ParanoidLittleMan Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Well. maybe not the best idea, but let see some facts: who created Atari ST ? Jack Tramiel - from Europe. Shiraz Shivji - from India. Maybe they did not hit what average US costumer respects. Perhaps should add more cosmetic to it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Well. maybe not the best idea, but let see some facts: who created Atari ST ? Jack Tramiel - from Europe. Shiraz Shivji - from India. Maybe they did not hit what average US costumer respects. Perhaps should add more cosmetic to it Not sure I can agree with your assessment of the cosmetics. Metal boxes painted beige is what won the day here in the USA during the ST's time. Believe me, the ST was way more stylish than a plain metal box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoidLittleMan Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I wrote it mostly because Apple products - which are for me just that - cosmetic in first place. Must say that liked their (probably) first LCD monitor with integrated motherboard (MAC). Looked great. But to buy some Apple - I'm the last one who likes their approach in SW and HW - I like to go in core of it, and not to pay much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calimero Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The ST keyboard has cheap and mushy feel (the Cherry-built Mega ST keyboard was much better), but at least it is full-sized, durable and had the standard layout and all the special characters the respective language required, e.g. AZERTY keyboards in France, QWERTZ keyboards with umlaut keys in the right places here in Germany, etc. - all of which were a big deal at that time and only found in "professional", i.e. IBM and various CP/M, keyboards before the ST appeared. you have point. and it was quite easy to implement different special letters (e.g. jugoslavian čćžšđ) across system and applications. even Cyrillic alphabet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zetastrike Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The ST just screams "I'm not a game machine" to me. The lack of scrolling, dated soundchip, one button joystick (The Amiga had support for two I believe, but it's a moot point), and inability to run games a 50/60 fps make it look fairly weak compared to its competition. The only thing it accomplished over its lifetime was holding the Amiga back, because cheap Euro devs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoidLittleMan Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The ST just screams "I'm not a game machine" to me. The lack of scrolling, dated soundchip, one button joystick (The Amiga had support for two I believe, but it's a moot point), and inability to run games a 50/60 fps make it look fairly weak compared to its competition. The only thing it accomplished over its lifetime was holding the Amiga back, because cheap Euro devs. You are wrong. Atari ST was universal purpose machine, with not too big gaming support. There is enough power in CPU to have good scroll - but that needs skilled coder - look Goldrunner, Ghost Bottle - very nice and smooth scrolling. Amiga DMA sound system is more advanced, but also eats more RAM. Holding Amiga back ? That's ridiculous. Contrary, ST pushed Amiga ahead - Amiga 500 was made with clear influence of Atari ... And funny thing is that there is number of games made better for ST than Amiga: try Star Wars on ST and then on Amiga. Amiga version is almost unplayable, and sound is pale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DarkLord Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) The only thing it accomplished over its lifetime was holding the Amiga back, because cheap Euro devs. I just love it when people come in here and make inane comments like this. Compared to the ST, how much influence did the Amiga have on the music industry? Hmmm? R i g h t . . . . . And as far as holding the Amiga back? Didn't Commmodore have someone named Irving Gould do that for you? <nudge, nudge, wink, wink>... Edited January 12, 2015 by DarkLord 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zetastrike Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Much of the Amiga library is comprised of terrible ST ports that can't even scroll properly and have no improvements beyond sound. The ST was the lowest common denominator, therefor most Euro devs preferred to make that version first and then copy/paste it to the Amiga. Are you going to argue against this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high voltage Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Yes, at first, but after the Amiga Batman pack and the Shadow of the Beast game, the tables turned, games appeared on Amiga first and then on ST, later, not at all anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high voltage Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) The ST just screams "I'm not a game machine" to me. Well it wasn't anyway, it is a computer. I don't think IBM envisioned when creating the PC, 'oh it's going to be a great game machine'. Computers compute, consoles game