Jump to content
Tempest

Atari ST vs. Amiga

Recommended Posts

Nice vid but.. er.. A Green Battle Cruiser??

What is it with the ST and the whole "Green" thing?

 

I mean, yes, the Amiga orange and blue was awkward to say the least, but it was chosen specifically because of the way it displayed, even on really bad TVs..

 

But.. Green???

 

I have to admit, the "green desktop" thing always seemed a bit quirky...

:-) OK, green isn't one of my favorite colors.... ;-)

 

desiv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC from trek, most klingon ships are kind of greenish ;). I think Romulan ones are more green though ;). Anyway, it's more of a matter of the gouraud shader using all 16 colours than anything else. There are other animations I've seen. For example Enterprize leaving the dock and that's not green!

Edited by Christos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an Amiga 500/1200 and still have a 1040STfm and 2 STe's with 4MB RAM and I believe games simply ran better on the Amiga computers.

 

Unfortunately, both companies mismanaged their way into oblivion with incremental upgrades to their products that cost too much, or still required 3rd party add-on's to get the best out of them. Ultimately though, they failed to heed the signs from the IBM computer market where open expandability, better video displays and the pure horsepower of Intel processors were starting to make a difference. I sold my A2000HD simply because as a flight sim lover it just sucked lemons playing any sim on that using digital joysticks when compared to my 386DX-33 & analog joystick playing Chuck Yeager's Air Combat.

 

But for all of that I still have my Atari's (even if I don't use them) and no Amiga's. Why? Maybe because I loved my A800XL and as such still love the Company that made what I consider to be the best computer ever made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you had seen a screenshot of CAD 3d you'd have been on the other side! For me getting the falcon was non negotiable. It was a crappy -by now falcon standards- 3d demo that did it.

 

Christos, umm, one problem... I doubt a PC was multi-tasking or animating in 4,096 colors......or had stereo sound... or, much of ANYthing at this point...First off, PC's cost a minimum of $1000. at that time, double that of the A500... Second, even this early , the Amiga had CAD programs, can't tell ya how good they were, tho...

 

And LOL! :D

 

CAD 3d was an ST program ;) You might have seen something like this :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM7PVj41Cks

IIRC from trek, most klingon ships are kind of greenish ;). I think Romulan ones are more green though ;). Anyway, it's more of a matter of the gouraud shader using all 16 colours than anything else. There are other animations I've seen. For example Enterprize leaving the dock and that's not green!

 

Christos, my apologies then, OK? Hey, I readily admit I am a total NOOB about ST's beyond playing with a 1040ST for some few days, and what I have read online (e.g. here)

 

Well, it's all a moot point now anyway sadly....

 

All I will say in conclusion, that even very early on, Amiga demo's were impressive enough to seemingly force weak-willed persons into buying them, like me! Even here, in a rather mediocre city in the Midwest USA, there was a lot of 'buzz' over the Amiga, I could often choose from 4-5 Amiga mags at any decent newsstand....I might join my dad downtown for lunch somedays, and, rather conveniently, 2 blocks away was a Software, Etc. that sold Amiga's/games!

I wish I could find this demo.. it was a HAM mode animation of a 'Rube Goldberg'-type machine that spit out boing balls.. :D

I still have this demo SOMEwhere, and assuming the floppy works yet.. Amiga Animation Mag. it was from '88.

*grumbles as I look through all my floppies*

 

Anyway, all the good-natured kidding aside, let me go on record as saying I love both machines!

Edited by marcfrick2112

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can buy a huge house in a bad neighborhood for a lot less than a smaller one in a better neighborhood. Does that mean that I should automatically buy the bigger one because it's cheaper?

 

No, only a jackass would even raise such a preposterous question. HA HA. Anybody EXCEPT FOR the jackass would confine their house comparision to houses in the same neighborbood, or similar neighborhoods. Before we enter a debate (because I know you're dying to) about what would constitute a "similar," I'll just say that it's usually obvious.....but only to non-jackasses, so can't help you there, save for the fact that I'll let you know I don't care to discuss it.

