Atari ST vs. Amiga

[atarian63]

One has to wonder if the Tramiels had any understanding of the videogame market at all. Canning the 7800 when it was a hot property (1984). Releasing the XEGS in 1987, with games that boasted of 1983 copyright right on the title screen. Releasing totally antique games to compete with innovative new Japanese titles. [Donkey Kong was a big release on 7800 - in 1988!!!] Releasing the Jaguar with 3 buttons in the age of Mortal Kombat, when SNES had 4 + shoulder buttons and Genesis had doubled their controller buttons to 6. Jack would have likely canned the whole thing earlier, which probably would have saved the company money.

I brought the lack of the 6 fire buttons on what became the Jaguar controller to the attention of Atari staff at the Sacramento Atari show in 1992 [it may have been 1991, I'll have to double check]. My comments were dismissed by Mike Fulton who had come to Atari for doing some word processing program [i can't remember what it was] and not because of being a gamer. He looked at me with disbelief and said the controller - considering the numeric keypad - already had more than enough buttons.

 

The controller dates back to 1990 I think, as part of the unfortunate Panther design. (thankfully abandoned)

 

The keypad could ahve been useful for a number of PC games needing added functions, but none really took advantage of this (doom is th ebest example, but something like X-wing would really have made use of it). However, cycling weapons/options and using button combinations instead of added keys could have made most of such games work fine with a sega saturn type layout or Jag Pro controller sans the keypad.

What gave you the idea of 6 fire buttons back in 1991/2, the SNES?

The genesis didn't get 6 buttons until 1993 with the release of Street Fighter II Special Champion Edition, so it's not that obvious all that long before the Jag was released... The 3DO opted to omit one of the SNES's buttons in favor of a sort of hybrid layout of arcing 3-buttons like the MD/Genesis pad and the SNES's shoulder buttons.

 

I already said much to this effect on the gamepad in response to wood_jl back in post 534, but one last thing in regards to Jack Tramiel: I'm not sure he would have scrapped the Jaguar, in fact, since he seemed to be much more capable at running the company than Sam, I'd bet the Jag would have been in much better shape, let alone the computer line (even if the ST had gotten pushed into a small, niche market -though if handeled properly, it maight have maintained popularity in Europe -PCs didn't become popular until the ST and Amiga were already declining, and both Atari and Commodore kind of screwed things up in the late 80s -commodore pretty much starting after Jack left, and same for Atari Corp). Makes one wonder how the ST;s later developments might have been handeled, or the Lynx for that matter, under Jack rather than Sam.

One intersign thought on the Jaguar, in context of the computer line is, while not very suitable to be converted into a personal computer istself, the Jag chipset could have made a great chipset for a graphics accelerator board. (probably omitting the sound and I/O portions, as well as the general CPU/host -with the computer's own CPU taking its place)

 

 

 

 

The Jag Pro Controller is what should've shipped day one with the Jaguar.

There are several jaguar threads mare soited to this topic, but the controllers are one of several issues related to a relase witht he console not being ready, a few months could have helped a lot, granted management itsself had problems. A lot of the issues were tied to limited funding though, the most likely reson for the half hearted pre-release in fall of '93 to drum up inversor intrest (which really should have reached Europe given Atari Corp's computer popularity there and their promise to include London and Paris in the test release). Digging into the Tramiels' private funds could have helped in that respect though, but that would have been riskier too and the Sega settlement didn't come through until mid 1994 I think.

It seems Sam was also nowhere near as capable at managing thins as his father had, including the computer line that steadily declined throughout the late 80s and early 90s. (and a number of mistakes made and somewhat odd decisions which contributed to this for Atari Corp)

 

As for the Motorola portion of the Jaguar chips, Atari should've went with a 68020 or a 68030 by that point. Remember, Atari Games used a 68020 in the "CoJag" system. But it was sucky games that really killed the Jag. That soccer game was offensively bad graphically. Same goes for the racing games. Terrible.

Yep, but an 030 would have been fairly expensive; a 68EC020FG16(RP16 -PGA instead of QFP) would have been the cheapest option at the time, 16.7 MHz rated, so would have the same speed limitations as the 68k (the 25 MHz version used in the arccade would be more expensive, obviously) and though not clocked faster, would have the key features of a cache (albeit small) to greatly reduce activity on the main bus, 32-bit wide bus (also widenign Jerry to 32-bits), and somewhat more efficient per-cycle performance. The Jag was designed to accept X86, 68k, or MIPS CPUs, hence the R3000 on some CoJags, but the 16 MHz rated EC020 is the next cheapest option and a big step up from the 68k. (well, a 68010 would be the immediate step up, and while it would help things a little, it would be much worse than th 020 still in terms of bus usage as well as keeping the 16-bit width -and same for Jerry)

 

Yo really should check out this thread though: http://www.atariage.com/forums/topic/119048-its-1993-youre-in-charge-of-the-jag-what-do-you-do/page__st__825

 

Not quite right. Sega Japan lacked confidence in Sega of America and they initially considered having Atari Corp. market the Mega Drive in the US [and in Europe, I've heard]. And it was represented in Antic/STart that Atari was interested as well which apparently killed any of their plans in making an "ST Game System" which had been the prior rumor. Ultimately, Sega Japan allowed Sega of America to market the "Genesis".

Hmm, a couple interviews with Katz didn't give me that impression, I'll try and find the specific quotes. (I seem to recall him mentioning SoJ representatives as well as Dave Rosen approaching Atari Corp with such a proposal)

 

Never played it standing up, Hard to find another star wars anywhere these days.