Edited January 12, 2015 by high voltage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high voltage Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) The ST keyboard has cheap and mushy feel (the Cherry-built Mega ST keyboard was much better), but at least it is full-sized, durable and had the standard layout and all the special characters the respective language required, e.g. AZERTY keyboards in France, QWERTZ keyboards with umlaut keys in the right places here in Germany, etc. - all of which were a big deal at that time and only found in "professional", i.e. IBM and various CP/M, keyboards before the ST appeared. Actually I never worried about it, but I bought my Atari 130XE in 1985 from Karstadt, it was on sale for DM 499 (I think, maybe even cheaper). Anyway, it featured a US keyboard (Qwerty). Did all the 8bitters have US keyboards? Maybe they were from UK? Edited January 12, 2015 by high voltage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zetastrike Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Well it wasn't anyway, it is a computer. I don't think IBM envisioned when creating the PC, 'oh it's going to be a great game machine'. Computers compute, consoles game That didn't stop many of the other computers of the time from being good at games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high voltage Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Mind you, didn't IBM asked Sierra to do King's Quest for the PC (or was that the PC Jr?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high voltage Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) That didn't stop many of the other computers of the time from being good at games. Exactly, ST had a many excellent games actually, I own many of them (and I'm an Amiga guy, it being the 'REAL' Atari computer) Edited January 12, 2015 by high voltage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoidLittleMan Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Ignore troll ... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zetastrike Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Ignore troll ... How is this trolling? The ST was far behind the Amiga as a game machine. But the ST was cheaper and sold more for a while, so devs chose to make games for it first, then port to the Amiga with no optimizations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nebulon Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 How is this trolling? The ST was far behind the Amiga as a game machine. But the ST was cheaper and sold more for a while, so devs chose to make games for it first, then port to the Amiga with no optimizations. There were some cases where games were ported from ST to Amiga pretty much verbatim. There are tons of games that were also optimized for each platform independently. As a hard-core Amiga guy I don't think the Atari ST was far behind the Amiga as a game machine. In fact, I think it was actually pretty close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 (edited) The funny thing I take from this thread is that none of it matters. Both platforms have been abandoned and the tiny % of those of us left really ought to enjoy the period when multiple platforms still existed. The diversity is what makes retro-computing interesting, not my ____ is bigger than your ____. It's time to grow up and act as old as we all are. I owned an Amiga 500 for a short time. It was fine. I've owned ST's since '85, they are fine too. But at the end of the day, both are dead. What is the point of beating two dead horses? Enjoy the memories, enjoy the hardware as long as we can keep them limping along, relish in the uniqueness of each platform. I've seen too many of these discussions. I'm too tired to care anymore. Edited January 12, 2015 by Fletch 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DarkLord Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 That didn't stop many of the other computers of the time from being good at games. What makes you think the ST wasn't good at games? There are far too many "good" titles to even start listing them here... Geez.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+wood_jl Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The ST just screams "I'm not a game machine" to me. Howya doin' NEWBIE TROLL? (One would either have to be a troll, incredibly naive, or both, for such a post - for reasons which I shall detail shortly.) I wouldn't be surprised if you don't "get it" (duh!) or pretend not to get it (troll!), but I'll feed you once - a delicious meal for a fanboy troll - posting such crap in an Atari ST sub-forum, inside an Atari forum, on a topic that your post has absolutely nothing to do with (troll!). But before you dine, here is some "food for thought" as an appetizer: (1) Who cares what you think? (2) What makes you think anybody would care what you think, in the first place? (3) Who asked you? (4) The title of the thread is "Why were the ST computers so much more successful in Europe," not "Fanboy/Troll spew off here." The lack of scrolling, dated soundchip, Yup. Good critcism here, 30 years after everybody knows that shit, you