 

I'm not living in a bad neighborhood even if I can get three times the house for the money, so price is irrelevant.

DUH!!! Compare prices in the same/similar neighborhoods....DUH!! Gkjpakjghp;jghp;asehsrogp;weho!!!

 

 

Rather than continue to waste time arguing one of the simplest concepts (price), I'll leave jackasses to argue with Economics textbooks. When I was in high school, Economics was required. In college, again.

 

If you get NOTHING ELSE out of Economics (except for a grade of "F"), how could anybody (even the jackass) not know this fundamental concept:

 

demand-curve.jpg

 

 

On the vertical axis is......PRICE!!! DUH!! YEAH!!!! NOT "what is your favorite car, " - NOT "what neighborhood shall I live in, NOT "What's my favorite computer" - BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE CONCERNS ARE ALL SUBORDINATE TO PRICE, AND THAT WAS MY ENTIRE F**KING POINT!!!! At this point, you are not arguing with me, but with every economics textbook and teacher there is, and you'd probably be arguing with a large majority of the population who knows these facts to to true, but are not teachers. So don't bother replying, I'm not going to waste my time arguing that which the textbooks, professors, and entire populace know so well. The only person dumb enough to take on such an argument would be.....<dare I say it?>..........a jackass. Won't put you on ignore, in case I see some ignorance in dire need of a few cheap potshots, but I have no interest in continuing this argument with you, WHATSOEVER. IN OTHER WORDS, PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO MY POSTS ANYMORE!!! I AM ASKING YOU NICELY!! (see the word "please" there??)

Edited by wood_jl
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank goodness for the ignore list. I can't image being in such love with myself to drop in on a group of people, call them thieves and challenge every point of view they have.

Screw this guy.

Again, Ignore List.

 

Truth hurts, doesn't it? If you're downloading software that is still under copyright then you are a thief. That's not me saying it, it's the law. The law does not recognize the concept of "abandonware". If you were hauled into court for hosting or possessing illegally obtained software, it wouldn't matter to the judge if it was a new release or if it was 20 years old. It all falls under the same laws and the punishment for the crime is the same. If you don't like the law, then tell someone who has the power to change it instead of acting like a baby who doesn't get his way.

 

Incorrect. Copyright law, specifically in the US was recently updated to specifically recognise abandoned computer software. OWNERS of abandoned software are now legally entitled to make as many copies of the software as they like, wether in contravention of the original licence terms or not. In addition, the law permits owners of said software to circumvent copy protection schemes (dongles et al) in order to back up the software. I suggest you check the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

 

http://www.joystiq.c...donware-rights/

 

And here it is from the horses mouth: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

 

Note: You still have to own the software under the standard legal definition of 'own'. Piracy is still piracy, and since, as you correctly point out, the copyright on all computer software is still valid, you can't just make copies of copyrighted software to distribute to your friends or sell on eBay; regardless of what eBay might think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank goodness for the ignore list. I can't image being in such love with myself to drop in on a group of people, call them thieves and challenge every point of view they have.

Screw this guy.

Again, Ignore List.

 

Truth hurts, doesn't it? If you're downloading software that is still under copyright then you are a thief. That's not me saying it, it's the law. The law does not recognize the concept of "abandonware". If you were hauled into court for hosting or possessing illegally obtained software, it wouldn't matter to the judge if it was a new release or if it was 20 years old. It all falls under the same laws and the punishment for the crime is the same. If you don't like the law, then tell someone who has the power to change it instead of acting like a baby who doesn't get his way.