I've never played the sit-doen version, but I've played the stand-up cabenet a fair bit at Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk in the retro/classic section of the arcade. I'm not sure about the sit-sown unit, but th eupright one uses a control yolk, not a stick and you rotate the handels foreward and backward to change the elevation of the crosshairs rather than pushing/pullling with a real flight yolk. So does the sit-down unit use a joystick instead?

No the sit down uses the yoke, and was actually released first,though more expensive it is the one most people saw at the time,it was really exciting in it's day.People lined up to play. I was disappointed as the controls were simulator style (up is down,down is up. I modded mine to work correctly (in my opinion anyway).\

[oky2000]

If you were on the net at the time T2K was developed, Jeff gladly left, in what we would think of as a blog today, his dev notes along the way. Who knows, probably the whole thing is on rec.games.video.atari... still. I've not looked.

 

What makes that game great is he studied the original TEMPEST engine to learn what makes the game and why it's a great game, then expanded on that in a style very similar to what the original developer (Jarvis, I think) did. He posted many core observations about TEMPEST that were fairly technical in nature, also laying down his ideas for T2K, when it made sense. Not all of that was on USENET, but a lot of it was.

 

T2K has excellent level design, a good level advance "story", in that it's not just a simple linear progression of difficulty, but actually having some contrived challenges with their trade-offs that are a pleasure for those able to reach that level of play. There is a game within the game, in terms of the levels, what challenges are when and why, and the warps mean players can explore that from different angles getting challenged in a few different ways. Again, this is only significant, IF one can actually play the game. That's a tribute to the original developer, who used those ideas in other titles too, making his games very distinctive. Newer gamers don't always see this for what it is, because the focus of gaming today has moved away from that --on consoles, considerably far away, IMHO.

 

I thought the transition from vector to raster was good. Could have been way worse. The overall presentation of the game though, came across well. The pixellated "noise" is there for a specific reason, that I think he's over done in newer titles, and that reason is to reward those players who can also reach "the trance", where thought becomes action, and the game play actually benefits from that noise. It triggers focus and that "trance" state more quickly, and for longer periods of time. The game would be rather empty without it occurring at some of the most intense spots. Jeff is under-appreciated for this, largely because he doesn't always balance it well. That said, the fact that he does recognize the impact of that kind of presentation and how it aligns with the intensity of the game, is not something to just dismiss. T2K works on those levels where a whole lot of efforts just don't.

 

Make no mistake, it's a top title period, and it manages to do so while still giving a fairly diverse set of players a good experience worth it to them to play. Jeff was smart enough to raise the bar slowly, using traditional game elements, like power ups, warps and such to make that experience a good one. For those that reach "initial mastery", the game is right there, giving the player a few plateaus to cross before they can really own the game, and flat out, there are a lot of players that will never, ever do that. Again, just like the original developer did very well on the better titles.

 

It takes a specific kind of gamer, and gaming mind to appreciate these things and build on them, and for that I think Minter deserves some recognition. A whole lot of people can't do that with this genre, even though they are capable of great games otherwise.

 

One of Jeff Minter's most attractive qualities to me is that he could give two shits about who thinks what about his "oddities", preferring to roll his own way, and I totally respect that, even if I don't always understand the product of it.

 

Rock on Jeff.

 

Carry on all

 

Two points...

 

His oddities like the too numerous to ignore comments he (and others) make about having sex with animals is one I'd rather care about myself than ignore. There is weird and then there is just plain messed up in the head like this guy. Pretty sick seeing his comments about wishing for semen powered bulls in his own forum....count me out as a sane and decent member of the human race.

 

His general lack of imagination meaning most of his games are poor remakes of old early 80s arcade games....bit unusual for someone who is meant to be original isn't it? Hia only truly original game from scratch went nowhere because he didn't have the game designing skills to do anything with it and eventually Peter Molyneux told him to drop it and gave up on the project.

 

So yeah, carry on indeed.

[potatohead]

Well, if you look at my post, I did not make any claim to the guy being original. In fact, that word is in reference to the original developer of the game. What I did appreciate was Jeff taking the time to actually understand that, and then build on it in a logical, compelling and challenging way.

 

I guess, if you want to just add that point of "for a guy who is supposed to be original" you can, but it doesn't significantly add value to my commentary above. I don't know that he's all that original in the game forms he works on regularly. I do see a specific focus on specific combinations of presentation elements, worth appreciating when done well, which this developer does not always do.

 

On the "oddities", I'm a live and let live kind of person, the less I generally know the better. Perhaps they do those things, and, if so, I really don't need to, or want to know. On the other hand, they might just enjoy morbid expression, aimed at tweaking the kind of people that think about it more than usual, and you can find that in a lot of forms, in a lot of places, from a lot of people. None of that is really relevant to T2K though.

 

In any case, again, my commentary above is constrained to those elements of the gaming and developer mind that can contribute to some great game play experiences, I find personally appealing, and not always found elsewhere, and I said as much.

 

Translation: It's ok to enjoy and appreciate a fine game, without also appreciating the developer who realized it, and that really was my higher level point in the first place.

 

If you don't like the game, well then tell us why you don't like that game, and which elements of it are unappealing. Seems to me, that's a great discussion to have, which is what I posted up on. This particular game, and those particular efforts to realize it for us, are worth some recognition. It's a great game, and it's ok to say that, because saying that just isn't a statement to the greater merits of the character of the developer, or other titles, is it?

 

Bringing the other crap into it isn't such a good discussion to have, unless we have that developer here in person. At least know that's how I'm going to play it.

