What the STE should've been under the hood

[Foebane]

I did lot of PC serviceings, which started with setting refresh rate from 60 Hz to 75 or more - because 60 Hz was visible in first sec and irritated me.

All above stays for CRT monitors - just to mention, before someone comes with that his monitor is at 60 Hz - but that's LCD, complete different story.

 

Wait, so you're sensitive to 60Hz or less flicker on a CRT? Wow, you must hate PAL on a CRT, then!

[chepe]

If only you'd seen me back in the early 1990s in my computing college courses, I was quite the Amiga zealot and was happy to promote the Amiga every chance I could to everyone who was thinking of getting a PC for their college course. If I recall, there was even a moment where me and some PC zealot (who was a complete jerk in any case) had a loud argument in front of the whole group, mainly about the meaning of the term PC (was it a brand or a generic computing term). I would get quietly outraged at lecturers scoffing at the inflated prices of the higher-end Amigas, and I did everything I could to use my Amiga feasibly for the PC stuff (I used CrossDOS for PC compatibility, as I recall). Someone else I knew in the group had bought a cheap PC and brought in a box of his old Amiga games for me to have a look at, although I inadvertently almost got him in trouble by risking the lecturer (a complete asshole, everyone agreed) seeing the box and us engaging in disk swaps right there in a lecture. Really should've apologised to him for that, but didn't realise what I'd done at the time.

 

I didn't consider the PC to be any threat to the Amiga in the early 1990s whatsoever, as AGA had come out and at least there was no advantage to either platform, graphics-wise (please explain how VGA could be better than AGA). However, I had an Amiga 1200 and didn't count on the Motorola 68x series' low processing power compared to the Intel x86s of the time, and things finally began to turn me towards the PC once I saw Doom on a friend's PC and was blown away by how good it looked. I knew then, that the Amiga's days were numbered and the next Big Thing was on its way. Commodore going bust was the final nail in the coffin. Yes, despite what happened before, I was a turncoat.

One of my friends was a huge Amiga buff. He was always excited when new Amiga models came out. First came Amiga 500+ and he was totally going to buy it. I was like "hmm, seems pretty useless upgrade for a lot of money?" Well before he got to realize his dream, A600 came out and he went bonkers, I'm gonna buy that instead! And I was like, "Isn't that just A500 on smaller case?" Fortunately, A1200 came out almost immediately afterwards so he didn't get the chance waste his money on those boondoggles.

 

I first noticed PC was winning ca. 1989 (though at first I didn't think it would last). Games like Fighter Bomber were much better on AT or 386 PC with VGA or SVGA. PC sounds were joke but it wasn't a big deal on strategy games and AdLib was already affordable and gave acceptable sound quality. Then Wing Commander came out and slew the Amiga and ST. I played WC on A1200 but it was clearly worse looking than on PC and also very unstable for some reason.

 

Part of the reason was demographic. Kids who had started with 8-bit machines in early '80s were growing up, getting jobs and more income and could afford high-end systems. Something like 386SX was decently affordable for many and you could play games which either didn't exist on Amiga/ST, or were crap on them. PC's were still more expensive but there was little option, you wanted to play the top games, you coughed up the money.

 

Big part which for some reason isn't mentioned often were hard drives. Very early it became customary that every PC came with a hard drive. It made them much more expensive because even 20MB hard drive costed quite a lot back then, but it gave developers a big advantage in terms of 'lowest common denominator'. You could put in much more sounds and graphics as games were meant to be played from hard drives. It didn't matter that most people had small hard drives - a 4 to 8 megabyte game would still easily fit and people could just uninstall them once they got bored and install something else. One of my friends had an XP. I noted that my ST was as good or better in most respects. More powerful CPU, better sounds, better graphics (EGA had good resolution but horrible colour palette). However he had a hard drive...I was just so envious because it made playing much more convenient. Playing AD&D RPG's, all the battles and cities would load in seconds. When I played same games on ST, loading took up like a minute, and you had to swap disks all the time, it was pain. And it wasn't even the worst, my Amiga friend had Monkey Island II which took like 10 diskettes. Even with 2 disk drives, it was horrible to play. That's why immediately when I saw A1200 specs, I knew that it wasn't enough. There was no hard drive or even HD disk drive. Better AGA graphics would not help as there was no space to put them into. Also CPU was kinda meh, a budget version of 68020.