 

Incorrect. Copyright law, specifically in the US was recently updated to specifically recognise abandoned computer software. OWNERS of abandoned software are now legally entitled to make as many copies of the software as they like, wether in contravention of the original licence terms or not. In addition, the law permits owners of said software to circumvent copy protection schemes (dongles et al) in order to back up the software. I suggest you check the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

 

http://www.joystiq.c...donware-rights/

 

And here it is from the horses mouth: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

 

Note: You still have to own the software under the standard legal definition of 'own'. Piracy is still piracy, and since, as you correctly point out, the copyright on all computer software is still valid, you can't just make copies of copyrighted software to distribute to your friends or sell on eBay; regardless of what eBay might think.

 

Did you even READ any of what you just linked to? Nothing I can see in there says that it is legal to set up a website for the sole purpose of distributing the copyrighted material of others, even if you already own a copy. Please post an excerpt that says what you think it says, because it does not say what you think it does.

 

From the 2010 update

 

(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:

 

(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and

(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

(5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace;

 

 

Nothing in there says that you have a right to make or distribute copies of games, only that you can circumvent the protection to study how it works or to fix flaws in it's functionality that may compromise the security of your computer system if it is left intact. It also says dongles for old software may circumvented if they are no longer available so if you get an old Mac loaded up with AAVID cards and software but didn't get the dongle with it then you can circumvent it, but only after reasonable effort has been expended to acquire one.

 

Going back to the 2006 update, it does say this

 

2. Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of preservation or archival reproduction of published digital works by a library or archive. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.

 

(This section also has a 3 year expiration and it's been more than 3 years since it went into affect, so it is now void)

 

"These exemptions went into effect upon publication in the Federal Register on November 27, 2006, and will remain in effect through October 27, 2009."

 

Even if the law was still in effect, however, YOU are not a library or archive, which are the only entities that were exempt under the Act. It does NOT say, that you can make a copy solely on the basis that you already own one and want a backup. Also, even though Atari computers are no longer made by Atari, they are still "reasonably available" in the marketplace simply by going on ebay or Craigslist or by going to a vintage computing/gaming show and searching for one. There are also new TOS machines still available for purchase from Medusa Systems, so as long as anyone, anywhere is still building TOS compatible systems that run all old ST software, then Atari ST software will never be copyable under the law because the format is not considered "obsolete" as defined in the law.

 

And if you think I'm nit-picking the hell out of the law, what do you think lawyers who argue cases in court get paid so much money to do? Any competent lawyer can probably find hundreds of other ways that I completely overlooked to get the courts to say that you are in violation of the law for copying games.

Edited by OldAtarian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, whatever, this topic has been beaten to death on other subforums and/or forums. The copyright holders should do what they think. And the topic is ST vs Amiga.

Edited by Christos
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice vid but.. er.. A Green Battle Cruiser??

What is it with the ST and the whole "Green" thing?

 

I mean, yes, the Amiga orange and blue was awkward to say the least, but it was chosen specifically because of the way it displayed, even on really bad TVs..

 

But.. Green???

 

I have to admit, the "green desktop" thing always seemed a bit quirky...

:-) OK, green isn't one of my favorite colors.... ;-)

 

desiv

 

Okay, don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly sure I read it somewhere...that the ST's original desktop

color was actually chosen for a specific reason...because green is one of the colors that the human eye

can perceive best.

 

So it was actually an intelligent choice, not an AESthetic (pardon the pun) one. Now don't that stop

and make you think! :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Desiv: Sorry man, 75 years at least. Disney even managed to retain rights past 100. If something is "it's not as simple" that usually works great for the lawyers and not for Atari Joe.

 

Thanks to projects like ARAnyM, FreeMint and EMUTOS AtariST users can work around copyright/trademark issues.

http://aranym.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amiga ruled - although most early games were mere ports of existing ST stuff (with improved SFX here and there as mentioned earlier in this thread). I was perfectly at home with workbench although some people slate it. I saw some great stuff on the ST but nothing really compared to the best Amiga stuff. I think the Amiga had "heart", some undefinable quality, outside of mere "specs". To a certain extent the ST did too but I was drawn to Amiga and it's what YOU like that counts.