Edited March 9, 2010 by potatohead

[kool kitty89]

Everything that I've seen and read indicates Jack Tramiel did not care for video games. He's pretty dismissive of them from his tone at the Commodore 64 Anniversary Celebration/Conference that's up on YouTube.

Not careing for games specifically doesn't mean he had no interest in selling game consoles though, if nothign else he needed to maket them to keep Atari afloat until the ST was established, starting by simply sellign remaining stock, but exmanding into releasing the Jr an dfinally straightening out the 7800, then there's the XEGS too. (granted, there were more than just Jack tied to these decisions too) I'm not positive what position Katz held at Atari Corp (iirc it was vice president), but regardless he was involved with marketing the game systems, namely the 2600 Jr and 7800, not sure about the XEGS -or if he was involved with marketign the ST as well. (they were on a pretty tight budget too, relatively limited advertizing -and basicly none for the initial 2600 Jr release if I read his comments correctly)

 

The biggest misconceptions seem to be surrounding the 7800, again a lot of contributing information didn't surface until very recently and hasn't even been posted on atarimuseum yet. (official Atari Corp doccuments and coespondence)

 

 

I still feel Jack & Co. got lucky at Commodore. Had they not acquired MOS they never would've been the success they became.

 

Jack wouldn't have spent the Tramiel private funds on developing the Jaguar. If I recall from "The Home Computer Wars" he once scolded Sam for flying first class back in the early 80s when Sam was president of his own company.

Some would say the way he got MOS was a bit underhanded too... However, that's one of the big problems CBM had with the Amiga, unlike with MOS, they hand't bought the Amiga Team/company outright, just the chipset, meaning that they'd have to pay for upgraded chipsets or develop them independently. It would have been interesting if the Amiga team had been rolled into CCG along with MOS. (though soem have suggested it would have been in commodore's best interest to spin off CCG/MOS as a new company or self-contained subsidiary to facilitate their own projects and future developments)

 

 

I brought up the 030 because Atari was already purchasing them for the TT and the Falcon. At some point, one would hope the economies-of-scale would kick in and there'd be some sort of discount when the majority of products being shipped by the company would be 030 based. But even an 020 would've been a step up from the 68000. It would've silenced a lot of the critics - EGM - that claimed the console was 16-bit [erroneously] because of the inclusion of that CPU.

That brings up an interesing point though, would the Falcon have been better off with an EC020 and a full 32-bit bus? (cost savings trade-off) Let alone the TT, but that's another story. (using an '020, or EC020 would have meant a few other things too, like aiming at a lower cost bracket -which might have been good considering the TT was kind of neither here nor there, not quite a high-end/workstation machine at the time, but well above the mid-range home/buisness computer as well. (then again, there were plans for an '020 based ST machine back in '86 which apparently went nowhere)

 

That's another thing that came up in a previous discussion, faster CPUs in general. Perhaps Atari should have never bothered with the BLiTTER at all, just stuck with CPU grunt like the IBM compatibiles (until the late 90s), starting with faster 68ks, then progress to 020s, 030s and so forth (they'd have to deal with an architechture switch eventually though, if they kept going into the mid 90s). Plus, you could have a fast 68k (say 16 MHz) in the first MEGA ST rather than getting delayed with the BLiTTER coming later. Unile the BLiTTER, faster CPU would speed up all software, not just that specifically coded for it. (though a few speed sensitive things might be problematic)

Instead of putting resourses into developing the blitter, they should have put more emphesis on upgrading the stock sound (or perhaps releasing a simple, low cost music module for the midi or perhapd cartrige port as an upgrade), then push for an updated shifter, something more competitive with VGA, preferably by 1988, so not to fall behind for too long. (not necessarily the Shifter II, perhaps a bit less, but at least a 320x200 256 color mode -320x240 would be nice- and 640x480 16-color mode to approximate VGA -12 bit RGB would probably be OK too)

Rather than looking at weaknesses compared to the Amiga (which is what the BLiTTER and later STe sound seems to be aimed at), it would have made more sense to stay ahead, or astrade with PC developments given being more capable than the PC (and a cheap, color mac) was one of the major advantages of the ST at launch. (bast case in terms of graphics, sound and cost in 1985 for PCs was probably the Tandy 1000), it beat the Tandy 1000 in CPU power, graphics (color palette), and sound (barely), but by the late 80s clones were becoming common, more capable, and more affordable in general. (granted most mid-range/low end PCs in the late 80s would be EGA) Adlib was out in '87 and Soundblaster in '89 too.

 

 

I swear it was in whatever Antic/STart magazine it was that had the tidbit over Atari suing Micron over a dispute over DRAM prices allegedly because Micron violated an oral contract with Jack Tramiel. The blurb included mention of the ST Game System that never came to be. I think "Game Over" also mentions the Genesis fiasco with Atari Corp. not pursuing it. Again, had the machine been produced in Atari's factory, purchasing all of those 68000s could've further reduced the manufacturing costs of the STs.

The most I've read about an ST derived game machin planned is this:

The industry as a whole was moving to computer-gaming, even magazines were changing their names to either have computing added or changed from Video to Computer Gaming... Computers like the C64, Apple //C and ][GS as well as the Atari 800XL and XE's were all very inexpensive (well maybe not the GS) and it appeared at the time video gaming was moving in that direction.... the moment the ST's and Amiga hit the shelves, companies saw them as great gaming platforms...

 

In fact there was a grass roots effort within Atari by Rob Zydbel and several other programmers who actually went out of their way to port games like Star Raiders, Moon Patrol and many other tried and true Atari titles and licenses to the ST with hopes of getting the Tramiels to make the ST technology into a game platform and their efforts almost convinced the Tramiels... There was project "Robin" which was an ST in an XE case that was in the works...