broke it here. Gee, did you just figure that out? The ST was a cheap computer. There were compromises. Although it had some compromises, IT WAS AN EXCELLENT VALUE, AT THE TIME. It was "Color Mac for 1/3 the price." In order to acknowledge the value of the original 520ST/1040ST, you'd have to be (1) not an idiot, (2) old enough to have lived through the time, (3) mature enough (not a wall-eyed fanboy) to have recognized it at the time, even if it wasn't your favorite pick, and (4) mature enough (still not a wall-eyed fanboy) to discuss it - intelligently - right now, in modern times. I call to question whether you can meet any of those requirements. one button joystick (The Amiga had support for two I believe, but it's a moot point), Is it a "moot" point? Why? Let's discuss it. All I've ever seen are Amigas running one-button joysticks - like Atari ST, like Atari 400/800, like Atari 2600, like Commodore 64, like Commodore VIC-20. Please, let's have a definitive list of (1) the 2-button joysticks for the Amiga, and (2) the list of games that supported the alleged 2-button joystick. Let's have a list! and inability to run games a 50/60 fps make it look fairly weak compared to its competition. What game? 2D? 3D? Let's have some details. If you're going to criticize it so specifically, let's hear - specifically - which game(s) you're talking about. The only thing it accomplished over its lifetime was holding the Amiga back, because cheap Euro devs. This is positively, absoloutely the most MORONIC thing you've said, so far. It's a contradictory statement, on its face. If, in fact, "cheap Euro devs" (whatever those are) are the "because" reason for "holding the Amiga back," then - by your very declaration, those same "cheap Euro devs" - themselves - are (by *your* very description) abjectly-responsible for "holding the Amiga back." The ST is an inanimate object; the "cheap Euro Devs" who fucked up your Amiga software were not inanimate Atari ST computers; you're confused, little boy. The REAL only things the ST accomplished over its lifetime: (1) Providing excellent service and value for those who enjoyed and appreciated it (2) Saving Atari Corp. itself, as a company (3) Setting new standards for price/performance and putting the rest of the industry on notice for such - Atari 1040ST first broke the $1-per-KB barrier (4) Sticking in the craw of highly-opinionated, pompous fanboys Like most fanboy trolls, you see things as if this is the fictional Highlander, where "there can only be one". BULLSHIT! This is the false dichotomy. There are many different brands of computers, video games, cars, lawn mowers, cake mixes, hamburgers, pizzas, concrete blocks, and every other consumer commodity. Each occupies a unique place in the marketplace, has a unique price point, and offers a unique blend of features at that price. Just because it is not your choice, doesn't mean it "sucks." But that's what makes the fanboy troll so unique; the fanboy troll believes "there can only be one," and it's (obviously!) the one that he chose! Fully subscribing to the false dichotomy, the fanboy troll gets a huge, blue-veiner Viagra hard-on for one product (whichever product it is), and declares that the other absolutely sucks shit from the bottom of the pond. Mature, level-headed people do not get blue-veiner hard-ons for any product, and understand that not only can there "be more than one," that "there is more than one" and that's why there are so many products on the marketplace, at any given time. My memories of the Atari ST are that it is quite a good game machine. No, it's not "THE BEST" game machine, but still a good one. In the early ST days, Sundog, Dungeon Master, Starglider, Joust, Super Sprint, Gauntlet, Arkanoid, Battlezone, Oids, (ETC...ETC...ETC...) sure played great and served me well! In later years, the games are too numerous to mention, but Google "List of Atari ST games" and read it. While the ST wasn't every single person's cup of tea, a lot of people enjoyed it, and that sticks in your craw, for some goddamned reason. Suck it up. Sure, the Amiga has some superior gaming features. Everything has its place on the market, and for any product pointed-to, there is another product that offers more features, usually at a higher price. So what's new? NOTHING. In recent years, I finally acquired an Amiga (and a floppy emulator), and I think it's a fantastic game machine that obviously brings more gaming hardware to the table. It's great! But it doesn't make the ST "suck." There can be more than one. I enjoy many of the retrocomputers. Although I grew up with a superior Atari 400 (family), I think the VIC-20 (especially with Mega-cart) is a fun machine and has good games, despite its limited graphics and colors, limited sounds, no sprites, etc...etc..etc. It could be argued that the Atari 400 kicked its ass around the moon. So what? The VIC-20 is still fun to me, and it occupied a unique place in the market with its features and price point. It doesn't suck. Few successful products do. I enjoy my Amiga, but not as much as you do. Good for you, but you don't have to troll in an ST forum, especially in a topic that doesn't pertain to your opinion in the first place. Enjoy your Amiga. May these things may help you: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyHW Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Hey, was the Amiga able to emulate Mac the way Atari ST was? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atarian63 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I didn't accuse anybody of lying. Saying something is not true is not at all the same thing. I have no doubt that the OP believed what they said. That doesn't make it the absolute truth. At the very least, the original statement doesn't accurately apply across the ST's retail lifetime. If someone wants to narrow things down to 1988, then they need to make that distinction in the first place, not after the fact. My own anecdote was based on working at a local dealer from 1986 to 1987 and I stand by it. well I owned a dealership not worked there, they were in short supply period. I doubt you did the bill or purchasing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFulton Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 well I owned a dealership not worked there, they were in short supply period. I doubt you did the bill or purchasing. You are correct. I worked in the showroom or in the back doing repairs and upgrades. I was referring to what I was told by the owner of the dealership. And maybe it didn't apply universally, or maybe it simply hadn't gotten that bad yet during the time I worked there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeFulton Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I wasn't narrowing it down to "just" 1988. The editorial (ST-Log magazine) I linked to is dated August, 1988. It refers to the U.S. Atari ST shortage "that we've all come to realize over the last couple of years." So, a couple years prior to August 1988 would be roughly, when? I'll leave that as an exercise for you (hint: not "just" 1988). The fact is that the U.S. shortage happened, is well-documented, and is a matter of history. Period. I guess I imagined the earlier post where I saw this: The Atari ST U.S. shortage of 1988-and-on is so blatantly obvious that I can't believe I'm having to defend myself for citing it. That was you, wasn't it? To be clear, I only mentioned 1988 in response to what you'd written. However, the bigger question than "1988wtf?" is why you're making such an emotional argument to something I never said. At no time did I claim there was never any shortage of ST inventory in the USA. Never said it. Dunno why you're arguing like I did. I also stand by your anecdote that you worked at a local Atari dealer from 1986 to 1987, and I believe it. My entire point is that I take issue with your wild speculation that the reason **OTHER** Atari dealers (for whom you obviously did not work for and have no internal knowledge of) were not sent ST product because they didn't pay. How the fuck could you possibly know that? Once again, I'll try to explain your logical fallacy (converse error) with that which they teach in freshman Philosophy (or Discrete Math) class: HERE IS A TRUE CONCLUSION: premise 1: If you own Fort Knox, then you are rich. premise 2: You DO own Fort Knox. ---------- conclusion: You are, indeed, rich. (TRUE!) HERE IS THE CONVERSE ERROR: premise 1: If you own Fort Knox, then you are rich. premise 2: Bill Gates is rich. ---------- conclusion: Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. (FALSE! We don't know who the fuck owns Fort Knox, based on the information given in the problem) Now, here is the same logic, applied to your "clairvoyant" situation where you know other Atari dealers didn't pay their bills (miraculously, somehow!!!). HERE IS A TRUE CONCLUSION: premise 1: If you do not pay your bills, you will not be shipped any Atari ST computers. premise 2: You do not pay your bills. ---------- conclusion: You will not be shipped any Atari ST computers. (TRUE!) HERE IS **YOUR** CONVERSE ERROR: premise 1: If you do not pay your bills, you will not be shipped any Atari ST computers. premise 2: You are not being shipped any Atari ST computers. ---------- conclusion: You do not pay your bills. (FALSE! We don't know why the fuck you aren't being shipped ST computers, given the information in the problem. Perhaps an airplane crashed. Perhaps a ship sank. Perhaps there was an error. Perhaps there was a DRAM shortage. Perhaps the Euro market is more lucrative, etc....etc...etc...WE DON'T KNOW). However, I, too, stand by your anecdote that you worked at an Atari store. It must have been fun. At most, I suggested it was a likelihood that unpaid bills could be involved. A statement directly supported by first hand experience, but still not at all the same thing as saying that every failure ever, by every US dealer, to get inventory was caused by unpaid bills. Which is what you seem to be arguing against. Perhaps you should retake that course in logic? While you're there, ask the instructor about the concept of the "straw man" because you seem to be pretty good at it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+wood_jl Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 