 

I agree with everyone here that says that PC's have no soul. I can't define it but it's true.

 

By the way, I invented the Internet on the Amiga...nobody believes me, nobody listens, but it's true.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly sure I read it somewhere...that the ST's original desktop

color was actually chosen for a specific reason...because green is one of the colors that the human eye

can perceive best.

Yeah I think I read that somewhere as well and the Amiga colors were chosen because they showed up best on a TV (this was back when monitors were mega expensive).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly sure I read it somewhere...that the ST's original desktop

color was actually chosen for a specific reason...because green is one of the colors that the human eye

can perceive best.

Yeah I think I read that somewhere as well and the Amiga colors were chosen because they showed up best on a TV (this was back when monitors were mega expensive).

 

Maybe also why the Tandy Color Computer uses a black on green screen also. :)

I always felt comfortable with the green on a TV. Once I got a monitor the green seemed a bit loud though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly sure I read it somewhere...that the ST's original desktop

color was actually chosen for a specific reason...because green is one of the colors that the human eye

can perceive best.

Yeah I think I read that somewhere as well and the Amiga colors were chosen because they showed up best on a TV (this was back when monitors were mega expensive).

 

Maybe also why the Tandy Color Computer uses a black on green screen also. :)

I always felt comfortable with the green on a TV. Once I got a monitor the green seemed a bit loud though.

Personally I prefer green text on a black background like the old monochrome monitors. I could stare at one of those all day without eye strain.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tempest, ya know my late father felt the same way... His 'Real' computer was an '030 A1200, but also had a WP/'semi-computer' with a green screen.... and had a green switchable monitor on one of his OLD PC-compatibles. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly sure I read it somewhere...that the ST's original desktop

color was actually chosen for a specific reason...because green is one of the colors that the human eye

can perceive best.

Yeah I think I read that somewhere as well and the Amiga colors were chosen because they showed up best on a TV (this was back when monitors were mega expensive).

 

Surely that can't be right, the standard Amiga (1.3) workbench colours are terrible on a tv with rf. Orange and blue, bleurgh!?!? :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely that can't be right, the standard Amiga (1.3) workbench colours are terrible on a tv with rf. Orange and blue, bleurgh!?!? :)

 

Gotta agree with this. The colors bled into each other like crazy. Workbench prior to 2.0 was one of the ugliest UIs I've ever seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, don't quote me on this, but I'm fairly sure I read it somewhere...that the ST's original desktop

color was actually chosen for a specific reason...because green is one of the colors that the human eye

can perceive best.

Yeah I think I read that somewhere as well and the Amiga colors were chosen because they showed up best on a TV (this was back when monitors were mega expensive).

 

Surely that can't be right, the standard Amiga (1.3) workbench colours are terrible on a tv with rf.Orange and blue, bleurgh!?!? :)

 

From wiki for Intuition: "Users may remember the initial releases for their garish blue/orange/white/black palettes. This was intentional: in a time before cheap high-quality video monitors, the Amiga team tested output on the worst televisions they could find, with the goal of obtaining the best possible contrast under these worst-case conditions."

 

I have no idea if that's true, but I've heard that in the past as well, and makes sense to me. They sure as hell didn't choose it for beauty, so contrast sounds like as good a reason as any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea if that's true, but I've heard that in the past as well, and makes sense to me. They sure as hell didn't choose it for beauty, so contrast sounds like as good a reason as any.

I know some people don't consider RJ Mical reliable, as he tends to love to tell a story, but he's on video as having said this.

He tells a funny story about how they went to the local electronics store and asked for the worst TVs they had, and the guy started showing them the least expensive, and they said, "No, the worst quality TVs you have" or something to that extent...

 

desiv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got the book, "On The Edge", and I love reading about the people who eventually designed the Amiga. Some truly hilarious stories in there. Doesn't matter whether you're an Atari fan or a Commodore fan, the book is good.

