to comparable Amiga's of the time. Both brands had advantages. And as far as I'm concerned, once the Falcon arrived, playing catch up was o v e r . . . Before anyone asks, yes, I've owned Amiga's as well, up to the A1200.

YMMV.

Atari still hadn't caught up with the Falcon030. By 1992 when the Falcon was released, both Apple and Commodore had released 68040 based systems, or were about to, and their 68030 machines were all clocked higher than the 16mhz chip in the Falcon.

That is an unfair comparison. The Falcon030 was the low-end system and the never released MicroFalcon was going to be the high end 68040 system. Note that the Apple and Commodore 68040 systems were MUCH higher in cost much like the MicroFalcon was suppose to be. If you compare the power and price of the 68030 machines, the Falcon030 would have won out or was very close.  Don't forget the Falcon030 also included a DSP chip which allowed it to do things the plain 68040 machines could not do.

[DarkLord]

OldAtarian, on Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:32 PM, said:

Atari still hadn't caught up with the Falcon030. By 1992 when the Falcon was released, both Apple and Commodore had released 68040 based systems, or were about to, and their 68030 machines were all clocked higher than the 16mhz chip in the Falcon. They also had more software and peripheral support than Atari did. And mentioning the fact they were more successful in Europe doesn't really say much at all. The US is the largest market for consumer goods in the world, and Atari failed to capture more than a niche market here with the ST. European sales and sales to niche markets were never going to be enough to keep Atari afloat in the computer marketplace, as evidenced by the termination of all computer lines as the Jaguar as nearing release.

Beg to differ. When I said the Falcon had caught up, I meant in comparison to the A1200. The A1200 is the model that would match up against the Falcon directly at that time. The Falcon is a better machine in most aspects, IMHO.

Atari failed to capture more than a niche market in the US...like the Amiga did so much better here?

[OldAtarian]

atarian1, on Fri Nov 18, 2011 11:56 PM, said:

OldAtarian, on Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:32 PM, said:

DarkLord, on Thu Nov 17, 2011 10:08 PM, said:

Depends on what you were doing. Whole heckuva lot of German "business" type users would beg to differ about what machine they preferred. As well as a whole bunch of musicians worldwide.  

As far as catch up goes - the TT was superior in several aspects to comparable Amiga's of the time. Both brands had advantages. And as far as I'm concerned, once the Falcon arrived, playing catch up was o v e r . . . Before anyone asks, yes, I've owned Amiga's as well, up to the A1200.

YMMV.

Atari still hadn't caught up with the Falcon030. By 1992 when the Falcon was released, both Apple and Commodore had released 68040 based systems, or were about to, and their 68030 machines were all clocked higher than the 16mhz chip in the Falcon.

That is an unfair comparison. The Falcon030 was the low-end system and the never released MicroFalcon was going to be the high end 68040 system. Note that the Apple and Commodore 68040 systems were MUCH higher in cost much like the MicroFalcon was suppose to be. If you compare the power and price of the 68030 machines, the Falcon030 would have won out or was very close.  Don't forget the Falcon030 also included a DSP chip which allowed it to do things the plain 68040 machines could not do.

Apple would release the Quadra 660AV and 840AV the following year so even if the high end Falcon had been released, it would have been overshadowed by those machines in performance. The Amiga 3000/4000 and Mac II and Quadras were also more expandable than the Falcon and TT. Also, video boards with one or more DSP chips on them were released during the 68030 Mac era, so that capability was available to anyone who wanted it then. I managed to find a Radius Thunder IV board cheap a few years ago and that thing is simply amazing compared to factory Mac video.

[wood_jl]

OldAtarian, on Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:12 PM, said:

No, price is NOT first consideration of everything. A person who wants to buy a Corvette is going to buy a Corvette regardless of how much it costs because it's the car he wants and it does what he wants it to do. He's not going to settle for a lower performing car just because it's cheaper. The ST was the cheaper, lower performing car of the 16-bit era while the Amiga was the Corvette.

That's just silly, and I can't believe your willingness to argue about something that everybody else knows.

Of course, as everybody else knows (or to everybody else, besides you) every purchase - not just cars and computers - begins with price.  If I'm looking for a house - I don't consider houses to be a homogenous product.  There are little cheap houses and mansions.  Well, how much am I willing to spend?  How much DO I have to spend?  How much can I truly afford?  Only an absolute MORON would begin their home search without such considerations, all of which relate directly and immediately to PRICE.  DUH!