I always dreamed of Hard drive for my ST, but I couldn't afford it. TV was killing my eyes so I had to invest my meagre money on colour monitor.

Edited January 30, 2016 by chepe

[Foebane]

That's why immediately when I saw A1200 specs, I knew that it wasn't enough. There was no hard drive or even HD disk drive. Better AGA graphics would not help as there was no space to put them into. Also CPU was kinda meh, a budget version of 68020.

 

My Amiga 1200 came with an 80Mb HDD, so I'm guessing the HDD option was routine for getting an A1200 and the smaller 2.5" HDDs easily fit inside the case, so that's no excuse not to go for one.

 

But yes, the processor was budget, alright (the 68EC020, if I remember correctly) - the same kind that was put into washing machines as standard! How embarrassing!

[chepe]

Yeah hard drive was an option (40, 80 and 120mb as I recall) but even smallest one added 50% to the cost so I presume most people chose the cheapest model, like me.

I don't recall any of the Amiga or ST users in my hometown who had a hard drive. Hmm, I think one guy had A2000 and he might have a hd? Not sure.

It was kind of a vicious cycle: most people didn't get hard drives so games developers designed the games just for floppies, which didn't give any incentive for people to invest on hard drives. It was OK for baseline Amiga/ST which didn't have memory or processing power for huge games anyway, but newer generation machines required better mass storage.

Edited January 30, 2016 by chepe

[leech]

It seems to me that part of the problem was that the older machines didn't have internal space for hard drives, so they were not only costly for the drive, but the external case as well. Though I think maybe the A1000 could have an internal drive, I don't think the A500 and other initial wedges could. But then by the time the Mega was released, more systems could have internal drives. Probably didn't help that most systems went SCSI at the time as well, since IDE sucks in comparison, but is so much cheaper (this is true even today with sas vs sata). Of course there is some bitterness toward Atari for their hacked up ACSI as well.

 

Actually, more on topic. Hard drive as minimum for the dream STe would have helped a lot as well. Granted my Mega STe came with a 50mb hard drive, which I swore I would never run out of space on.... and I didn't until I got a shell account on the internet..

[ParanoidLittleMan]

It's not true that IDE sucked in compare to SCSI. At least not in years when Atari started with IDE interfaces in their computers - ST Book and Falcon. In Faclon IDE is actually 2x faster than SCSI - if you have fast enough drive or card today. SCSI was better in start, but IDE developed quickly, and there were same drives available in both versions - SCSI was more expensive - not much, 10-20%, and speed was same, since mechanics were same. Later paths of 2 systems splitted, and SCSI went in rather professional waters. But we know IDE disks with 10000 RPM too.

 

Btw. I had enough space in My 520 ST (external PS) for 2.5 inch drive - after removing some iron (shield).

Edited January 30, 2016 by ParanoidLittleMan

[leech]

It's not true that IDE sucked in compare to SCSI. At least not in years when Atari started with IDE interfaces in their computers - ST Book and Falcon. In Faclon IDE is actually 2x faster than SCSI - if you have fast enough drive or card today. SCSI was better in start, but IDE developed quickly, and there were same drives available in both versions - SCSI was more expensive - not much, 10-20%, and speed was same, since mechanics were same. Later paths of 2 systems splitted, and SCSI went in rather professional waters. But we know IDE disks with 10000 RPM too.

 

Btw. I had enough space in My 520 ST (external PS) for 2.5 inch drive - after removing some iron (shield).

 

Yeah, I meant that SCSI drives were better previous to that. It wasn't until the early 90s that was the case. I think most PCs were still using MFMs weren't they? I had to look up when the first 2.5" drives shipped, that was in 1988. So they wouldn't have existed until after the 520ST was released. http://www.pcworld.com/article/127105/article.html

 

Edit: Link also explains why the ASCI port wasn't full SCSI. "1986: The official SCSI spec is released; Apple Computer's Mac Plus is one of the first computers to use it. "

Edited January 30, 2016 by leech

[calimero]

 

Um, you DO know the Amiga had monitor as primary output, right? Namely for the 1084S.