 

I truly *wish* there was an equivalent book covering the Atari story from the time the Tramiels took over to date. I'd buy it in a heartbeat!

 

:)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only saving grace for the ST was that it was a helluva lot cheaper than the comparable Amiga model.

Ha ha! I love how you attempt to trivialize PRICE, by referring to it as "the only saving grace." PRICE IS EVERYTHING. Price is FIRST consideration of EVERYTHING.

 

In 1985, a complete 520ST system cost about the same as a Commodore 128 system, and you know they weren't selling Amiga 1000s for the same price they were selling C128s.

 

There was a significant price difference, for some time. The ST was close enough to the Amiga to give a similar 16-bit home computer experience - similar resolutions, etc. But sure, Amiga's impressive, too.

 

C128 was £399 + 1541 mk2 for £150 or £499 as a bundle. An exclusive 80 column mode colour RGB-I capable 1901 monitor was about £299. So £799 or without 1901 £499+ £199 for high quality SONY TRITRON 14" TV with composite inputs +RGB = £699 (33% less than 520ST + SC1224 bundle)

 

The 520ST needed a colour AND mono monitor, so with single disc drive and colour monitor came in at £999 with SC1224 and SF354 + £149 for SM124 so that's £1149 for 360kb disc drive + colour + mono monitors. £999 for no high res mono ability. ST had no composite out or RF out.

 

£999 = 256kb Amiga and 880kb DS/DD floppy. £299 for 1081 colour and IIRC £150-125 for 256kb expansion RAM. So 512kb A1000 + 1081 = £1450 BUT first ST had TOS on disk so 512kb 520ST = same actual memory as 256kb Amiga A1000 which has extra 192kb protected RAM to load ROM OS. So that's £1299. Amiga could use SCART TV....Sony 14" professional quality TV/Monitor was £199 AND superior to Commodore AND Atari monitor goldfish bowl warm colour biased CRT tubes.

 

So in conclusion 520ST with colour and mono monitors and SF314 720kb drive was £1199-£1249. You need the SM124 +SF314 to compare like for like. 520STM £399 + SONY TRINITRON £199 + SF314 £199 + £149 SM124 = £949 which is better value in 1986. (obviously £799 without ever using high res but Amiga didn't need separate monitor for high res)

 

This is the same as Amiga A1000 256kb (+extra 192kb WOM built in for loading disk OS) 880kb drive + Sony Trinitron 14 TV monitor = £1199. £1349 if comparing to 520ST with TOS in ROM vs 256kb+256kb Amiga 1000. This dropped to £899 for "512kb" Amiga 1000 in 1986 though so £1099 vs £949 520STM (both bundle using just Sony SCART RGB TV but STM including SM124 in fairness for business/serious use to access 640x400 mode).

 

The 520STM was the first attempt to lower price package by summer 1986, then 520STFM for £399 in 1987 was key to home user market but you were limited to 360kb disk drive internally and still needed SM124 for mono use. 520STM was offloaded at £199 by Silica Shop in 1987 + £149 SF314= £50 less than 360kb SS floppy 520STFM in 1987 which was the bargain of the century!!

 

£299 for 520STM vs £299 C128 in 1987 = same price for games players using existing TV at home true. Both need £149 disc unit too. 512kb Amiga 1000 down to £699 in early 1987 vs £449 (£299+£149) 520STM+SF354 bundle. 35% cheaper than Amiga 1000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The 520ST needed a colour AND mono monitor

 

That's false. It needed either a colour or a mono monitor depending on the application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 520ST needed a colour AND mono monitor

 

That's false. It needed either a colour or a mono monitor depending on the application.

 

You needed both to display all 3 of the ST screen modes, you can use all Amiga modes on TV. If you want to run the OS in 640x400 or DTP/Word processor AND play games in 320x200 in colour ST needed two monitors/Amiga only one.Or you could forget the SM124 and miss out on ever using high rez ;)

 

That's the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...