Can the STE's PCM sound chip play Amiga modules?

[Foebane]

 

 

One thing that strikes me about the Amiga though, despite the superior audio/visual hardware, is how little difference exists between the machines in the visual presentation of most original-era games.

 

I expect games like Outrun, R-Type or Buggy Boy to be jerky on an ST. But the visuals were similarly bad on the Amiga. I expected better. It's as if the programmers were unable or unwilling to find the time to optimize the code to leverage the Amiga's better graphics hardware. Flight Simulator II, Xenon 2 and Dungeon Master look pretty much identical on both systems.

 

I'd put that down to harsh deadlines imposed by the games companies on the development teams and not knowing what the Amiga's capabilities were, even though there were books available. The games companies simply wanted to get a product out of the door, cheaply and quickly, and didn't care about the unique abilities of each platform their teams worked on. This mentality is also true of many, many 8-bit ports across the Speccy, C64 and Amstrad at the time, and I suppose most of them didn't develop for the A8 because they saw it as not commercially viable and too difficult to program, with the Display List and everything else.

 

 

 

Other landmark games of the period, such as Lemmings, Sim City, Populous or Frontier just didn't need the ability to push objects around the screen in a manner that would have allowed the Amiga to excel in the visuals.

 

If you look at the text and interface displays for Lemmings on Amiga, you'll see hi-res graphics used extensively, even with dozens of colours on-screen at once for the messages, all thanks to the Copper. I'd say that's excelling in the visuals for some part.

 

 

 

The Atari 800 got many sub-par conversions of Apple II or Commodore 64 games, but a few games on the Atari 8-bit really demonstrate the graphical difference - games like Dropzone, Boulderdash, Elektraglide or Ballblazer demonstrate a fluidity of motion the 64 just never seemed able to deliver.

 

The golden age of the A8. Unfortunately, as time went on, they decided that the A8 was not commercially viable because of how expensive the machines were and thus how many fewer users there were, compared to the cheap sales behemoths that were the Big Three, as I call them.

 

 

 

I havn't been able to find many similar examples from the Amiga/ST library where one can say "look, that's why the Amiga is better". Shadow of the Beast is one. What else?

 

If you stop comparing the Amiga with the ST, then there's all the Team 17 games, as well as many others that actually RTFM and developed solely for Amiga.

 

 

 

Commodore went bankrupt. At a time when the only products in the line-up were Amiga derived. That is a standard definition of a commercial failure.

 

You can directly blame the Commodore management at the time for that, not the hardware. They had a unique platform that practically landed in their laps, and they didn't know what to do with it. The idiots decided that the Amiga should be used strictly for business (hence the A1000) and leave the gaming to the C64. They were just totally blinkered and wasted time and resources on trying to sell the Amiga as a consumer device like the CDTV or minor hardware updates like the A500+ and A600, and not focus on the Amiga's primary multimedia strengths, which should've been obvious to them. It was a minor miracle that AGA was developed at all (which should've been so much more) despite the management's incompetence and the Commodore design team at the time (and all of us Amiga fans) directly blame Mehdi Ali, the guy at the top, for all of this debacle. Thankfully, other companies developed versatile software and hardware for the Amiga that made it famous in industries like desktop video and gaming, and a lot of Commodore subsidiaries, like the UK, were more successful at promoting the hardware.

[Foebane]

 

BLMC sold millions of cars. Some of them very technically advanced and well designed. A commercial failure is a commercial failure, no matter how much I loved my mum's Austin 1300.

 

Then what, to you, is a commercial success? A company that is still going to this day? Is that how you personally define it?

[calimero]

 

The C64 was only 8-bit and had a questionable colour palette, Commodore wanted an upgraded computer at 16-bit, and they got it in Amiga.

 

 

"What irks me is" that many Amiga lovers fail to see is that there will be no Amiga if Jack Tramiel did not leave Commodore.

