Happy birthday Amiga

[re-atari]

Today is the 30th birthday of the Amiga, the true successor of the Atari 8-bits. The first of the Amiga's, the A1000, was introduced 30 years ago.

 

About a week ago I posted links to a few interesting Youtube documentaries about the A8 and Amiga in this thread:

http://atariage.com/forums/topic/240502-some-interesting-atari-and-amiga-documentaries-on-youtube/

 

Good stuff to watch and real nostalgia.

 

re-atari

[ryanmercer]

Booooo hissssss ;P

[+wood_jl]

You know, there is a DEDICATED AMIGA SUB-FORUM here at.....

 

http://atariage.com/forums/forum/173-commodore-amiga/

 

.....which would be much more appropriate for your fanfare, by its very creation, here on AtariAge.

[charliecron]

Happy Birthday to the Ground!

[Bryan]

Happy Birthday to the Ground!

"I'm an ADULT!!"

[Drummerboycr]

How i saw recently on any forum post: " Amiga the spiritual Atari 8 bit successor ".

 

Happy 30th anniversary

Edited July 25, 2015 by Drummerboycr

[+Philsan]

Atari VCS -> Atari 8-bit -> Amiga.

 

Jay Miner.

 

Happy birthday Amiga!

[UNIXcoffee928]

Happy Birthday Amiga!!!

 

...and guess what, Electronic Arts is giving us all a present:

 

The C source code for Deluxe Paint v.1 has been released!!!

 

Yes, it is too bad that all of the versions were not made available, particularly v.4, but it is still a very nice gift. Despite the rather restrictive software license, this could be an excellent start of an open source reverse-engineering project, so we could all have our beloved Dpaint on modern machines.

 

Does anyone know which C compiler will compile this code? It would have to be from early 1985 or earlier, since this code is from late 1985.

 

Looking forward to being able to see this compile, all guesses as to the correct compiler are welcomed!

[Guest]

as part of the nature progression we went from XLs to amigas also...

but we just didn't like them

we had 500, 500+, 600, cd32, 1200 (with hard drive) - and yes some of the games were very playable, and there were some nice apps and lovely (for the time) graphics/sound, but they were ALL f*cking cold, souless lumps of plastic.

 

the A8s never felt like a machine, it was something everyone who owned one loved...i just never fel any kind of love for ANY of our amigas

Edited July 26, 2015 by Guest

[Bryan]

as part of the nature progression we went from XLs to amigas also...

but we just didn't like them

we had 500, 500+, 600, cd32, 1200 (with hard drive) - and yes some of the games were very playable, and there were some nice apps and lovely (for the time) graphics/sound, but they were ALL f*cking cold, souless lumps of plastic.

 

the A8s never felt like a machine, it was something everyone who owned one loved...i just never fel any kind of love for ANY of our amigas

I feel the same way about the ST. I used the 1040, MSTe & F030. Today I don't miss any of them.

[Guest]

chr**t!!! i had an STFM too - hated it almost as much as the amiga

however, i have one again now - but only for a handful of american sport games that were never released on the A8

[+wood_jl]

I just don't understand - ON AN ATARI FORUM, NONETHELESS - why so many have to take a chance to shit on the ST. Sure, it was compromised. But it was cheap. Amiga was $1800 and 520ST was $1000 with twice the RAM and a faster clock speed, at launch. What the fuck did you expect Jack Tramiel's Atari to do? Come up with the Amiga? The ST was no Amiga, but it was pretty good, FOR THE TIME AND FOR THE MONEY. The ST saved Atari.

 

All this shit about "true successor" - when I turn on my Amiga (yeah, I have one, and I really do like it!), I don't hear SIO beeps. It doesn't run the same software. It doesn't "look or feel" *anything* like an Atari 8-bit; I can't even tell that it's related, based on observation. NEITHER CAN YOU. As a matter of fact, the only reason I'd even KNOW that it's "a 'true' Atari8 successor" is because I read it in some magazine. Otherwise, I'd have never known, and neither would any of you. Switching on and using an Amiga is ***NOTHING*** like switching on and using an Atari 800. There's nothing even comparable. If we hadn't been told that it was by Jay Miner (and company), most of us wouldn't know, anymore than who is behind the motherboard and video card of our current (modern) PC system.