So, by the time the hypothetical sports car buyer gets "Corvette" in his little noggin, he's already been considering price.  If not, then why isn't he buying high-end Porsche, Ferrari, or Lamborghini?  I mean, why stop at "Corvette" if you don't give a shit about price?  That would be completely stupid, since "price doesn't matter," would it not?  The truth is (for most normal people, anyway) that price matters first.  So, even if the sports car buyer decides they don't have $250,000 to drop on the Ferrari, and then they eliminate that choice.  They decide the Corvette is in their PRICE range.  Well, besides trim levels, they have 3 performance levels to choose from.  Base (436HP, $50,000), Z06 (505HP, $75,.000), or ZR1 (638HP, $111,000).  Well, which to choose?  In fantasy-world where price didn't matter, everybody would get the ZR1!  I suspect that OldAtarian drives a ZR1, and I'd like to see it.  In the real world, where PRICE MATTERS, they sell many more base models than the others.   I wonder why this is?  Well, seeing has how the ZR1 is almost twice the PRICE, I suspect that price has something to do with it.
After all, it's not that the ZR1 is objectionable to look at (as another car entirely might be to the Corvette puchaser). It's just an enhanced, more powerful version of the same car.  Oh yeah, it's double the PRICE.  No thanks.

In the case of 1985 16-bit computers, PRICE mattered more back then, to kids working at minimum wage summer jobs to pay for their computers.  The price of a 520ST (or C128) system was a lot less than the $1795 it took for a 256K Amiga 1000 system.  Maybe it didn't matter to you.  Price matters to most people, first and foremost.  I can't account for every person in the world.  The rich, spoiled, ignorant, childish, foolish, obstinate, weird, backward, and argumentative need not apply.  For them, price doesn't matter.  For them, there's no PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND.  There is, for the everybody else.  How fortunate!  How strange markets would be, if there were not!

[Tempest]

My view is this.  Atari let the ST line languish far too long and then tried to update it with minor improvements but it was too late.  By the time the Falcon rolled around it was already being outclassed by other machines, not to mention the PC was in full control with Mac grabbing whatever market share was left over.  The Amiga followed a similar fate, too little, too late, and not enough resources to fight the PC standard.

[OldAtarian]

wood_jl, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:38 AM, said:

OldAtarian, on Fri Nov 18, 2011 8:12 PM, said:

No, price is NOT first consideration of everything. A person who wants to buy a Corvette is going to buy a Corvette regardless of how much it costs because it's the car he wants and it does what he wants it to do. He's not going to settle for a lower performing car just because it's cheaper. The ST was the cheaper, lower performing car of the 16-bit era while the Amiga was the Corvette.

That's just silly, and I can't believe your willingness to argue about something that everybody else knows.

Of course, as everybody else knows (or to everybody else, besides you) every purchase - not just cars and computers - begins with price.  If I'm looking for a house - I don't consider houses to be a homogenous product.  There are little cheap houses and mansions.  Well, how much am I willing to spend?  How much DO I have to spend?  How much can I truly afford?  Only an absolute MORON would begin their home search without such considerations, all of which relate directly and immediately to PRICE.  DUH!

So, by the time the hypothetical sports car buyer gets "Corvette" in his little noggin, he's already been considering price.  If not, then why isn't he buying high-end Porsche, Ferrari, or Lamborghini?  I mean, why stop at "Corvette" if you don't give a shit about price?  That would be completely stupid, since "price doesn't matter," would it not?  The truth is (for most normal people, anyway) that price matters first.  So, even if the sports car buyer decides they don't have $250,000 to drop on the Ferrari, and then they eliminate that choice.  They decide the Corvette is in their PRICE range.  Well, besides trim levels, they have 3 performance levels to choose from.  Base (436HP, $50,000), Z06 (505HP, $75,.000), or ZR1 (638HP, $111,000).  Well, which to choose?  In fantasy-world where price didn't matter, everybody would get the ZR1!  I suspect that OldAtarian drives a ZR1, and I'd like to see it.  In the real world, where PRICE MATTERS, they sell many more base models than the others.   I wonder why this is?  Well, seeing has how the ZR1 is almost twice the PRICE, I suspect that price has something to do with it.
After all, it's not that the ZR1 is objectionable to look at (as another car entirely might be to the Corvette puchaser). It's just an enhanced, more powerful version of the same car.  Oh yeah, it's double the PRICE.  No thanks.

In the case of 1985 16-bit computers, PRICE mattered more back then, to kids working at minimum wage summer jobs to pay for their computers.  The price of a 520ST (or C128) system was a lot less than the $1795 it took for a 256K Amiga 1000 system.  Maybe it didn't matter to you.  Price matters to most people, first and foremost.  I can't account for every person in the world.  The rich, spoiled, ignorant, childish, foolish, obstinate, weird, backward, and argumentative need not apply.  For them, price doesn't matter.  For them, there's no PRICE ELASTICITY OF DEMAND.  There is, for the everybody else.  How fortunate!  How strange markets would be, if there were not!