 

David Morse did try to find buyer for Amiga (1983.) without success. Apple, Commodore, Philips, SGI, Sony, Hewlett-Packard... refuse to buy Amiga. (Nobody was impressed by "magical, fabulous..." Amiga hardware like you Amiga fanboys would like to be true; e.g. at that time Atari Inc. already demonstrated voice recognition system!).

 

At the end, David Morse had to sign that infamous deal with Atari Inc. since he had no alternative!

Atari Inc. was loosing more than MILLION dollar per day so it was question of time when they will go bust and then there will be no Amiga at all!

 

When Jack Tramiel took over Atari Inc. and cancel all ongoing projects to focus on brining ST to market, David Morse in fear that Jack Tramiel would not be favor to them (Jack Tramiel already, somewhere in 1983., when Dave Morse try to sell Amiga, told Dave that he is interested in technology but not in Amiga team.) approach Commodore that was devastated by exodus of employees that quit Commodore to follow Jack Tramiel to Atari Corp.

 

Commodore, thanks to fortune that Jack Tramiel made (one billion in sale) for them, manage to bring Amiga technology to market.

 

And ULTIMATE BLASPHEMY is Amiga users hate toward Jack Tramiel.

In latest movie about Amiga (Viva Amiga), they even fake news coverage how Jack Tramiel make loan to Amiga !!!

 

http://www.atari-forum.com/download/file.php?id=30912&sid=bb8172b95a0720fb1c6567730ab651d9&mode=view

[Foebane]

 

 

David Morse did try to find buyer for Amiga (1983.) without success. Apple, Commodore, Philips, SGI, Sony, Hewlett-Packard... refuse to buy Amiga. (Nobody was impressed by "magical, fabulous..."

 

That's what happens when you try to sell the world's first truly multimedia computer, when the term hasn't even been coined yet.

 

 

 

Commodore, thanks to fortune that Jack Tramiel made (one billion in sale) for them, manage to bring Amiga technology to market.

 

Where it made history.

 

 

 

And ULTIMATE BLASPHEMY is Amiga users hate toward Jack Tramiel.

 

Seriously? The man was a ruthless cutthroat businessman, only interested in profit rather than progressing technology. As he said himself, "I don't believe in compromises, I believe in winning." His business clout and skill helped make the C64 the best-selling home computer in history. Good for him. But how did the Atari ST sales do under him?

[JagCD]

 

Commodore went bankrupt. At a time when the only products in the line-up were Amiga derived. That is a standard definition of a commercial failure.

 

BLMC sold millions of cars. Some of them very technically advanced and well designed. A commercial failure is a commercial failure, no matter how much I loved my mum's Austin 1300.

 

Exactly, any way you slice it -- the Amiga was a commercial failure. There are a lot of superior products that fail commercially -- Betamax was way better than

VHS..... The consumers didn't buy it. Obviously, Commodore's management team was inept -- they had a great product, but they couldn't market it. Most

Americans were never even aware the computer existed -- in its home country.

 

I really love my Amiga and Atari Jaguar -- but I acknowledge they were both commercial disasters.

[JagCD]

 

Then what, to you, is a commercial success? A company that is still going to this day? Is that how you personally define it?

 

Clearly, a company that doesn't go bankrupt due to a specific product (Amiga) -- would be the definition of a commercial success.

 

The Amiga 600 / Amiga CD32 fiasco finished off the company. Had Commodore not discontinued the Amiga 500 (to produce the

slow-selling 600) -- they may have survived a few more years. The 600 tanked sales/revenue and the CD32 lawsuit was the final

nail in the coffin.

Edited November 5, 2017 by JagCD

[oracle_jedi]

 

Then what, to you, is a commercial success? A company that is still going to this day? Is that how you personally define it?

 

Nowhere did I claim that the vendor must still be operational today to deserve the moniker of success for a specific product or platform.

 

I did suggest that it is a stretch to claim a platform was an unqualified success when the manufacturer who's entire revenue stream and GTM strategy was built around said platform became insolvent.

[Foebane]

 

Exactly, any way you slice it -- the Amiga was a commercial failure. There are a lot of superior products that fail commercially -- Betamax was way better than

VHS..... The consumers didn't buy it. Obviously, Commodore's management team was inept -- they had a great product, but they couldn't market it. Most

Americans were never even aware the computer existed -- in its home country.