 

What's more, is that MOST AMIGA USERS WERE COMMODORE 64 USERS, simplly upgrading within their brand. They couldn't give a shit about "Atari 800 heritage/lineage," and in fact they did not. The Amiga, nonetheless, served them very well, regardless. They either bought the machine to continue brand loyalty, or the bought the machine based on merit. But devout Commodore customers who went from C64 to Amiga (and I submit to you these were the most numerous of Amiga customers, because the C64 customer base was HUGE (many times)

I just don't understand - ON AN ATARI FORUM, NONETHELESS - why so many have to take a chance to shit on the ST. Sure, it was compromised. But it was cheap. Amiga was $1800 and 520ST was $1000 with twice the RAM and a faster clock speed, at launch. What the fuck did you expect Jack Tramiel's Atari to do? Come up with the Amiga? They'd lost the Amiga in the famous breech of contract that we all know about, 30 years later. If Commodore hadn't acquired the Amiga throught that breach of contract, they'd have gone tits-up immediately, as without Jack and without the Amiga, they'd have had nothing new to sell in the 16-bnit generation. Just as Jack saved Atari, the Amiga (no contrivance of Commodore) saved Commodore. The ST was no Amiga, but it didn't cost what an Amiga did, and it was pretty good, FOR THE TIME AND FOR THE MONEY. The ST saved Atari.

 

All this shit about "true successor" - when I turn on my Amiga (yeah, I have one, and I really do like it!), I don't hear SIO beeps. It doesn't run the same software. It doesn't "look or feel" *anything* like an Atari 8-bit; I can't even tell that it's related, based on observation. NEITHER CAN YOU. So, the chips are configured in some order that's similar to the design philosophy behind the Atari -8. That's what I read, or I'd have NEVER known it, by using the machine. As a matter of fact, the only reason I'd even KNOW that it's "a 'true' Atari8 successor" (as is claimed) is because I read it in some magazine long ago, and people like to get all "warm and fuzzy" talking about it here, to try to reinforce their choice. Otherwise, I'd have never known, and neither would any of you. Switching on and using an Amiga is ***NOTHING*** like switching on and using an Atari 800. There's nothing even comparable. Switching on an Atari ST system is no more or no less *completely different* than is using an Atari 8-bit. If we hadn't been TOLD that the Amiga was by Jay Miner (and company), most of us wouldn't know at all about this "lineage." Who is the architect behind your current PC or Mac? Do you know? Do you care? Does it matter? Answer: No, No, and No.

 

There's NOTHING WRONG with choosing whatever computer you'd like to purchase. That's what freedom does for you. So, in 1985, you were free to purchase a $1800 ($1795 with 256K and color monitor) Amiga, or $1000 ($995 with 512K and color monitor) Atari ST. Either was a good choice, and both were pretty much a good value, the 520ST being - quite obviously because of the price - the best value.

 

What's more, is that MOST AMIGA USERS WERE COMMODORE 64 USERS, simplly upgrading within their brand. They couldn't give a shit about "Atari 800 heritage/lineage," and in fact they did not. They were numerous (obviously, Commodore 64 users), and the Commodore-branded Amiga was obviously the next step. The Amiga, nonetheless, served them very well, regardless. Seeing as how well their Amigas served them while they simultaneously thought the Atari 800 was a piece of overpriced/underperforming shit, be can separate the Amiga from the Atari 800; as a matter of fact, the majority-buying C64-to-Amiga buyers did that for us, already. As well it should have been, and as well it was. No need for nostalgia here, just a machine (the Amiga) that was mass-produced and well-received. Fuck the lineage; the C64-to-Amiga user (the vast majority) didn't give a fuck about who Jay Miner was and the good work he did on the Atari 800 or earlier systems; they just bought the next (and very capable) Commodore machine - namely, the Amiga. They either bought the machine to continue brand loyalty, or the bought the machine based on merit. But devout Commodore customers who went from C64 to Amiga were a HUGE number of Amiga customers, because the C64 customer base itself was so incredibly massive, at the time - many, many times that of the Atari8 customer base.

