Atari 8bit is superior to the ST

[atariksi]

Did they really use HD floppies that much? Even on Amiga, most software was using standard 880K floppy disks.

 

At the time the Amiga came out I don't think HD floppies even existed. 880K was a lot of space compared to the traditional 720K 3.5" floppies. It was amazing what you could do on an Amiga without a hard drive just by swapping floppies left and right. It helped a lot having the core of the OS in ROM. Programs were incredibly compact for a multitasking graphical system.

 

I would say the 720K are more reliable than the 880K disks-- they are pressing against the threshold on the Amiga disks.

[jaybird3rd]

Well, I know for a certainty that I'm not a "squishy liberal who's afraid to have an opinion," but I voted for Option 5 because, even though I think the 8-bit computers were the better machines, the ST was successful at what it was intended to be; namely, a cost-effective platform that served as an effective and cheaper alternative to the Macintosh and Amiga computers of the mid-80s and early 90s.

 

It's difficult to compare the 400/800 and ST platforms because they were of two different technological generations. Comparing based on raw horsepower is almost unfair: of course the ST would win that contest, since the 400/800 was six or seven years old by 1985. Remember also that both platforms were developed for different purposes. The 400/800 architecture was originally intended to be a video game machine, and if my understanding is correct, was made into a computer only after Atari management decided that it would be too expensive to sell as a video game machine. The strengths of the 400/800 machines that others have mentioned (graphics, sound, the tight integration of the architecture, etc) reflect its origins. The ST machines, on the other hand, were always intended to be inexpensive computers, so it makes sense that they would be more of an amalgam of "off-the-shelf" computer components (standard disk controllers, CP/M and GEM software, 68000, etc) than the 400/800 machines were. In both cases, the form followed the intended function.

 

But whatever the merits of the ST machines, I still think the 8-bit computers were the better machines overall. Even though they ultimately lost to the C64 and Apple ][ in terms of market share, they still achieved more market success than the ST machines did: the 8-bit computers were sold from 1979 into the early 1990s with only incremental upgrades along the way, whereas the ST machines were only on the market for one decade or less--the Tramiel acquisition in the mid-80s until the transition to the Jaguar in 1993--and never achieved more than third or fourth place outside of a few niche markets (such as German monasteries). I also think the 400/800 machines have aged much better, meaning that their architecture was more elegant--the SIO bus foreshadowed the modern USB standard and was remarkably ahead of its time in 1979--and has proven to be more adaptable and flexible than the ST architecture.

 

I also think it's much more difficult today to fully enjoy the 16-bit computer generation, particularly among those who are getting into classic computing for the first time, and I would say that this is equally true of the ST and Amiga computers. The 8-bit generation was more diverse and interesting, with few established standards and with many different companies developing their own architectures and their own ideas about how computers should be made. Whatever your personality or preference, there was a machine out there to match it. By the time the 16-bit generation came into existence, the GUI/WYSIWYG paradigm had taken hold, and those computers appear in retrospect to be primitive versions of the common ordinary desktop computers we all use today. If you were an ST or Amiga enthusiast when those machines were new, I can see how you might enjoy continuing to use them today, but if you've never used either, why would you start now? If you want to use a point-and-click multitasking operating system, you can do it on a PC running Windows or Linux, and you'd have something faster, cheaper, and more powerful than any of the 16-bit computers (at least without massive Frankenstein upgrades).

 

Speaking of Frankenstein upgrades, I had to laugh at that Atari Falcon tower with the external ZIP drive and other old junk shoehorned into a beige PC case. It reminded me of this machine I saw on There I Fixed It:

 

[+poobah]

As far as raw speed, 68000 takes 4 cycles to do a memory fetch whereas a 6502 takes 1 cycle.

 

ummm... Aren't you forgetting something(s).... page penalties, words vs bytes, a little thing called prefetch?

[RevEng]

ST is worse than both.

I find your ideas fascinating and would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

 

the 6502 has a 16 bit address space. Being able to access a heck of a lot more than 64k as a flat non-bank-switched space is a superiority.

 

Being able to compile platform neutral code thanks to a C compiler with a standard library is a superiority.

 

Having built-in midi ports is a superiority. I could show up to a friend's house or any studio of the era with my notator floppies and could just sit down and start working on the music.

 

These areas of superiority may not have value to you, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Shredder11]

Yes MIDI on the ST as standard was A BIG DEAL to musicians like myself back in the 1990s. Still is infact!