 

I really love my Amiga and Atari Jaguar -- but I acknowledge they were both commercial disasters.

 

I would say that the Jaguar and Falcon were commercial failures (disaster is a bit strong) but the Amiga sold quite well outside of North America. The way I see it, lack of R&D on Commodore's part (or at least, not enough), mismanagement and looming obsolesence were the death knell of the Amiga and Commodore, as the PC became much more powerful, upgradeable and popular as a gaming machine. Even if Commodore had gotten their act together, the Amiga would've had a fixed lifespan anyway, but would've been a serious competitor to the PC during that time. But it was too little, too late.

[Foebane]

 

Nowhere did I claim that the vendor must still be operational today to deserve the moniker of success for a specific product or platform.

 

I did suggest that it is a stretch to claim a platform was an unqualified success when the manufacturer who's entire revenue stream and GTM strategy was built around said platform became insolvent.

 

See post #58.

[calimero]

 

Seriously? The man was a ruthless cutthroat businessman, only interested in profit rather than progressing technology. As he said himself, "I don't believe in compromises, I believe in winning." His business clout and skill helped make the C64 the best-selling home computer in history. Good for him. But how did the Atari ST sales do under him?

 

 

Please tell me on what basis you perceive Jack Tramiel as ruthless businessmen?

 

Making C64 best selling computer is "NOT GOOD FOR HIM" but also good for MILLIONS of people that could afford computer back in days when computer tend to cost more than 1000$! His moto was "best product, for best price", "do not charge more than twice for your products"... you should listen to his interview before you fall into Amiga fanboys trap of spiting on Jack Tramiel, trap of lies that was setup and spread by R J Mical and Dave Needle and now propagated by all Amiga fanboys!!

 

Better watch other side also:

 

 

 

ST did remarkably well: ST practically save Atari Corp. Jack Tramiel manage to turn the ship and from mega looser he made profitable company. Jack biggest mistake was purchasing Federate Trade chain for 80$ millions! They practically throw that money out of window!

[Foebane]

 

 

Making C64 best selling computer is "NOT GOOD FOR HIM" but also good for MILLIONS of people that could afford computer back in days when computer tend to cost more than 1000$! His moto was "best product, for best price", "do not charge more than twice for your products"... you should listen to his interview before you fall into Amiga fanboys trap of spiting on Jack Tramiel, trap of lies that was setup and spread by R J Mical and Dave Needle and now propagated by all Amiga fanboys!!

 

I didn't say "NOT good for him". Read again.

 

Why are you so defensive towards Jack Tramiel? Did you personally know him? Are you a relative of his?

[JagCD]

 

I would say that the Jaguar and Falcon were commercial failures (disaster is a bit strong) but the Amiga sold quite well outside of North America. The way I see it, lack of R&D on Commodore's part (or at least, not enough), mismanagement and looming obsolesence were the death knell of the Amiga and Commodore, as the PC became much more powerful, upgradeable and popular as a gaming machine. Even if Commodore had gotten their act together, the Amiga would've had a fixed lifespan anyway, but would've been a serious competitor to the PC during that time. But it was too little, too late.

 

But with the right management team, Commodore would have been alive today. It's not like they didn't also make PC's -- had they put more effort into their PC clones.... They probably would have evolved into another Dell.... Their Amigas could have filled the Alienware niche (high-end computers).

[zzip]

The Atari 800 got many sub-par conversions of Apple II or Commodore 64 games, but a few games on the Atari 8-bit really demonstrate the graphical difference - games like Dropzone, Boulderdash, Elektraglide or Ballblazer demonstrate a fluidity of motion the 64 just never seemed able to deliver. I havn't been able to find many similar examples from the Amiga/ST library where one can say "look, that's why the Amiga is better". Shadow of the Beast is one. What else?