 

So, to summarise:

 

(1) Amiga customers just bought it because it was (1) a quite capable computer, and (2) it was Commodore's next offering. Thank God for Commodore, as they bought the Amiga, or they'd have been out of business right there and then, with no future 16-bit product to compete past the C64.

 

(2) Thank god for Jack Tramiel's Atari that they were able to whip-up (produce, rather than buy from someone else) a 16-bit ST computer to sell for significantly less, or Atari would have been out of business.

 

(3) The "lineage" of A8-->Amiga serves a rather small number, as MOST AMIGA USERS UPGRADED FROM COMMODORE 64, and they don't give a shit about the Atari 800 and probably think it's a piece of shit, because of C64 sprite capabilities, etc......

 

(4) There are a small number of Atari8 customers who "jumped ship" to Commodore and bought the Amiga, and there's some latent issues upon which they must declare the ST as shit, such as to retroactively justify their choice, etc.

 

Funny how this stuff still matters, 30 years after these machines were offered for sale.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bryan]

Umm.. 10 'shits' in that post!

 

I think the only point we were making was that the 8-bits were a lot more fun.

[OldSchoolRetroGamer]

STUFF

 

 

ALL THAT SAID maybe don't take it to serious, this IS a thread about the AMIGA's birthday and therefore going to attract such fans right? The same thing would happen sadly if this was about Atari ST's but in reverse, it is just a reflection of the feuds and fanboyism that has been going on since Amiga debuted. You should not be too surprised. Back and forth, round and round, Sega / Nintendo, Microsoft / Sony, Atari / Commodore etc, etc, it is as silly as it ever was caring so much what someone else likes or doesn't, what does it matter? IT DOESN'T, never has, never will and yet on it goes endlessly Really though as with most things of this nature it has no power until we give it attention or give a damn.

Edited July 27, 2015 by OldSchoolRetroGamer

[+wood_jl]

I was on the phone while typing that, so there are some logical errors, for which I apologize.

[+wood_jl]

 

 

ALL THAT SAID maybe don't take it to serious, this IS a thread about the AMIGA's birthday

 

 

AAh, as usual, OldSchool, you're right. I heed your advice. Bryan's too! I agree the 8-bits were more fun.

[Bryan]

I also agree it's a bit off topic. We might as well celebrate Pong while we're at it!

[FastRobPlus]

Not sure why it's in the forum, but happy birthday 3rd gen Atari VCS!

[Drummerboycr]

Happy 30th Amiga Anniversary!

 

Back in time, I know many ex-Atari 8bit "upgrade" to 16Bit taking an Amiga.

 

When you start an Amiga, you can't hear "SIO Beeps", but you will hear the floppy "Click Sound" (Tac...tac....tac..). By the way, in the same way on the Atari 8Bit, the Amiga you only need turn on and will boot from a disk without typing or clicking sometime. I am not saying it has something to do, but certainly are similarities.

 

Happy 30th Amiga Anniversary!

[Heaven/TQA]

me just started to code on Amiga recently... and you feel the spirit of the A8 in most aspects (copper list fex.). it took me 3 weeks to get an 600 and upgrade it with proper pcmia card (because disk drive is gone) and internal CF-HDD card replacement... I like the "compact" feeling of the 600... I got an 500, 2000 and 1200 but I really like the new baby 600 bought from eBay.