[Lazarus]

At the time the Amiga came out I don't think HD floppies even existed. 880K was a lot of space compared to the traditional 720K 3.5" floppies. It was amazing what you could do on an Amiga without a hard drive just by swapping floppies left and right. It helped a lot having the core of the OS in ROM. Programs were incredibly compact for a multitasking graphical system.

I would say the 720K are more reliable than the 880K disks-- they are pressing against the threshold on the Amiga disks.

Both formats use MFM and both formats use the same bitrate on disk. The difference is that Amiga OS reported far more errors than MS-DOS. I remember using a totally blown HD with MS-DOS. You could save a file and when you loaded it again you would get total garbage, yet MS-DOS didn't report a single error. I had similar experiences with Disks and CD-ROMs aswell.

[The_Laird]

But whatever the merits of the ST machines, I still think the 8-bit computers were the better machines overall. Even though they ultimately lost to the C64 and Apple ][ in terms of market share, they still achieved more market success than the ST machines did: the 8-bit computers were sold from 1979 into the early 1990s with only incremental upgrades along the way, whereas the ST machines were only on the market for one decade or less--the Tramiel acquisition in the mid-80s until the transition to the Jaguar in 1993--and never achieved more than third or fourth place outside of a few niche markets (such as German monasteries).

 

The ST outsold the Amiga for many years in the UK and I believe it also did in in Holland, France and Germany. And I would hardly call Germany a niche market either as one of the biggest countries in Europe.

[Kr0tki]

Okay, some people think this talk is off topic, but I did hook up the A500 monochrome composite output and it still has problems showing 640*yyy mode especially the "wwwwmmmmBBBB8888".

I can't see how you can claim it's unlimited horizontal resolution.

Do not assume that I was claiming anything about what Amiga does - I was only saying what is possible on composite video, contradicting what you earlier stated about it being "limited in what it can put out".

 

In any way, you're being too vague to allow me to answer you - first explain what do you mean by "hooking up monochrome composite output".

Edited December 4, 2009 by Kr0tki

[FastRobPlus]

Translation: I wanted to stat an ST vs A8 flamewar but all I

 

It is just this kind of replies I'm really sick off. Get lost if you only want to say crappy things.

 

As you can read in my start post: no flamewars. Period.

 

Do not piss me off with you so-called funny responses.

 

Greetz.

M.

 

Grow thicker skin kiddo.

[kool kitty89]

Okay, some people think this talk is off topic, but I did hook up the A500 monochrome composite output and it still has problems showing 640*yyy mode especially the "wwwwmmmmBBBB8888".

I can't see how you can claim it's unlimited horizontal resolution.

Do not assume that I was claiming anything about what Amiga does - I was only saying what is possible on composite video, contradicting what you earlier stated about it being "limited in what it can put out".

 

In any way, you're being too vague to allow me to answer you - first explain what do you mean by "hooking up monochrome composite output".

 

Doesn't composite luminance have basicly the same limitations as that os S-video and analog component video (YPbPr)? In fact, isn't the signal the same with the exception of the combined chroma signal, hence why plugging the luma connector from component video into a composite socket will display a nice B/W picture? (although using the composite signal split and input to the luma of S-video results in the characteristic checkerboard artifacting)

 

On top of that, no matter what type of connection one uses (even straight analog RGB, which is what the color CRT scan uses natively), you'll always be limted by the TV monitor itsself, due to the phosphor dot pitch and picision of the scanning beam. (although I think the former tends to be the limiting factor)

Anything indiscernable in composite with a TV's color intensity/saturation turned to zero will have the same problem in S-video, component video, or RGB. (assuming that the output device is equaly competent at outputting a luma signal as it is RGB, if something natively outputs RGB and uses a poor quality transcoder for composite/component/s-video then RGB will certainly be clearer, though luma is much less likely to suffer than chroma from poor transcoding)

Edited December 5, 2009 by kool kitty89

[Kr0tki]

Yes, that's all true. However,

 

Anything indiscernable in composite with a TV's color intensity/saturation turned to zero will have the same problem in S-video, component video, or RGB.

 

That can be correct only if the signal produced before encoding to composite does not contain chrominance information. If it contains, then it might degrade the luminance part of the composite signal, and setting the TV's color saturation to 0 won't help.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Kr0tki

[atariksi]

As far as raw speed, 68000 takes 4 cycles to do a memory fetch whereas a 6502 takes 1 cycle.

 

ummm... Aren't you forgetting something(s).... page penalties, words vs bytes, a little thing called prefetch?