I guess I imagined the earlier post where I saw this: Nope, you didn't imagine it. It was just a post that proved you are full of shit. There WAS an Atari ST shortage (a matter of fact that I've pointed to, repeatedly), and you [allegedly] worked for ONE Atari dealer, yet claim to "know" that OTHER Atari dealers didn't pay their bills. As I pointed out, you COULDN'T POSSIBLY KNOW THAT SHIT, 11-post "know-it-all"-Newbie! HA HA HA! :) That was you, wasn't it? To be clear, I only mentioned 1988 in response to what you'd written. You only mentioned "1988" in order to narrow your alleged "argument" to 1988, in a feeble attempt to narrow the argument to try to save face, when you're absolutely WRONG. The fact is that THERE WAS an Atari ST shortage in the United States, it is well-documented, although I shouldn't have to, I provided proof (Analog Magazine editorital) of that fact, there is an actual Atari dealer arguing with you in proof of that fact, yet you're still talking shit. That's all. However, the bigger question than "1988wtf?" is why you're making such an emotional argument to something I never said. Emotional? Ha ha! Factual, the fact that there was an Atari ST shortage in the US, and you don't know what the fuck you're talking about (how could you?), when you make feeble attempts to speak for *OTHER* Atari dealers, for whom you didn't work for, and couldn't possibly know what the details were in those situations. You're quite a joke. You really expect people to believe that YOU know the details of what transpired at other Atari dealers? That's so ridiculous that it's beyond laughable. Take a step back, newbie, and look at yourself. If you're so clairvoyant, why don't you give us some predictions of the stock market, or perhaps commodities? Ha Ha Ha! :) At most, I suggested it was a likelihood that unpaid bills could be involved. "Suggested???" You said that was "the reason." Oh, backing off now, eh? It wasn't a question of "at most" or "at least." You - ignorantly - claimed that the only reason "other" Atari dealers weren't shipped ST goods was because they didn't pay their bills. I took issue - based on the fact that you couldn't possibly know that - and called you on your shit. Don't try to change the argument this late, "know-it-all" newbie. You're simply wrong, and simply ridiculous. A statement directly supported by first hand experience, Yeah, first-hand experience working at ONE Atari dealership, where you clairvoyantly claim to know what transpired at OTHER Atari dealers, for whom you DID NOT work for, and obviously don't know jack-shit of, but claim to. That's my entire point. LOL! but still not at all the same thing as saying that every failure ever, by every US dealer, to get inventory was caused by unpaid bills. That was your original, entire argument! Now you're backing off, since I've pointed out how laugably-ridiculous your original argument was (you couldn't possibly know what the fuck was going on at other Atari dealers) and now you're attempting to pretend that your original argument was something different. Ha Ha! We wouldn't be having this argument in the first place, if you didn't pretend to be clairvoyant and "know" that the "only" reason other Atari dealers weren't being shipped Atari ST computers is "because they didn't pay their bills." THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID. I, on the other hand, cited the general U.S. shortage of ST product, which is well-known, well-documented, and which I've cited proof of, from Analog Magazine. Scroll back up with the mouse wheel and look at your bullshit, above. Which is what you seem to be arguing against. The only thing I'm arguing against is you, newbie, just as I have during this whole discussion, because you're simply wrong, and I, Analog Magazine, and an actual Atari dealer are calling you on your shit. Hurt? Perhaps you should retake that course in logic? While you're there, ask the instructor about the concept of the "straw man" because you seem to be pretty good at it. Nope! "Straw-man" would mean that I'm misrepresenting my opponent's (your) argument. I am not. Your argument is simply that the reason Atari dealers were NOT being shipped ST computers is that they didn't pay their bills. That is clearly what you said, above. That is also clearly bullshit, and I have disputed it. You are the one who is attempting "straw man" by pretending that is not what you said, but a scroll of the mouse wheel proves otherwise. You've also been proven wrong by the magazine citation, general knowledge of the U.S. ST shortage, my testimony, and the testimony of an actual Atari dealer who's been around Atariage a hell of a lot longer than you have been, newbie. Suck it up. You're w---w----w------wrong! It's been fun, but arguing with newbie idiots is tiring. I've said all I wish to say on the piece (to you, anyway) and I certainly hope you have too, because you've nothing else to contribute. You've made your position, been proven wrong, and are now attempting to change your position, and it's boring. Fly away, Fairy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.