 

 

Curt

 

Lynxpro, you're informaton may indeed be more accurate, or detailed, but could you point me toward where you found it out, or explain a little more if it's not an available resourse?

 

I swear it was in "Game Over" by David Scheff (sic).

Ah, OK, I haven't read that yet, but it's one I've been considering (a tad pricey though, I'll have to check the labrary too). Note that it's a rather old book though and while exact quotes and some information won't change, I'm pretty sure there's going to be stuff in there I already know more detials about. (If I'm not mistaken, that book has fed into some of the misconceptions surrounding Atari and Nintendo around that time, again I can't comment until I've read it though)

 

Another, more recent book I've been referred to (but also haven't read) is The Ultimate History of Video Games: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761536434?ie=UTF8&tag=atariage&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0761536434 I'd immagien there are still a number of inconsistincies in there too, more than the ones about the 7800 specifically which have only very recently come to light. (within the last year or less)

[Lynxpro]

Not careing for games specifically doesn't mean he had no interest in selling game consoles though, if nothign else he needed to maket them to keep Atari afloat until the ST was established, starting by simply sellign remaining stock, but exmanding into releasing the Jr an dfinally straightening out the 7800, then there's the XEGS too. (granted, there were more than just Jack tied to these decisions too) I'm not positive what position Katz held at Atari Corp (iirc it was vice president), but regardless he was involved with marketing the game systems, namely the 2600 Jr and 7800, not sure about the XEGS -or if he was involved with marketign the ST as well. (they were on a pretty tight budget too, relatively limited advertizing -and basicly none for the initial 2600 Jr release if I read his comments correctly)

 

The biggest misconceptions seem to be surrounding the 7800, again a lot of contributing information didn't surface until very recently and hasn't even been posted on atarimuseum yet. (official Atari Corp doccuments and coespondence)

 

 

All true, but I'm sure Katz was the brains behind Atari [Consumer/Corp.] getting back into gaming. To me, it seemed like Jack wanted only to be in what he thought he understood, which was cheap computing. He's a total psych study on his own. Dedicating Commodore to destroying TI because Jack thought TI purposefully tried to destroy his company in the 70s, and then dedicating Atari Corp. to destroying Commodore to get revenge on Gould for forcing him out of his own company.

 

 

Some would say the way he got MOS was a bit underhanded too... However, that's one of the big problems CBM had with the Amiga, unlike with MOS, they hand't bought the Amiga Team/company outright, just the chipset, meaning that they'd have to pay for upgraded chipsets or develop them independently. It would have been interesting if the Amiga team had been rolled into CCG along with MOS. (though soem have suggested it would have been in commodore's best interest to spin off CCG/MOS as a new company or self-contained subsidiary to facilitate their own projects and future developments)

 

 

No argument from me on the alleged "underhanded" dealings which allowed Commodore to gobble up MOS. For anyone unaware of the allegations, it is claimed that Commodore stretched out their payments to MOS for product already received in order to undermine MOS's finances and force it into being acquired on the cheap.

 

The problem with MOS was that Commodore didn't invest properly in ongoing development because MOS was used merely as a cost saving measure to ensure Commodore products were cheaper to produce than the competition. A competent business entity would've continued reinvesting the profits into more R&D. Of course, the Tramiels would argue that in comparison, Atari Inc. spent way too much money on R&D. It amazes me that looking back that Steve Ross didn't encourage Ray to start acquiring fab plants in order to control all means of production of Atari products considering Warner at the time tried to control every aspect of their music interests... actual record pressing, music publishing rights, labels, etc. Although Warner didn't make actual turn tables...

 

 

That brings up an interesing point though, would the Falcon have been better off with an EC020 and a full 32-bit bus? (cost savings trade-off) Let alone the TT, but that's another story. (using an '020, or EC020 would have meant a few other things too, like aiming at a lower cost bracket -which might have been good considering the TT was kind of neither here nor there, not quite a high-end/workstation machine at the time, but well above the mid-range home/buisness computer as well. (then again, there were plans for an '020 based ST machine back in '86 which apparently went nowhere).

 

As a Falcon owner from back then, I'd argue for a 32-bit bus. The 020 would've been a step back at that point. Atari at one point was hot for the 020 but then Commodore beat them to the punch and then they decided to go with the 030. I remember Sig Hartmann coming out to our user's group and being very dismissive of the 020 once that decision had been made. I think that was around the time he said the same thing in Atari Explorer.

 

The TT would've been a great machine had it not been delayed 1 or 2 years and had first debuted with the 020. I seem to remember that Atari mentioned they felt the 020 was still not good enough to multitask with and made such official statements.

 

 

That's another thing that came up in a previous discussion, faster CPUs in general. Perhaps Atari should have never bothered with the BLiTTER at all, just stuck with CPU grunt like the IBM compatibiles (until the late 90s), starting with faster 68ks, then progress to 020s, 030s and so forth (they'd have to deal with an architechture switch eventually though, if they kept going into the mid 90s). Plus, you could have a fast 68k (say 16 MHz) in the first MEGA ST rather than getting delayed with the BLiTTER coming later. Unile the BLiTTER, faster CPU would speed up all software, not just that specifically coded for it. (though a few speed sensitive things might be problematic)

 

I'd argue the BLiTTER was needed but the Mega should've had a faster 68000 and/or an 020 stock. That would've made the SLM804 not as painful of an experience to print from. Had they continued to ramp up the clock speeds and better Motorola silicon and had they been successful, it would've opened up unlicensed cloning possibilities. There was probably nothing stopping DRI from licensing GEM 68K elsewhere. The less custom silicon inside a machine, the easier it is to clone it legally.

