I continually see debate focusing on Tramiel, Gould, Atari, and Commodore. Personally, I prefer to trace the paths of the designers of the machines.
IMHO, the Amiga is the actual next step in the evolution of the Atari 8-bit machines. Hence, I regard the Amiga as more of an Atari computer than a Commodore computer. Commodore didn't design the Amiga -- they acquired it. And the Amiga design is built on the backbone of the Atari 8-bit machines. As for the ST/TT series, they've always struck me as a detour or a different direction for the purposes of offering an inexpensive machine with similar features.
Generally speaking, if you take the features of the Atari 8-bit machines and double them and add a few optimizations and enhancements, you get an Amiga:
- 8-bit data paths become 16-bit.
- 16-bit data paths become 32-bit.
- upgrade the custom chips
- add a Blitter
- cycle-interleave the CPU with the Blitter
- give separate RAM to the custom chips
- double the horizontal and vertical pixel resolutions
- sprite texture width of 8 becomes texture width or 16
- 1 background bitmap layer becomes 2
And this reveals the irony of the Atari-Amiga 'war'. The Amiga is technically just a continuation of the Atari line of computers. It just happened to end up under the umbrella of a different company. And vice-versa with the ST line of machines being spearheaded by ex-Commodore people.
So, to me, the lineage is: Atari 2600 -> Atari 8-bit series -> Amiga.