 

You still get more done on a cycle basis with a 6502 instruction. ST is not really 8Mhz/1.79Mhz better processor. And consider that I/O ports like joysticks, buttons, paddles are 8-bit on both so 16-bit bus doesn't help there. Penalties are also there for 68000-- you get an exception if you access words on an odd byte where as 6502 can access pointers like (203),Y or (204),Y.

 

Certainly the 16-bit data bus and registers help, but memory useage is highly inefficient on 68K. Only the Amiga makes the 68K better by sharing data bus with Copper.

[atariksi]

Ir was a goofy fuzzy display and the CLI did not work like standard PC Dos, it was weird,customers did not like it.

Yeah weird, the customers didn't like it but yet they bought Amigas

Not really, the A1000 period they didn't here in the US. When A500 came out goofy fuzzy video doesnt matter for a games machine. Don't get me wrong, I like games machines. We sold tons of A520 video adapters for people to use a tv with the A500.

My point is it almost certainly would have been better as a Warner machine, but that didn't happen.

 

There's some truth about the fuzzy video on Amiga. I actually went to buy an Amiga 500 from this computer store near MSG (Madison Square Garden) in NYC and the demos they had set up there were using composite monitors rather than RGB monitors so the Workbench looked fuzzy and CLI was even worse at 80-column. And the store person tried to make me buy an ST after I told him the video was fuzzy. (Did you work there?)

 

Eventually, he pointed out the RGB monitor for Amiga and I had to pay extra $400+ to get the Amiga w/RGB monitor. I went in thinking $549 but ended up paying like $1000+ w/taxes.

 

 

Actually fuzzy video can be a good thing with old micro computers. For a few years I used a Amstrad CPC464 with the colour TV modulator on a 14" Panasonic TV. Everything looked smooth and the colours blended well, with no real blockiness etc. Anyway I had the chance to use the CPC464 on a proper RGB colour monitor and the results shocked me beyond belief. Suddenly everything was blocky as hell and the colours were sickly and garish! I'm so glad I never had a proper RGB monitor and that I played games like Gryzor on a 'fuzzy' screen, thus making me feel I had something nearer to the ST in quality. I also later used one of my STE machines with that same 14" colour TV and that made everything look better, i.e. with things like Photochrome 4 and high quality photos.

 

I also prefer the composite monitors and yeah for colorful stuff it does look less blockier especially at 320*yyy mode. However, to do some serious programming and debugging and Workbench related stuff, you need the 80-column and it sucks with a composite monitor.

[atariksi]

At the time the Amiga came out I don't think HD floppies even existed. 880K was a lot of space compared to the traditional 720K 3.5" floppies. It was amazing what you could do on an Amiga without a hard drive just by swapping floppies left and right. It helped a lot having the core of the OS in ROM. Programs were incredibly compact for a multitasking graphical system.

I would say the 720K are more reliable than the 880K disks-- they are pressing against the threshold on the Amiga disks.

Both formats use MFM and both formats use the same bitrate on disk. The difference is that Amiga OS reported far more errors than MS-DOS. I remember using a totally blown HD with MS-DOS. You could save a file and when you loaded it again you would get total garbage, yet MS-DOS didn't report a single error. I had similar experiences with Disks and CD-ROMs aswell.

 

I have hundred+ disks of 720K MSDOS format and about 2 went bad over the past 20 years. I have 500+ Amiga 880K disks and about 30 went bad and almost all the ones that I used to read/write to for word processing, development, animations, etc. went bad. The ones that I used for read-only were more stable. I think both OSes report errors-- it's just that AmigaOS starts writing to the disk to fix it if it finds errors and that makes things worse for the overall reliability (especially if OS crashes during such disk fixes). One of the reasons I decided to write the floppy simulator for Amiga.

[atariksi]

Okay, some people think this talk is off topic, but I did hook up the A500 monochrome composite output and it still has problems showing 640*yyy mode especially the "wwwwmmmmBBBB8888".

I can't see how you can claim it's unlimited horizontal resolution.

Do not assume that I was claiming anything about what Amiga does - I was only saying what is possible on composite video, contradicting what you earlier stated about it being "limited in what it can put out".

...

You SHOULD assume I am talking about Amiga because I CLEARLY stated I was. I stated that Amiga video output on composite monitor is fuzzy. And I CLEARLY stated that Amiga is limited in what it can put out via the composite video. I don't really care what you can possibly do via a composite video-- I'm interested in the NTSC/PAL composite video output and what Amiga/ST can output via that. Yeah, you are contradicting me but not proving anything. You are wrong. You cannot take a picture with alternating black and white pixels (total 640 of them) and output them on a composite video output (PAL or NTSC). So the resolution is limited.