 

I never got "headache" from AGA, but I dunno about you.

 

Refresh rate is irrelevant as the Amiga could both 50Hz and 60Hz, unless you're suggesting 60Hz should be the only one?

 

I have right now Commodore 1084S on my table and everytime I look at it I understand why ST and SM124 was my father choice back in 80s all though 90s.

 

Interlace is pure punishment for eyes as blurry (although color) picture on 1084S.

I really can not imagine that anybody could do any real work, 8 hours per day, on Amiga with 15KHz monitor...

[Foebane]

 

I have right now Commodore 1084S on my table and everytime I look at it I understand why ST and SM124 was my father choice back in 80s all though 90s.

 

Interlace is pure punishment for eyes as blurry (although color) picture on 1084S.

I really can not imagine that anybody could do any real work, 8 hours per day, on Amiga with 15KHz monitor...

 

Calimero, interlace was the only way to achieve twice the vertical resolution without sacrificing graphical ability, and the Amiga made full use of that - as did the Sega Genesis, as I recall.

 

However, yes, it was NOT really suitable long-term for real work, but then there were such things available for the Amiga like "flicker fixers" that would allow the ECS and AGA chipsets, as I recall, to use more advanced monitors that yielded higher resolutions without any sign of flicker whatsoever.

 

Then again, don't blame the Amiga for solely having the whole "interlace flicker" problem, as I saw IBM PC compatibles around the same time with exactly the same problem!

[ParanoidLittleMan]

Not correct - interlace was used because TV compatibility.

PC compatibles were never with interlaced output as main output. That was only when TV output appeared in graphic cards.

Then, flicker fixer was not for some "advanced" monitors, but reduced flickering on TV or mentioned CBM monitor - which was just TV without tuner in fact .

And all it is now obsolete - DMI is what all new TV. monitor, computer supports.

[chepe]

I always thought that interlaced mode looked pretty horrible. You could watch it for couple of minutes tops. It seemed to me of very little practical use.

[calimero]

Not correct - interlace was used because TV compatibility.

PC compatibles were never with interlaced output as main output. That was only when TV output appeared in graphic cards.

Then, flicker fixer was not for some "advanced" monitors, but reduced flickering on TV or mentioned CBM monitor - which was just TV without tuner in fact .

And all it is now obsolete - DMI is what all new TV. monitor, computer supports.

 

 

Yes, FlickerFixer was for reducing flickering

and ScanDoublers was for connecting VGA 31KHz monitors to Amigas.

 

60Hz refresh rate on PC was standard for long time. Only around maybe 1995. monitors and graphics card start to be available for higher refreshing rate.

[Foebane]

Not correct - interlace was used because TV compatibility.

PC compatibles were never with interlaced output as main output.

 

Yes, they were, I speak from personal experience of walking into a computer shop in Tottenham Court Road in the mid 90's and seeing it for myself on a PC.

[calimero]

 

Yes, they were, I speak from personal experience of walking into a computer shop in Tottenham Court Road in the mid 90's and seeing it for myself on a PC.

 

 

I also do not remember that any PC had interlaced resolution... they were 60Hz non interlaced... (green, orange... )

[+DarkLord]

Never saw a PC with interlace either. Not standard.

 

Did see interlaced mode on an A1200 - Gosh-awful, pain

inducing mode if you ask my humble opinion. I wouldn't

use it for *anything*.

[Foebane]

Never saw a PC with interlace either. Not standard.

 

Did see interlaced mode on an A1200 - Gosh-awful, pain

inducing mode if you ask my humble opinion. I wouldn't

use it for *anything*.

 

It's possible the PC I walked in on with its flickery mode was entirely non-standard - some kind of Frankenstein variant, but I have to admit, it was the only one I saw. Maybe the TCR vendors were up to something dodgy?

 

I've seen interlaced mode on my Amiga 1200 as well - didn't like it, but then there were more expensive monitor options available, as has been mentioned, and in any case, interlace was best suited to HAM6/8 images with the subtle colour transitions between lines so the flicker was nowhere near as obvious, anyway.

[Nebulon]

Some people can see fairly pronounced flicker when looking at a 60Hz non-interlaced VGA monitor under fluorescent lighting. It usually needs to be upped to 72Hz before they can no longer perceive it.