 

WB was modern back on those days but use it now when you are familiar with right mouse click context menus etc... or even simplest drag and drop fortunatly being a mac user I need to smile with this "icon" files

[ggn]

Without AmIgA we wouldn't have seen masterpieces of the silk screen like

 

[Grevle]

As we know Atari was pretty big in the Arcades, I remember in the late 70,s going to the Arcades in my city (there where at least 3 Arcades at the time) , Atari was hard to miss with games like Asteroids, Missile Command, Tempest, Gravitar, And also Lunar Lander and other Atari Games and i remember they a had a Atari Dig Dug (isnt that Atari license on a namco game) ? So when the Atari Home Computes hit the stores, The name and Logo was already known (to me), And i would get a Atari 400 16k The 410 Cassete and some games including Star Raiders. Many other had the C64 and it

was pretty Cool but I did not get one back then (probably couldnt afford one Anyway). Then Came the Amiga and The Atari ST. I remember borrowing and trying out a Atari ST but i didn,t like it.

 

The Amiga was (in my country) very big, And the Atari St i think was most used in offices and for buisness. The link between the Arcade and A8 is obvious i think, The A8 has many and some of the Best Arcade Ports, Also older games like Robotron, Defender and Joust, And now with the Newer Games/Ports enhancments like PacMan Arcade, Donkey Kong Arcade, Deluxe invaders with shot sound it gets even better. Thats nice about the A8, it has it roots back in the 70,s.Its a bit older than C64 like a Older and Wiser Brother.

Edited July 27, 2015 by BioFreeze

[Guest]

I just don't understand - ON AN ATARI FORUM, NONETHELESS - why so many have to take a chance to shit on the ST. Sure, it was compromised. But it was cheap.

 

what has "on an atari forum" got to do with anything? it is possible to remain objective, surely? or are your "Rose-tinted specs" of the non-removable variety.

Me? i've supported my teams down the decades - but if they buy a sh*t player, or deploy a crap tactic, i'm rational enough to disagree with them, and like to think i'm not a sheep following (blindly) every stupid decision my teams make. the same applies to EVERYTHING else - including hobbies (atari), music, books - you name it.

isn't that our right? personally, from the early-80s - to date....i've had more A8s, amigas, STs portfolios and PC variants than i care to think about. i wouldn't consider it "taking a chance to shit on" anything. i'd call it having an opinion that is validated through 30+ years of IT experience and - more often than not - having to find a way to make something work that doesn't - but should - but really - due to "undocumented hardware features" doesn't.

and FWIW - yes it was cheap...cheap price, cheap build quality, everything across the 16-bit hardware base was spread too thinly. you may think that the ST saved Atari, but ultimately the second (and third) generation of Atari hardware killed the company.

the "Race to Bottom" extended into the 16-bit gen and all this did was postpone the inevitable

Edited July 27, 2015 by Guest

[kenjennings]

...The link between the Arcade and A8 is obvious i think,...

 

And it was actually used in arcades. The motherboard in Exidy's Max-A-Flex systems was an Atari 8-bit.

Not really sure why anyone would play Astro Chase, Flip and Flop, Bristles or Boulder dash for a roll of quarters when one could play it on an Atari at home.

 

And the Amiga was also used in about a half-dozen arcade systems.

 

Couldn't find anything definitive about the ST being used in an arcade system. Atari Arcade post-tramiel purchase was a separate company from Tramiel's Atari and their 68000-based arcade systems were in-house developments, not STs.

[+wood_jl]

what has "on an atari forum" got to do with anything?

It has to do with the fact that we're on an Atari forum that supports the ST. Man, that was an easy question. Next?

 

 

it is possible to remain objective, surely? or are your "Rose-tinted specs" of the non-removable variety.

Exactly which "rose tinted specs" are you referring to? Have I misrepresented something? Please clarify.

 

Me? i've supported my teams down the decades - but if they buy a sh*t player, or deploy a crap tactic, i'm rational enough to disagree with them, and like to think i'm not a sheep following (blindly) every stupid decision my teams make. the same applies to EVERYTHING else - including hobbies (atari), music, books - you name it.