 

In any way, you're being too vague to allow me to answer you - first explain what do you mean by "hooking up monochrome composite output".

There's nothing vague about using an A500 monochrome composite video output. Perhaps, you should only answer things you understand or wait for clarification before trying to answer.

[atariksi]

Okay, some people think this talk is off topic, but I did hook up the A500 monochrome composite output and it still has problems showing 640*yyy mode especially the "wwwwmmmmBBBB8888".

I can't see how you can claim it's unlimited horizontal resolution.

Do not assume that I was claiming anything about what Amiga does - I was only saying what is possible on composite video, contradicting what you earlier stated about it being "limited in what it can put out".

 

In any way, you're being too vague to allow me to answer you - first explain what do you mean by "hooking up monochrome composite output".

 

Doesn't composite luminance have basicly the same limitations as that os S-video and analog component video (YPbPr)? In fact, isn't the signal the same with the exception of the combined chroma signal, hence why plugging the luma connector from component video into a composite socket will display a nice B/W picture? (although using the composite signal split and input to the luma of S-video results in the characteristic checkerboard artifacting)

 

On top of that, no matter what type of connection one uses (even straight analog RGB, which is what the color CRT scan uses natively), you'll always be limted by the TV monitor itsself, due to the phosphor dot pitch and picision of the scanning beam. (although I think the former tends to be the limiting factor)

Anything indiscernable in composite with a TV's color intensity/saturation turned to zero will have the same problem in S-video, component video, or RGB. (assuming that the output device is equaly competent at outputting a luma signal as it is RGB, if something natively outputs RGB and uses a poor quality transcoder for composite/component/s-video then RGB will certainly be clearer, though luma is much less likely to suffer than chroma from poor transcoding)

 

There are higher frequencies they use to encode higher resolutions. You can't get the unlimited resolution without breaking the NTSC/PAL standard.

[+remowilliams]

Normally, such a wildly unbelievable threadjack as being now witnessed would annoy me. In this case however, not so much of a loss I think.

[atariksi]

ST is worse than both.

I find your ideas fascinating and would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

...

Thanks. Give me your email address and I'll email you some of my newsletters.

 

the 6502 has a 16 bit address space. Being able to access a heck of a lot more than 64k as a flat non-bank-switched space is a superiority.

...

But it comes at a cost. You have to use more cycles to access the memory and use bigger code size. So Atari 8-bit got an advantage without even doing anything.

 

Being able to compile platform neutral code thanks to a C compiler with a standard library is a superiority.

...

Last I heard, A8 also had PASCAL and C compilers although I have never needed them or used them.

 

Having built-in midi ports is a superiority. I could show up to a friend's house or any studio of the era with my notator floppies and could just sit down and start working on the music.

 

These areas of superiority may not have value to you, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

I never said ST doesn't have anything superior. In fact, I haven't made any judgement as to which system is superior. I just listed some hardware aspects that can be used to compare the two systems.

[+wood_jl]

[snip!]

By the time the 16-bit generation came into existence, the GUI/WYSIWYG paradigm had taken hold, and those computers appear in retrospect to be primitive versions of the common ordinary desktop computers we all use today. If you were an ST or Amiga enthusiast when those machines were new, I can see how you might enjoy continuing to use them today, but if you've never used either, why would you start now? If you want to use a point-and-click multitasking operating system, you can do it on a PC running Windows or Linux, and you'd have something faster, cheaper, and more powerful than any of the 16-bit computers (at least without massive Frankenstein upgrades).

 

Well-said! This is what I was thinking when I posted [much] earlier saying that every computer I've had since the ST (which has been many generations of PCs) always just seemed like "the next ST" for me. I just wasn't as articulate as you have expressed above.

 

I agree, wholehearedly. When I fire up "STeem" emulator, it is a little bit of nostalgic fun for me, but indeed it's primative after having been spoiled by decades of everything on the high side of SVGA. And that's how I feel after having been an ST user in the 80s to early-90s. I can't imagine what it must seem like to someone raised on 'modern' Windows or Mac.