I can buy a huge house in a bad neighborhood for a lot less than a smaller one in a better neighborhood. Does that mean that I should automatically buy the bigger one because it's cheaper? I'm not living in a bad neighborhood even if I can get three times the house for the money, so price is irrelevant. Also, if price was the primary motivator for computer purchases back then, why didn't the ST dominate the home computer market and kill off the Mac and Amiga while they were still in their infancy? Why didn't their price advantage stop the PC from becoming the dominant computer platform? Apparently, more people liked and bought PC and Mac than ST regardless of price since both of those platforms are still with us while the ST has been effectively dead for nearly 20 years.

And your comparison of the Corvette to Porsches or Ferarris is also flawed. Maybe there are other reasons why he wants the Corvette not related to price. Maybe he doesn't want to buy an imported car. Maybe he doesn't actually NEED a car that tops out at 220mph, but still wants one with a much higher level of performance, than something like a Mustang GT or Camaro SS. Maybe he just likes the look of the Corvette better than a Porsche or Ferarri. Why do Harley Davidson buyers buy the bikes that they do when the Japanese are now making big V-Twin bikes for less money? Money isn't everything.

Edited by OldAtarian, Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:05 AM.

[Official Ninja]

Thank goodness for the ignore list. I can't image being in such love with myself to drop in on a group of people, call them thieves and challenge every point of view they have.
Screw this guy.
Again, Ignore List.

[OldAtarian]

Official Ninja, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:46 AM, said:

Thank goodness for the ignore list. I can't image being in such love with myself to drop in on a group of people, call them thieves and challenge every point of view they have.
Screw this guy.
Again, Ignore List.

Truth hurts, doesn't it? If you're downloading software that is still under copyright then you are a thief. That's not me saying it, it's the law. The law does not recognize the concept of "abandonware". If you were hauled into court for hosting or possessing illegally obtained software, it wouldn't matter to the judge if it was a new release or if it was 20 years old. It all falls under the same laws and the punishment for the crime is the same. If you don't like the law, then tell someone who has the power to change it instead of acting like a baby who doesn't get his way.

Edited by OldAtarian, Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:07 PM.

[desiv]

I shouldn't, but ...  :-)

OldAtarian, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:04 PM, said:

If you're downloading software that is still under copyright then you are a thief. That's not me saying it, it's the law.

Of course it's you saying it.  It's not "the law" saying it.  It's you.  It's your interpretation of what you believe to be the law.

OldAtarian, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:04 PM, said:

The law does not recognize the concept of "abandonware". If you were hauled into court for hosting or possessing illegally obtained software, it wouldn't matter to the judge if it was a new release or if it was 20 years old. It all falls under the same laws and the punishment for the crime is the same.

Well, yes and no..  In my view (It's me saying this, not "the law"), you're missing that copyright is largely civil, not criminal.
And it might matter to the judge..  Judge's are allowed to use their own discretion to interpret the laws; moreso in civil cases where you are talking about deciding whether or not there should be damages and how much...

It's not as simple a matter as some seem to think...

But, IANAL, so er.. um...  (Looking at subject line).. er..
How about that Amiga, huh?  

desiv

[theloon]

Never had either system.  Played around with both (ST and Amiga 500).

TOS and Amiga Workbench were OK.  They were mostly usable but each had enough GUI differences to confuse me.

Games came down to style.  Back then I think developers really pushed their systems.  Some Amiga games has better sound or graphics.  Some ST games were superior.  I was always blown away by StarGlider - From Rainbird!  Rainbird!

Edited by theloon, Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:33 PM.

[OldAtarian]

desiv, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:26 PM, said:

I shouldn't, but ...  :-)

OldAtarian, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:04 PM, said:

If you're downloading software that is still under copyright then you are a thief. That's not me saying it, it's the law.

Of course it's you saying it.  It's not "the law" saying it.  It's you.  It's your interpretation of what you believe to be the law.

OldAtarian, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:04 PM, said:

The law does not recognize the concept of "abandonware". If you were hauled into court for hosting or possessing illegally obtained software, it wouldn't matter to the judge if it was a new release or if it was 20 years old. It all falls under the same laws and the punishment for the crime is the same.

Well, yes and no..  In my view (It's me saying this, not "the law"), you're missing that copyright is largely civil, not criminal.
And it might matter to the judge..  Judge's are allowed to use their own discretion to interpret the laws; moreso in civil cases where you are talking about deciding whether or not there should be damages and how much...