I've been told Defender of the Crown was far superior on the Amiga

[Christos]

I've been told Defender of the Crown was far superior on the Amiga

 

Better looking but the ST version is more complete. Alternatively you can find a lot of games that are better on the ST. Amiga "fans" will shout "Lazy Ports!" because they think that their machine is magical and can beat the neo geo or whatever, but the truth is that some games are better suited for the ST hardware and will play better there.

[zzip]

Better looking but the ST version is more complete. Alternatively you can find a lot of games that are better on the ST. Amiga "fans" will shout "Lazy Ports!" because they think that their machine is magical and can beat the neo geo or whatever, but the truth is that some games are better suited for the ST hardware and will play better there.

Is it more complete? I had the ST version and always felt like something was wrong with it. I've never been able to win a joust ever no matter where I put the lance

[Goochman]

Is it more complete? I had the ST version and always felt like something was wrong with it. I've never been able to win a joust ever no matter where I put the lance

 

Is that what she said? Sorry couldnt resist

[calimero]

 

I didn't say "NOT good for him". Read again.

 

Why are you so defensive towards Jack Tramiel? Did you personally know him? Are you a relative of his?

 

 

I know tht you said that is "good for him" and I continue that it is not only "good for him" but also for million other people.

 

Why I am so defensive toward Jack? Why you can not accept that Atari Falcon is better in some ways than Amiga 1200 (but you rather pooling argument of "14bit Amiga sound"?!? )

 

Why are you so negative toward Jack Tramiel and so pro Jay Miner?

[Goochman]

Jack pulled off a miracle giving us another 8 good years of Atari - he couldnt follow that up with another winner unfortunately.

[Foebane]

 

 

I know tht you said that is "good for him" and I continue that it is not only "good for him" but also for million other people.

 

Why I am so defensive toward Jack? Why you can not accept that Atari Falcon is better in some ways than Amiga 1200 (but you rather pooling argument of "14bit Amiga sound"?!? )

 

Why are you so negative toward Jack Tramiel and so pro Jay Miner?

 

I'm sure I acknowledged the ST/Falcon's sound superiority (at least with MIDI and DSP) in an earlier post on this thread.

 

I'm so Jay Miner because I grew up with his hardware, and was jealous at the C64 getting all the software that the A8 could've also handled. I only knew one other A8 owner at school, and I swapped games with him. I also got an ST when I should've gotten an Amiga from the start, I never even went to the local computer shop for a demo of both of them, I just carried on with Atari, not knowing ownership had effectively swapped around.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Foebane

[oracle_jedi]

 

I would say that the Jaguar and Falcon were commercial failures (disaster is a bit strong) but the Amiga sold quite well outside of North America.

 

You're comparing a platform (Amiga) to specific products (Atari Falcon and Atari Jaguar).

 

The Falcon was part of the Atari ST platform, along with the 520ST, 1040STF etc. The Atari Jaguar was the only product in the Jaguar platform as the Duo Jag never saw the light of day.

 

The Atari ST platform, like the Amiga platform, was successful for a time in the late 80s, notably in the UK and Germany. Then struggled through the early 90s and ultimately they both became obsolete in the face of improving PC/Windows machines which increasingly monopolized the productivity market, and the 16/32bit game consoles that replaced the Amiga/Atari ST platforms as the preferred choice of gamers.

 

The Falcon was not successful. Too little too late. Estimates are 12,000 sold.

 

The products of the Amiga platform of that era were not much more successful. The CD32 and A4000, if published numbers are to be believed, saw weaker sales than the Jaguar and Falcon respectively. The A1200 was, as you said back in post #16 "relatively successful", but with total worldwide sales at 144,000 in FY92 and FY93 it was successful relative to what? The Falcon? Sure.

 

But 144,000 over 24 months is about the same as the number of Jaguars that Atari sold world wide in FY94 and FY95, or if you prefer, about half the world wide sales of the Commodore 16/116, which was the entry level product of the Commodore 264 platform.

 

I suppose the Commodore 264 platform was "relatively successful" if you are talking about the Hungarian home computer market in the late 80s. However, most I would guess would not describe the Commodore 16 as "relatively successful".