 

So that might be what it was.

 

And from using Amiga computers for many years, I have to agree -- the interlaced mode is pretty brutal for productivity work. The high-rez monochrome mode on the ST was a good idea. My only complaint is that I have to switch monitors when I want to use it.

[leech]

Some people can see fairly pronounced flicker when looking at a 60Hz non-interlaced VGA monitor under fluorescent lighting. It usually needs to be upped to 72Hz before they can no longer perceive it.

 

So that might be what it was.

 

And from using Amiga computers for many years, I have to agree -- the interlaced mode is pretty brutal for productivity work. The high-rez monochrome mode on the ST was a good idea. My only complaint is that I have to switch monitors when I want to use it.

 

That was the most annoying thing, is needing to have a separate monitor if you wanted to use the high resolution screen mode. It definitely was a rather killer feature at the time the ST first came out. Granted it didn't sound as cool on paper, the Amiga could do the same resolution with more colors (of course most people didn't realize from a screenshot how horrible interlace was on a 1084S. Cool thing is now days I have my Indivision AGA on my A4000D, and when I need native AGA resolutions, the interlace mode doesn't look horrible on an LCD. Then again I do tend to run out of chip memory really fast...

[Foebane]

OK, I agree with the general consensus, that Workbench and productivity in Amiga interlaced resolution SUCKS!

 

But is it any worse than attempting AGA Super HiRes mode on a TV? We're talking 1280 pixels wide, here!

[calimero]

OK, I agree with the general consensus, that Workbench and productivity in Amiga interlaced resolution SUCKS!

 

But is it any worse than attempting AGA Super HiRes mode on a TV? We're talking 1280 pixels wide, here!

 

 

That was never quite clear to me: TVhad 768 (or so) physical RGB phosphors pixels... how then it can display 1280 pixels?!?

btw same is possible with Falcon but it does not have much sense to me...

[Foebane]

 

 

That was never quite clear to me: TVhad 768 (or so) physical RGB phosphors pixels... how then it can display 1280 pixels?!?

btw same is possible with Falcon but it does not have much sense to me...

 

Well, I saw Super HiRes on a TV through the modulator attached to my A1200, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. 768 was the horizontal resolution of PAL, but there's nothing (as far as I know) stopping more condensed signals from going through the electron guns of the TV, especially due to the nature of CRT TV.

 

However, if there IS a limit, maybe it simply downconverted the resolution from 1280 to 768 - I do recall it looked rather blurry.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Foebane

[calimero]

 

Well, I saw Super HiRes on a TV through the modulator attached to my A1200, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. 768 was the horizontal resolution of PAL, but there's nothing (as far as I know) stopping more condensed signals from going through the electron guns of the TV, especially due to the nature of CRT TV.

 

However, if there IS a limit, maybe it simply downconverted the resolution from 1280 to 768 - I do recall it looked rather blurry.

 

 

I think that 768 is not horizontal resolution of PAL TV, there are 576 lines (horizontal resolution).

 

I agree that nothing prevent guns on TV to be denser but you still have aperture grille on TV with fixed pixels.

[Foebane]

Yes, 576 lines but 768 pixels on each line, isn't that what you meant?

 

Yes, that's why it was blurry - that and the composite artefacts making it fuzzy too.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Foebane

[ParanoidLittleMan]

With RGB cable and monitor horizontal res. can be pretty much high - then no sense talking about some PAL resolution. Frequency of video signal and quality of monitor determines max res.

"I agree that nothing prevent guns on TV to be denser but you still have aperture grille on TV with fixed pixels." - that's not correct - color encoding and bandwith of broadcasting signal are limiting factors. So, circuits are made in TV to filter out higher frequencies. CRT is limiting too, of course, but on some RGB monitor no filters, and CRT can have denser RGB pixels/grille - and that was case with later monitors. So, I believe that with proper monitor Amiga XYZ could have pretty sharp pic, at least horizontally.

[Foebane]

Just to clarify, 768 x 576 includes overscan (because standard Amiga HiRes is 640 x 512 without overscan) but when I said 1280 pixels wide for SHR, that did NOT include overscan - so it would be even higher - not sure exactly how much.