How refreshing that you support "your teams." Now, if you'd only please kindly explain what "your teams" are, perhaps I'd agree. I do feel that if I - personally - had "my teams" - that I'd support them. Unfortunatley, I do not. So no support for "my teams." However, I do fully encourage you to continue to support "your teams," whatever they are.

 

isn't that our right? personally, from the early-80s - to date....i've had more A8s, amigas, STs portfolios and PC variants than i care to think about. i wouldn't consider it "taking a chance to shit on" anything. i'd call it having an opinion that is validated through 30+ years of IT experience and - more often than not - having to find a way to make something work that doesn't - but should - but really - due to "undocumented hardware features" doesn't.

I didn't think "IT experience" was a term in use, 30 years ago; I think the term is a rather modern contrivance. If you say so, then I guess it was. But I salute you in that endeavor. I got my 400/410 in 1980 and 520ST in 1985, so I'm not exactly a newbie, and I certainly don't claim to be an expert. I've had a laundry list of intermediates (prior to returning to retrocomputing) that would bore anyone reading this thread - so I'll refrain from the list - but I've been around, too, and have some schooling. Your own experience doesn't necessarily "validate" your opinion. You merely have an opinon. So do I. Just like everybody has an asshole. WTF that "undocumented hardware features" is about, you'll have to be more plain and direct in explaining. I don't know what you're talking about, and I fathom nobody else does, either.

 

and FWIW - yes it was cheap...cheap price, cheap build quality,

Of course. That's why it was affordable. Duh. Next!

 

everything across the 16-bit hardware base was spread too thinly

What do you mean, "THE 16-bit hardware base?" You mean JUST Atari? 16-bit hardware base? You mean everyone's 16-bit hardware base was cheap? Amiga, Mac, IBM? The latter 3 certainly weren't giving any discounts.

 

 

you may think that the ST saved Atari

Who gives a shit what *I* think. The ST *did* save Atari. Had it not been for robust original 520ST sales, the game would have ended in 1985. Really? Are you so naive as to NOT know this? It's going to be a huge part of the upcoming Atari history book "Atari Corp Business Is War" but if you disagree, then I guess that's all bullshit, eh?

 

but ultimately the second (and third) generation of Atari hardware killed the company.

What do you mean "second" and "third" generations? Where are your dividing lines? Was the 1040ST still first generation, like the 520ST? It was a welcome upgrade to the 520ST, and should have been the launch machine. But it wasn't. Atari Corp. had a lot of debt and an incredible uphill battle, which they fought pretty well in the early years under Jack.

 

Many factors figured in what Atari did. They weren't even a computer company, when they went tits-up. So their final reliance on the Jaguar and its ultimate failure didn't factor in? WTF are you talking about?

Was the Mega ST the second generation? Was the TT? Was the Falcon the 3rd generation? If so, then what generation was the STe? These "second" and "third" generation terms are ambiguous, unless you define what it is that you're talking about.

 

However, I will agree that after the initial 520ST/1040ST machines, the price/performance ratio waned, although those machines were excellent values. The Mega ST was expensive. The TT was expensive. (I've never even seen a Mega ST or TT).

The STe was a pretty cool advancement, but it was too little, too late. I've never seen a Falcon, but I had a 486DX2-66mHz or 486DX3-100mHz PC with 1024x768x256 (or more) by then (for probably cheaper than a 16mHz 68030 Falcon), so I doubt I was missing that much.

 

I'd say it was a lack of innovation that killed the Atari computer business. They rested on their laurels too long. The Amiga 1000 was an overpriced whore, but the A500 was spot-on. If they'd have launched with that, they'd have eaten Atari's lunch.

The A2000 and A3000 were just fantastic machines. However, as we all know, Atari corp ended with a failed video game machine, rather than with the ST.

 

Here's a friendly reminder of what *really* killed Atari....

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqJa6q6gc8g

 

Fast-forward to 24:50 for the "64-bit Kiss." That's the kind of shit that killed Atari. The ST saved it post-Warner, and allowed Atari to survive for several more years, like it or not.