 

The Atari ST platform "failed" in the face of competition from PCs and consoles, albeit giving Atari management just enough breathing room to realize the inevitability of the situation, retire the platform and switch to games consoles (which also failed). Commodore's management rode the Amiga platform's failure directly into bankruptcy.

[calimero]

 

 

The Atari ST platform, like the Amiga platform, was successful for a time in the late 80s, notably in the UK and Germany.

 

 

What was a FAIL is IBM PC. This disastrous monstrosity of "computer" got all software AFTER SEVEN YEARS!

 

Illustrator, Photoshop, 3D Max, Cinema 4D, LightWave, Logic, Cubase...

 

EVERYTHING except shity Word and Excel was born on Mac, Atari and Amiga.

 

Ultimate FAIL are STUPID people that in 80s rather choose IBM PC trashcan then modern computer with GUI. Thankfully authors of these programs that I mention recognize genius in Mac, Amiga and Atari and used them to made programs that are still top notch!

[zzip]

What was a FAIL is IBM PC. This disastrous monstrosity of "computer" got all software AFTER SEVEN YEARS!

 

Illustrator, Photoshop, 3D Max, Cinema 4D, LightWave, Logic, Cubase...

 

EVERYTHING except shity Word and Excel was born on Mac, Atari and Amiga.

 

Ultimate FAIL are STUPID people that in 80s rather choose IBM PC trashcan then modern computer with GUI. Thankfully authors of these programs that I mention recognize genius in Mac, Amiga and Atari and used them to made programs that are still top notch!

A lot of us lamenting the rise of the PC love to point out specs.

 

But to be fair, the people buying PCs in the 80s weren't motivated by specs, they were motivated by wanting a home computer that could run the same applications, have the same interface and read the same disks they used at work. Many were not that technical They had a specific need, and I can't blame them for having it. It just happens there were more of them than us Spec-obsessed people so they made the PC platform popular, gave it the economics of scale that meant the Amiga and ST could never hope to compete.

[calimero]

I do not talk about "specs" but about applications! (btw spec always works better for PC)

 

Just compare WordPerfect to Signum! in 80s!

Person that prefer WordPerfect is: afraid, stupid, ignorance. (eventually WordPerfect would gone thanks to Microsoft 'mafia' strategy!)

 

 

Edited November 8, 2017 by calimero

[zzip]

I do not talk about "specs" but about applications! (btw spec always works better for PC)

 

Just compare WordPerfect to Signum! in 80s!

Person that prefer WordPerfect is: afraid, stupid, ignorance. (eventually WordPerfect would gone thanks to Microsoft 'mafia' strategy!)

Or they have their own work they have to get done on a deadline, and don't have time/desire to learn a completely new system that will impede their productivity for a time. Learning Wordperfect was complicated enough, especially for non-technical people it had a lot of keystrokes you had to memorize or use a cheat sheet. Who wants to start at square one if you don't have to? Today's word processors use menus, Wordperfect at the time (pre-GUI editions) did not. Plus Word processors at the time were notorious for not handling foreign formats 100% correctly or even at all- that was another risk people didn't want to take. For similar reasons many people stick to MS Word today even though there are free alternatives available.

[calimero]

Exactly.

 

Because

 

Or they have their own work they have to get done on a deadline, and don't have time/desire to learn a completely new system that will impede their productivity for a time. Learning Wordperfect was complicated enough, especially for non-technical people it had a lot of keystrokes you had to memorize or use a cheat sheet. Who wants to start at square one if you don't have to? Today's word processors use menus, Wordperfect at the time (pre-GUI editions) did not. Plus Word processors at the time were notorious for not handling foreign formats 100% correctly or even at all- that was another risk people didn't want to take. For similar reasons many people stick to MS Word today even though there are free alternatives available.

 

Exactly!

 

Because Xerox Smarttalk was to 'complicated' so people settle on dumbing down computers to level of typewriters!

 

 

Coz of this I wrote: "Ultimate FAIL are STUPID people...".