 

The BLiTTER should've been continually updated so it would still work with a fast 030 and included in the TT.

 

 

Instead of putting resourses into developing the blitter, they should have put more emphesis on upgrading the stock sound (or perhaps releasing a simple, low cost music module for the midi or perhapd cartrige port as an upgrade), then push for an updated shifter, something more competitive with VGA, preferably by 1988, so not to fall behind for too long. (not necessarily the Shifter II, perhaps a bit less, but at least a 320x200 256 color mode -320x240 would be nice- and 640x480 16-color mode to approximate VGA -12 bit RGB would probably be OK too)

Rather than looking at weaknesses compared to the Amiga (which is what the BLiTTER and later STe sound seems to be aimed at), it would have made more sense to stay ahead, or astrade with PC developments given being more capable than the PC (and a cheap, color mac) was one of the major advantages of the ST at launch. (bast case in terms of graphics, sound and cost in 1985 for PCs was probably the Tandy 1000), it beat the Tandy 1000 in CPU power, graphics (color palette), and sound (barely), but by the late 80s clones were becoming common, more capable, and more affordable in general. (granted most mid-range/low end PCs in the late 80s would be EGA) Adlib was out in '87 and Soundblaster in '89 too.

 

 

Or if they would've just rolled out the AMY chip, especially after the outside company actually refined it further. From the description of that chip's capabilities, it seems like it would've used the Paula - or the Ensoniq chip in the //GS - for toilet paper.

 

Speaking of the cartridge port, I am surprised none of the great hardware modders haven't taken the Motorola 56k DSP - found in the Falcon - out of the current low end iPod Shuffles and found a way - through the cartridge port - to add them to the non-Falcon ST computers...

 

As for the EST - which was being rumored back in 86-87 - it should've at least matched the Amiga in all graphics and sound capabilities, if not surpassed them.

 

 

been referred to (but also haven't read) is The Ultimate History of Video Games: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761536434?ie=UTF8&tag=atariage&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0761536434 I'd immagien there are still a number of inconsistincies in there too, more than the ones about the 7800 specifically which have only very recently come to light. (within the last year or less)

 

 

I am not a real fan of Kent. To me, he's way too much a Ralph Baer fanboi. And I don't like Baer at all.

[kool kitty89]

The problem with MOS was that Commodore didn't invest properly in ongoing development because MOS was used merely as a cost saving measure to ensure Commodore products were cheaper to produce than the competition. A competent business entity would've continued reinvesting the profits into more R&D.

One of the big things in that was the lack of expanding the 650x architecture too. (that fianlly fell to WDC, but MOS could probably have doen it better, and much sooner)

 

Or if they would've just rolled out the AMY chip, especially after the outside company actually refined it further. From the description of that chip's capabilities, it seems like it would've used the Paula - or the Ensoniq chip in the //GS - for toilet paper.

Well, I beleive Tramiel attempted to have his own team complete it, but it proved excessevly difficult without the original project members. Note that it wouldn't have necessarily been possible for Tramiel to brink such teams over to Atari Corp as many chose to leave durring the transition. (not just those being let go) Perhaps some 3rd party might have better completed the design though. That's just one among many promising designs that became lost after Atari Corp was formed (grated that one was attemped to be completed), soem other big ones were atari inc's fully prototyped 16 bit computer designs (especially the sierra, gaza, and rainbow/silver and gold chipsets -I think AMY had originally coinsided with these projects). I'm sure Jack would have loved to use some of those designs, but they became casuaties to the breaking up of Atari Inc to Atari Corp. (I believe a lot of doccuments walked of along with personell)

Soem of those designs may have been a bit higher end (workstaion class) than what Jack was interested in, but I think soem could have fit well, or at least portions could have been applied to a more cut-down system. I'm not sure of the details though, that's one of the things Atarimuseum is due for an update about.

 

However, for ST sound, I think FM synthesis could have been a decent option. There are a few possible routes, going with an internal redesign (addition) would be the most flexible. The YM2203 is interesting as it retains compatibility with the YM2149 (including I/O), uses the same package, but adds 3 4-op FM synthesis channels (but requires an external DAC). The YM2608 adds a bunch more with 2149 compatibility as well as 6 4-op FM channels, 6 "rhythm tone" channels, an ADPCM channel (2-16 kHz sample rate). (but it also needs an external DAC and apparently Yamaha ADPCM set-ups were a bit expensive to implement, requiring dedicated memory I believe maybe even SRAM, but I'm not sure of th especifics)

The YM2413 is extremely low cost, small (18 pin narrow DIP), requires no external DAC, but also rather basic in capabilites. The YM2612 might be the best option with 6 4-op FM channels, integrated DAC, and ability for direct access to an 8-bit linear DAC with FM channel 6 disabled. (Genesis used this, but was greatly hindered by not having the CPU's interrupt line connected tot he YM2612 for precise timing, thus PCM playback was resourse intensice and sloppy -no idea what it ended up like that) With the int line connected to teh 68k, it should be far better for sample playback than the YM2149 (in both quality and resourse required).

 

For an add-on cartridge (or midi module) the YM2413 would probably be the way to go though, but since there's no audio lines to the mixing port, that might be a bit problematic. (meaning you wouldn't be able to use the standard audio out or mix the YM2149 sound) So really, an integrated upgrade is by far the most practical. (YM2612 preferably)

 

 

As for the EST - which was being rumored back in 86-87 - it should've at least matched the Amiga in all graphics and sound capabilities, if not surpassed them.