 

The 8-bit - while of course 'primative' as well by modern standards - doesn't have a dog in the fight with modern GUI systems and is difficult to compare to modern stuff. It's unique and mysterious!! I MUCH prefer it. However, if time and space (and $) were in absolute excess, I might fool around with 16-bit systems again. [Off-topic: somewhat curious about Amiga vis-a-vis its relation to A8, and since I missed it completely]

[Rybags]

Not running a GUI is half the attraction of using the A8 and other early machines.

[Kr0tki]

Omygod, it starts again!

 

You SHOULD assume I am talking about Amiga because I CLEARLY stated I was.

I assumed that, don't worry. But you shouldn't assume I was talking about Amiga because I clearly haven't used the word Amiga.

 

I stated that Amiga video output on composite monitor is fuzzy. And I CLEARLY stated that Amiga is limited in what it can put out via the composite video.

Don't assume that everyone around you is retared; I can read the previous posts as well as you. However the reason you stated for these limitations was not right - it is not because of it being composite. You can achieve horizontal resolution of 640 on NTSC/PAL composite. That your Amiga cannot, can be caused by a limited-quality of the computer's encoder, or, as "koolkitty89" noted, limited quality of comb filters in the TV's decoder.

 

I don't really care what you can possibly do via a composite video-- I'm interested in the NTSC/PAL composite video output and what Amiga/ST can output via that.

So? Are you the only reader of this topic?

 

Yeah, you are contradicting me but not proving anything. You are wrong.

Until you find anything incorrect in what I've written, it remains your opinion.

 

You cannot take a picture with alternating black and white pixels (total 640 of them) and output them on a composite video output (PAL or NTSC). So the resolution is limited.

Maybe your Amiga cannot, but in general, YES YOU CAN.

 

There's nothing vague about using an A500 monochrome composite video output. Perhaps, you should only answer things you understand or wait for clarification before trying to answer.

So I'm trying to get more details from you to properly understand the problem with Amiga's composite output, and you are again treating me like a retard. Stop that, you're not getting anywhere.

 

So, I'm waiting for the clarification.

[atariksi]

Omygod, it starts again!

...

What starts again? I am waiting for clarification.

[atariksi]

Normally, such a wildly unbelievable threadjack as being now witnessed would annoy me. In this case however, not so much of a loss I think.

 

Actually, I would prefer someone else answer as I really don't have much interest in Atari ST stuff although I do know some things about it. My replying mainly stemmed from my interests in Atari 8-bit, Amiga, and PCs.

[atariksi]

Remember that the luminance signal, even in composite, has unlimited horizontal resolution. If you don't change chrominance signal, you can have non-blurred horizontal resolution of 640 and more.

 

And if the chroma blurring is excessive, one could always turn the color saturation down (to zero if necessary -assuming the TV/monitor 's color control knob/control is calibrated to adjust to zero). Of course, you'd get a desaturated display, or grayscale if all the way down to 0. Although, many newer TVs have better comb filters for composite video, and some interpret Y/C better as well. (and even some older, high-end ones have such capabilities, a freind has a late 80s/early 90s Zenith AS3 that makes my Sega Genesis's composite -or RF even- look close to S-video, and the Genesis has pretty blurry composite, and horibly noisy RF -granted the latter doesn;t matter in the context discussed)

...

If you're agreeing with him regarding "unlimited horizontal resolution" on NTSC/PAL composite output, you're also wrong (like kr0tki). S-video doesn't give 640 resolution either what to speak of unlimited. It's easy enough to say Amiga circuitry is bad, but that's just mental speculation. Even S-video cameras and VCRs have problems with 640+ resolution. I also have this VGA to NTSC encoder that does 1024*768 but then you see the text is all blurred and pixels are dropped. So provide the proof.

[+poobah]

As far as raw speed, 68000 takes 4 cycles to do a memory fetch whereas a 6502 takes 1 cycle.

 

ummm... Aren't you forgetting something(s).... page penalties, words vs bytes, a little thing called prefetch?

 

You still get more done on a cycle basis with a 6502 instruction.

Well, ok, that makes the 6502 better than every CPU that has ever been released since then. 68K, 286 and up all rely on prefetches, instruction caches and pipelining to achieve higher throughput at the cost of some latency for a specific instruction.

 

No single ST is not really 8Mhz/1.79Mhz better processor. And consider that I/O ports like joysticks, buttons, paddles are 8-bit on both so 16-bit bus doesn't help there. Penalties are also there for 68000-- you get an exception if you access words on an odd byte where as 6502 can access pointers like (203),Y or (204),Y.

 

If you feel that using the best case scenario from one machine against the worst case on another is a valid comparison, then fine, you're right. Enjoy your kool-aid.