It's not as simple a matter as some seem to think...

But, IANAL, so er.. um...  (Looking at subject line).. er..
How about that Amiga, huh?  

desiv

It's not my interpretation. Copyrights run for over 75 years in most cases, so no video game or piece of computer software has passed through it's copyright protection period and entered the public domain yet.

And copyright infringement is most definitely a criminal act. Every judge and prosecutor who ever put away a bootlegger would agree with me on that point.

And I didn't carry this conversation over, Ninja did by mentioning it in his post.


And just to bring the thread back to the topic, I still maintain that Amiga was a better machine even if it did cost a lot more.

Edited by OldAtarian, Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:50 PM.

[OldAtarian]

theloon, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:32 PM, said:

Never had either system.  Played around with both (ST and Amiga 500).

TOS and Amiga Workbench were OK.  They were mostly usable but each had enough GUI differences to confuse me.

Games came down to style.  Back then I think developers really pushed their systems.  Some Amiga games has better sound or graphics.  Some ST games were superior.  I was always blown away by StarGlider - From Rainbird!  Rainbird!

Any game that was cross platform didn't matter for the most part because developers would use a common set of tools to develop both versions so things like sprites and sound effects could be carried over unless the developer wanted the game to look better on one platform over the other then they would put in the extra work needed to make it so like today when a developer makes a game look better on an AMD or nVidia card. One big limitation of the ST hardware that you can easily see is in the port of Great Giana Sisters. The Amiga can do the side scrolling easily but the ST can't. On the ST a small portion of the screen loads then stops, and then when the sprite crosses a boundary the next section loads. You can't get smooth side scrolling and high quality sound playing at the same time as easily on an ST as you can with an Amiga.

[desiv]

OldAtarian, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:37 PM, said:

It's not my interpretation.

Then whose interpretation is it?  :-)  I'm trying to point out that this is legal "stuff" and it's rarely as black and white as you seem to think.
Case in point:

OldAtarian, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:37 PM, said:

And copyright infringement is most definitely a criminal act. Every judge and prosecutor who ever put away a bootlegger would agree with me on that point.

From the "horses mouth" so to speak:  http://www.copyright...fringement.html

Quote

Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter, which the copyright owner must pursue in federal court. Under certain circumstances, the infringement may also constitute a criminal misdemeanor or felony, which would be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Notice the word "generally," which I think is pretty similar to my use of the word "largely" before...

I'm not saying its OK to pirate...
I'm just saying it's not as simple as you seem to think it is..
That's why copyright attorneys get paid what they do..  

As for price, one of the main reasons I bought my Amiga 500 was that it was less expensive than the Macs or PCs at the time.
Price was one of my (if not THE) main considerations.  I'm glad I got the Amiga.  I think (personally) it was the right choice for me, but I don't deny that, if there was a 520ST system at that store for less money, I might not have gone that way...
Price is crucial.  Now, Apple has shown that it's not the "only" thing.  But Android is showing how important it can be..

desiv

Edited by desiv, Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:09 PM.

[OldAtarian]

desiv, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:03 PM, said:

OldAtarian, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:37 PM, said:

It's not my interpretation.

Then whose interpretation is it?  :-)  I'm trying to point out that this is legal "stuff" and it's rarely as black and white as you seem to think.
Case in point:

OldAtarian, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 12:37 PM, said:

And copyright infringement is most definitely a criminal act. Every judge and prosecutor who ever put away a bootlegger would agree with me on that point.

From the "horses mouth" so to speak:  http://www.copyright...fringement.html

Quote

Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter, which the copyright owner must pursue in federal court. Under certain circumstances, the infringement may also constitute a criminal misdemeanor or felony, which would be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Notice the word "generally," which I think is pretty similar to my use of the word "largely" before...

I'm not saying its OK to pirate...
I'm just saying it's not as simple as you seem to think it is..
That's why copyright attorneys get paid what they do..  

As for price, one of the main reasons I bought my Amiga 500 was that it was less expensive than the Macs or PCs at the time.
Price was one of my (if not THE) main considerations.  I'm glad I got the Amiga.  I think (personally) it was the right choice for me, but I don't deny that, if there was a 520ST system at that store for less money, I might not have gone that way...
Price is crucial.  Now, Apple has shown that it's not the "only" thing.  But Android is showing how important it can be..