The EST design kind of looks like the precurser to the TT, but they ended up cutting back (no BLiTTER II) and eventually switching to the 030.

One thing that does seem a bit odd on the TT's Shifter II is that the 256 color mode is limited to 320x480 (unless the discriptions I've read are oversimplified); it seems liek 320x240 would be useful too. (square pixels, double buffering within alotted video RAM, and better for games -not that that was a primary concern for the TT)

Edited March 10, 2010 by kool kitty89

[Mr.Amiga500]

From my username, you can probably tell I'm a bit biased, but... can the ST OS be made to look better than my Amiga 500 screenshots? (signature link) I'm just wondering because every ST screenshot I've ever seen looks primitive and old. I'm not trying to troll - just wondering. (I would be happy to see amazing ST screenshots - using ST equivalent of A500, without graphics card)

 

Yeah, "eye candy" is overrated and not really necessary, but the ability to do this shows the flexibility of the OS. (...and I like "eye candy" better than "eye poison" )

[Zogging Hell]

From my username, you can probably tell I'm a bit biased, but... can the ST OS be made to look better than my Amiga 500 screenshots? (signature link) I'm just wondering because every ST screenshot I've ever seen looks primitive and old. I'm not trying to troll - just wondering. (I would be happy to see amazing ST screenshots - using ST equivalent of A500, without graphics card)

 

Yeah, "eye candy" is overrated and not really necessary, but the ability to do this shows the flexibility of the OS. (...and I like "eye candy" better than "eye poison" )

 

Depends whether we're talking straight up GEM on a plain vanilla 520STFM, in which case that answer would be a no. If we're talking about one of a zillion desktop upgrades for a plain vanilla STFM then a slightly less colourful equivalent of that could be achieved without too many probs. See I think while Amiga owners mainly only ever really used Amiga OS as their main operating system, ST owners ended up having to branch out into replacement software to get something really nice looking. Desktop environments could be selected from Neodesk, Teradesk, Magicdesk, Thing, Gemini, and best of the lot Jinnee plus a wealth of others. And multitasking OS/AES combos can be any of the following Mint + XaAES, Mint + MyAES, MultiTOS, Geneva or Magic plus a few other lesser ones. All of these things can be plonked together, and I can't imagine a lot of Atari users were/ are using straight up GEM on its own. It all depends on how much memory or power you want/ed to use or how geeky you wanted to get. Magic and Jinnee can produce a thoroughly nice working environment, but it's a bit resource heavy. What I liked about plain vanilla GEM is though is; it's simple to use, and does just enough with a nice clean interface which makes it clear what's going on. It doesn't get in the way of the real reason to use a computer. The programs. In fact you didn't even have to see the desktop, just set the program to autorun and that was it.

What resolution is that desktop of yours running in btw, my Amiga 500 looks horrendous compared to that. Does it impact performance? I suspect the answer is no, but be honest!

 

Hold I've been lured back into this undying thread again... AAArrgghh!

[+wood_jl]

What I liked about plain vanilla GEM is though is; it's simple to use, and does just enough with a nice clean interface which makes it clear what's going on. It doesn't get in the way of the real reason to use a computer. The programs. In fact you didn't even have to see the desktop, just set the program to autorun and that was it.

 

Agreed. Maybe the ST desktop was designed "by morons for morons" but it is easy to use. It's rather more like the Mac (of the era) than trying to get fancy. If you see the desktop as a means rather than an end, it worked pretty well. I never got into all that "fancy icon" stuff when I had the ST before; I was just in a hurry to double-click whatever it was I *really* was after.

 

I just got my first Amiga yesterday, and I will say for sure that it is not as easy to use as the simpleton ST. I have no doubt it's a more powerful OS though, and I am admittedly completely ignorant of its workings. However, "too simple" yet easy to use ain't a bad thing either. While far from rocket science (but myself far from genius as well) there's definitely more to learn going from ST to Amiga than the opposite.

 

Quite interesting, the musings of ST/Amiga users each "going the other way" and trying the machine. Pretty much the Amiga users of this site (and these flamewars too) are responsible for making me finally want to try "the other."

[+save2600]

Three SF354 disk drives in my house. NONE work. Still trying to "enjoy" an ST to no avail. Scratch that, one drive will actually boot a real commercial ST disk I have: Star Raiders. Yay. lol

[kool kitty89]

Depends whether we're talking straight up GEM on a plain vanilla 520STFM, in which case that answer would be a no. If we're talking about one of a zillion desktop upgrades for a plain vanilla STFM

Not to mention a TT030 or Falcon. (the latter would be a rather rare case compared to the AGA amigas though)

[Mr.Amiga500]

What resolution is that desktop of yours running in btw, my Amiga 500 looks horrendous compared to that. Does it impact performance? I suspect the answer is no, but be honest!

 

Well, I won't lie... it does affect performance slightly, but I'm willing to accept a slight slowdown for nice imagery. On my A500, I mostly use 696x482 NTSC high-res interlaced - maximum I can get on an NTSC Commodore 1080/1084 (on my A3000 with VGA, I use NTSC 720x480). My palette and config have been specifically selected to minimize flicker. Notice how I never have white and black horizontal lines on top of each other (standard config which flickers badly!), but instead have shades of light grey and blues.

 

I hear you can get non-flickering high-res B&W on an ST, but if it's B&W then how good can browsing be? I'd rather have a slightly flickering 16-colour high-res Amiga.

[+wood_jl]

(on my A3000 with VGA, I use NTSC 720x480)

 

How come you're not Mr.Amiga3000?

[akator]

From my username, you can probably tell I'm a bit biased, but... can the ST OS be made to look better than my Amiga 500 screenshots? (signature link) I'm just wondering because every ST screenshot I've ever seen looks primitive and old. I'm not trying to troll - just wondering. (I would be happy to see amazing ST screenshots - using ST equivalent of A500, without graphics card)

 

Yeah, "eye candy" is overrated and not really necessary, but the ability to do this shows the flexibility of the OS. (...and I like "eye candy" better than "eye poison" )

 

That's a very nice computer collection you have

[kool kitty89]

I hear you can get non-flickering high-res B&W on an ST, but if it's B&W then how good can browsing be? I'd rather have a slightly flickering 16-colour high-res Amiga.

That's if you're talking about a vanilla ST, which, granted, has much more limited video modes than the OCS Amiga. (320x200x16, 640x200x4, 640x400 mono) It's not B/W in the sense of grayscale, but 1bpp monochrome, like the original Macintosh. (which I think is a key reason that mode was included -MAC competition being a key aim of the ST)

 

There's the upgraded shifter 2 in the Atari TT030 with 320x480x256 and 640x480x16 modes (both at VGA sync rates), and the much extended falcon (superior to AGA's color capabilities in some ways -like highcolor support).

 

Here's DarkLord's Falcon page: http://www.darkforce.org/index2.html

 

And some page ont eh TT030 http://pagesperso-orange.fr/gtello/tt_e.htm

[Zogging Hell]

 

Well, I won't lie... it does affect performance slightly, but I'm willing to accept a slight slowdown for nice imagery. On my A500, I mostly use 696x482 NTSC high-res interlaced - maximum I can get on an NTSC Commodore 1080/1084 (on my A3000 with VGA, I use NTSC 720x480). My palette and config have been specifically selected to minimize flicker. Notice how I never have white and black horizontal lines on top of each other (standard config which flickers badly!), but instead have shades of light grey and blues.

 

I hear you can get non-flickering high-res B&W on an ST, but if it's B&W then how good can browsing be? I'd rather have a slightly flickering 16-colour high-res Amiga.

 

The black and white is pretty dire for internet browsing, if you want to visit sites with lots of images, then again an ST isn't the best choice for this anyway, unless you have graphics card and a processor upgrade. What the black and white does do however is give you a rock steady picture for DTP, CAD, Word processing etc, a lot easier on the eye if you're using it for long periods. I'm staggered to know you even picked your palette to reduce flicker! Looks very good btw :-)

[Mr.Amiga500]

How come you're not Mr.Amiga3000?

 

Well that would be silly.

 

No, I was Mr.Amiga500 (mr_a500, for short) long before I got any other Amiga. I suppose I could now be called Mr.Amiga1000500200030004000 (...then concatenate all the other computers I own on the end), but I haven't gotten around to changing it.

 

That's a very nice computer collection you have

 

Thanks. It has grown since then, adding the awesome SDrive NUXX, USB 2.0 on the A3000, NEW Atari 800XL, NEW TAC-2 joystick, NEW TRS-80 Model 100 with SD reader, a two drive Mac SE, non-yellow Apple Extended keyboards, Amiga S-video adapter, various other bits. (... but now I'll get killed by the wife if I add any more.)

 

There's the upgraded shifter 2 in the Atari TT030 with 320x480x256 and 640x480x16 modes (both at VGA sync rates), and the much extended falcon (superior to AGA's color capabilities in some ways -like highcolor support).

 

Here's DarkLord's Falcon page: http://www.darkforce.org/index2.html

 

And some page ont eh TT030 http://pagesperso-orange.fr/gtello/tt_e.htm

 

Yes, I've seen those screenshots before. That's what I mean by "primitive looking" GUI.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Mr.Amiga500

[Zogging Hell]

Three SF354 disk drives in my house. NONE work. Still trying to "enjoy" an ST to no avail. Scratch that, one drive will actually boot a real commercial ST disk I have: Star Raiders. Yay. lol

 

You do know the SF354 was a single sided drive don't you? Very little stuff will run on them anyway! The SF314 was the double sided one. Star Raiders probably works because it's such an old game it's single sided. If your other drives aren't working I'd suggest using the combination of a floppy disk cleaning floppy and trying to format a single sided disk. I find the combo of cleaning the drive heads and then trying to format a floppy a couple of times and then repeating can bring dead drives back to life. I think the SF354 uses drive belts to rotate the disk however and it might be that these have had it. After a bit the belt perishes and goes too slack to turn the drive. They really are the worst drive to use, period. I'm open to corrections on that one however!

[Zogging Hell]

Yes, I've seen those screenshots before. That's what I mean by "primitive looking" GUI.

 

lol Well yes, mainly I think due to the big white labels under the drives on the Darkforce one and the garish colour scheme on the other. On basic GEM the labels were fine, but when I upgraded my desktop those labels looked a bit rough! Jinnee is much better, transparent labels and loads more options. Most AESs these days allow themes as well so you can change the look of your windows etc. The icons are fully configurable btw so you could literally use any colour icon on the screen. If you were an artist you could add whatever you want. I think those are quite personal desktops.

 

I'm really going to have to get a hard drive for my Amiga, with the ST you can use it practically without one (although I haven't for about 15 years), but I simply can't enjoy the basic Amiga operating system using floppies, it just spends to long loading things. Any recommendations for a cheap standard hard drive? And what monitor are you using to get that output?