desiv

I didn't buy my first ST based on price, but because it could do what I needed it to do and because I had been a long time 8-bitter and wouldn't change for any amount of money. I have 2 C64's now, but didn't get my first one until around 2003 and even then I only took it because someone gave it to me for free. I wouldn't have paid anything for one. I also didn't consider all the extra capabilities of the Amiga hardware as necessary so it would have been wasted if I had bought one instead, just like the Falcon030 turned out to be a bad purchase for me at the time. For someone who actually needed the Amiga for it's multimedia capabilities, no other machine would do regardless of price because even PC's and Macs hadn't sufficiently advanced to the point yet where they could do all the things the Amiga could. By the time I actually needed a better machine, I was able to pick up a used 1040STF to replace my 520ST and that was all I needed. I bought the 1040STF not because it was cheap, but because it was a more practical decision than any other machine at the time. I had already invested a lot in the ST in terms of software and peripherals and would have had to start over again if I had bought anything else. I only bought the Falcon because I was young and dazzled by the specs and thought it was going to be a life altering event to own one, and it turned out not to be due to relative lack of support compared to my earlier machines. That's why in the STE/Mega STE thread I say that it's better to get just a normal ST/Mega, because I have always found them to be better supported than the models that came after.

[marcfrick2112]

Well, about the price issue... I guess I was the exception... I had grown rather tired of my C-64 system, as nice as it was (still works,BTW), and a local store starting carrying 'Commodore Computers' magazine....there was a review of VideoScape3D.... Right then and there, a stubborn just-turned-18-year-old decided he would get an Amiga, NO matter WHAT!! I saved money, best I could, then with my first-ever tax refund I had enough to get the first US A500 bundle, and an extra game!!

Fact is, this store sold ST's at this time too.... Don't get me wrong, I loved the ST's, and still do....But, I remember re-reading that magazine over and over, while obv. many Amiga ideas never saw the light of day ... to me, even at 18, I had a feeling that the Amiga was going to be pretty special.. Funny, I was all about showing off arcade style games on my 'home computer' back then, but it was the one lousy screenshot of a very primitive 3D program that hooked me.....

Lol

[Christos]

So if you had seen a screenshot of CAD 3d you'd have been on the other side! For me getting the falcon was non negotiable. It was a crappy -by now falcon standards-  3d demo that did it.

[DarkLord]

Christos, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:51 PM, said:

So if you had seen a screenshot of CAD 3d you'd have been on the other side! For me getting the falcon was non negotiable. It was a crappy -by now falcon standards-  3d demo that did it.

Hehehehe, heard that. I drove from Kentucky to Elden Computers in West Virginia (next state over) to get my first Falcon. The owner, Ted Elden, showed me some of the early demo's and software. I was blown away. Bought it on the spot. Never regretted it either.  

[marcfrick2112]

Christos, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:51 PM, said:

So if you had seen a screenshot of CAD 3d you'd have been on the other side! For me getting the falcon was non negotiable. It was a crappy -by now falcon standards-  3d demo that did it.

Christos, umm, one problem... I doubt  a PC was multi-tasking or animating in 4,096 colors......or had stereo sound... or, much of ANYthing at this point...First off, PC's cost a minimum of $1000. at that time, double that of the A500... Second, even this early , the Amiga had CAD programs, can't tell ya how good they were, tho...

And LOL!

[atarian63]

Hey Old Atarian..
You do know the ST did kick the crap out of the Amiga until St supply dried up here in the states don't you? Atari had a choice due to supply and they chose europe. It sucked as a dealer here in the US but nothing changed in the 2 to 1 market share St vs amiga until the A500 was released in large numbers in the US, still took a year or more for software to start to catch up.
Amiga 1000 wasnt a corvette it was a jag with all the inherent problem, was really not quite ready when released and took about a year to really be ready with the 256k add on and an o/s that crashed less. It was fear of the ST that pushed the launch before it was ready.
ST  was like a Firebird, nearly as fast, stable, and a much lower price.
commodore emulated the Atari ST model in the A500 and with no ST's to be had or few anyway before and during launch that was all we could get with  relability of supply.  it was amiga done right at a good price for the masses.Could have sold tons more ST if there had been supply during that time.
Read Byte magazine, they LOVED the ST

Edited by atarian63, Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:13 PM.

[Christos]

marcfrick2112, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 5:30 PM, said:

Christos, on Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:51 PM, said:

So if you had seen a screenshot of CAD 3d you'd have been on the other side! For me getting the falcon was non negotiable. It was a crappy -by now falcon standards-  3d demo that did it.

Christos, umm, one problem... I doubt  a PC was multi-tasking or animating in 4,096 colors......or had stereo sound... or, much of ANYthing at this point...First off, PC's cost a minimum of $1000. at that time, double that of the A500... Second, even this early , the Amiga had CAD programs, can't tell ya how good they were, tho...

And LOL!

CAD 3d was an ST program You might have seen something like this :