[Mr.Amiga500]

The black and white is pretty dire for internet browsing, if you want to visit sites with lots of images, then again an ST isn't the best choice for this anyway, unless you have graphics card and a processor upgrade. What the black and white does do however is give you a rock steady picture for DTP, CAD, Word processing etc, a lot easier on the eye if you're using it for long periods. I'm staggered to know you even picked your palette to reduce flicker! Looks very good btw :-)

 

Yes, I can see how a non-flickering black and white mode would be very good for word processing. That's why I found the classic B&W Macs easier on the eyes than the Amiga for "Office-type" stuff.

 

Using the Amiga in high-res interlace has always been a fight against flicker, but I've found certain colour combinations cause much less flicker than others. Unlike most Amiga users, I always used Workbench in interlace - so I put lots of effort into making configurations that minimise flicker. I use NTSC though, which doesn't flicker nearly as much as PAL. PAL users must be getting enough flicker to cause their eyeballs to implode.

 

I'm really going to have to get a hard drive for my Amiga, with the ST you can use it practically without one (although I haven't for about 15 years), but I simply can't enjoy the basic Amiga operating system using floppies, it just spends to long loading things. Any recommendations for a cheap standard hard drive? And what monitor are you using to get that output?

 

If you have an A4000 or A1200 with IDE, I wouldn't get a hard drive at all. I'd get compact flash. Who needs a hard drive these days? I use compact flash and SD in my A500, but I was lucky enough to get an accelerator with IDE on it. If you have an A2000 with SCSI card or A3000, any 50-pin SCSI drive will do.

 

What monitor? On the A500, I'm using a Commodore 1080. I like it better than the 1084 because unlike the 1084, it has non-glare coating (...and the nice Amiga logo). The maximum viewable (NTSC) is only 696x482 though. On the A3000, I use a VGA monitor - same config, but a little more space - NTSC 720x480. That's the best I can do without graphics card. I could get slightly more space with PAL, but PAL flickers too much - even on VGA monitor.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Mr.Amiga500

[Zogging Hell]

The black and white is pretty dire for internet browsing, if you want to visit sites with lots of images, then again an ST isn't the best choice for this anyway, unless you have graphics card and a processor upgrade. What the black and white does do however is give you a rock steady picture for DTP, CAD, Word processing etc, a lot easier on the eye if you're using it for long periods. I'm staggered to know you even picked your palette to reduce flicker! Looks very good btw :-)

 

Yes, I can see how a non-flickering black and white mode would be very good for word processing. That's why I found the classic B&W Macs easier on the eyes than the Amiga for "Office-type" stuff.

 

Using the Amiga in high-res interlace has always been a fight against flicker, but I've found certain colour combinations cause much less flicker than others. Unlike most Amiga users, I always used Workbench in interlace - so I put lots of effort into making configurations that minimise flicker. I use NTSC though, which doesn't flicker nearly as much as PAL. PAL users must be getting enough flicker to cause their eyeballs to implode.

 

I'm really going to have to get a hard drive for my Amiga, with the ST you can use it practically without one (although I haven't for about 15 years), but I simply can't enjoy the basic Amiga operating system using floppies, it just spends to long loading things. Any recommendations for a cheap standard hard drive? And what monitor are you using to get that output?

 

If you have an A4000 or A1200 with IDE, I wouldn't get a hard drive at all. I'd get compact flash. Who needs a hard drive these days? I use compact flash and SD in my A500, but I was lucky enough to get an accelerator with IDE on it. If you have an A2000 with SCSI card or A3000, any 50-pin SCSI drive will do.

 

What monitor? On the A500, I'm using a Commodore 1080. I like it better than the 1084 because unlike the 1084, it has non-glare coating (...and the nice Amiga logo). The maximum viewable (NTSC) is only 696x482 though. On the A3000, I use a VGA monitor - same config, but a little more space - NTSC 720x480. That's the best I can do without graphics card. I could get slightly more space with PAL, but PAL flickers too much - even on VGA monitor.

 

Of course compact flash overlooked that, it certainly has made my STs take up less space! Thanks for the advice, couldn't point me in the way of a suitable adaptor for the Amiga could you?

[Mr.Amiga500]

Of course compact flash overlooked that, it certainly has made my STs take up less space! Thanks for the advice, couldn't point me in the way of a suitable adaptor for the Amiga could you?

 

What kind of adapter - IDE to CF? I think any cheapo Chinese IDE to CF adapter will do. I've bought two different ones (about $2 each) and they both worked.

 

I forgot to mention I also used my A500 on TV using this S-video adapter. I highly recommend it - only $30 and nice clear output, quality construction. You can also use it with other computers - just plug appropriate wires in the 8-plug socket.

[Christos]

http://xaaes.atariforge.net/screenshots.php

[Mr.Amiga500]

http://xaaes.atariforge.net/screenshots.php

 

That's a definite improvement. There are some good screenshots there... but how are they getting such high resolutions and colour depth?

[Christos]

Falcon's, TT's, Clones, graphics cards etc. Basically every part of TOS can be replaced or enhanced by s/w. Do you want a background image? Download the relative s/w and add it. Also interlaced resolutions aren't something anyone would use on an Atari. I wouldn't even dream of trying it. And in my view, 2, 16, 256 colours isn't something you should be browsing with. Trust me I've been doing it for quite some time. In the end it was better to use 2 colours because rendering was much faster and it didn't really change the way things looked that much.

Those things though hurt performance. You are cramming up the bus and neither an amiga nor an ST have that much of a bandwidth....