Another missed opportunity by Atari?

[ParanoidLittleMan]

There was MC68008 with 8-bit data bus, so I don't think that it was the reason ...

[AtariNostalgia]

The 68008 was used by the Sinclair QL. It was slow, but a nice introduction to the 6800X family.

 

[zzip]

On 12/5/2020 at 1:45 AM, AtariNostalgia said:

Well, Motorola had Apple. Granted it was no IBM+clones, but it did allow for innovation by injecting cash to them. I don't think its Motorola's fault as much as Ataris'

True, but Mac was also always about 5%- give or take- of the PC market in those days, so the amount Motorola got from Apple was peanuts compared to what Intel/AMD got from the PC market.

 

At some point the "power without the price" crown shifted to the PC clone market.   Yes we would have loved to see designs advancing faster from Atari,  but they had costs to consider too.   By the time they could build an affordable (sub $1000) 68030 in the Falcon, you could get a 386/486 system that ran circles around it for roughly the same price.

[zzip]

On 12/5/2020 at 3:01 AM, ParanoidLittleMan said:

IBM did selection of CPU probably in 1980, since PC was launched in 1981. Most common explanation is that MC68000 was still with some bugs then.

And I guess that 8086/88 option was cheaper. Actually, considering prices of 16-bit CPUs then, that was pretty much diff.

Maybe bugs.  I don't think cost was the issue given that IBM spared no expense on other aspects of the PC.   The build quality of those things was amazing,  nothing like the cheap plastic/aluminum PC cases we've become used to.   So I don't think they would have cheaped out on the most important component.

 

[leech]

48 minutes ago, zzip said:

Maybe bugs.  I don't think cost was the issue given that IBM spared no expense on other aspects of the PC.   The build quality of those things was amazing,  nothing like the cheap plastic/aluminum PC cases we've become used to.   So I don't think they would have cheaped out on the most important component.

 

Yeah, the actual IBMs and now even down to Lenovo, still have better build quality than most other computer manufacturers.

[Lynxpro]

On 11/22/2020 at 3:18 PM, Xebec said:

Was a 68000 - 16 MHz actually significantly more expensive than an 8 MHz 68000 by 88-89 ?

 

The 68000 8 MHz debuted many many years earlier..  

 

EDIT:  And why did Shiraz leave Atari in 87?

 

I doubt it. An 8MHz 68000 was somewhere between $4 and $8 per chip in sufficiently ordered lots back in circa 1985. And that CPU originally was released in 1979. The Motorola 68020 was released in 1984.  But the 68000 must've been cheaper and available from multiple second-source vendors as opposed to the 68010 which is probably why Amiga, Apple, and Atari all went with the 68000 as their base CPU. The former Atari Coin, aka the separate Atari Games Corp, certainly used a lot of 68010s in their arcade machines from 1985 on. And many of their employees like Ed Logg, were also Atari ST fans [there were also a lot of Amiga fans too] despite various animosities between Atari Games and Tramiel's Atari Corp.

[Lynxpro]

On 11/16/2020 at 6:55 AM, zzip said:

VGA came out in 1987.

 

ST was roughly on par with EGA graphics, better in some ways, worse in others.   EGA came out in 1984, ST in 85.   So ST graphics were pretty current in 85.

 

When STe came out, VGA was older than EGA was when ST came.   Even if VGA-level was too expensive,  it could have used an extra bit-plane or two to bring it to 32 or 64 colors and bring it closer to Amiga.

 

 

I do remember that most of us were expecting VGA graphics - or at least matching or besting the Amiga - out of the STe and a faster CPU clock speed and it was disappointing when it didn't deliver those features upon release. Or a 68010 or 68020. Or a standard 1.44MB disc drive. Or multitasking. Or an FPU Socket. Or GDOS in ROM. Or in a Mega ST case.

[Xebec]

13 hours ago, Lynxpro said:

 

I do remember that most of us were expecting VGA graphics - or at least matching or besting the Amiga - out of the STe and a faster CPU clock speed and it was disappointing when it didn't deliver those features upon release. Or a 68010 or 68020. Or a standard 1.44MB disc drive. Or multitasking. Or an FPU Socket. Or GDOS in ROM. Or in a Mega ST case.

 

Interesting on the EGA/VGA graphics comparison

 

At launch, EGA attached to the PC via an 8-bit bus @ 8MHz (maybe later 16-bit), but had it's own memory - 64KB.  That 64KB allowed for 640x350 with 4 colors (ahead of 640x400 / 2 colors on the ST).  320x200x16 color (4bit) was also possible which is equal to the ST, though the ST had a way better color palette - 512 colors vs 64 colors.  

 

Another angle is cost -- a "low end" EGA card or "Standard" card - the ATI EGA wonder was $399 in March of 1987.  The 512KB STs were probably under the $700 launch price by this time.  

 

A final angle would be around blitter or other capabilities;  if the ST has the blitter on 100% of machines as intended, that would have negated any advantages a separate buffer EGA cards had (Vs main ram), IMO.  EGA was pretty 'dumb' though as far as what it could do by itself.. 

 

EGA definitely gave the PC the capability to look respectable vs. the ST 1985-1988 or so, but many PCs were still running CGA at this time, and an EGA PC would likely have been 2x the price of the ST so I think the ST would have been perceived as 'good' graphics at the time.

 

As for STe;  completely agree.   It should have gotten at least a faster CPU (68000@16 MHz or better), and more than just the 4096 color palette on the graphics side - even if it was just more colors at same resolutions.  A 68020@16MHz MHz TT + blitter would have been really nice..  

[zzip]

9 minutes ago, Xebec said:

Another angle is cost -- a "low end" EGA card or "Standard" card - the ATI EGA wonder was $399 in March of 1987.  The 512KB STs were probably under the $700 launch price by this time.

I bought a 520STfm in 1987 for something like $399 without monitor.  I think this was the first time Atari was selling them without monitors.

 

15 minutes ago, Xebec said:

A final angle would be around blitter or other capabilities;  if the ST has the blitter on 100% of machines as intended, that would have negated any advantages a separate buffer EGA cards had (Vs main ram), IMO.  EGA was pretty 'dumb' though as far as what it could do by itself.. 

 

EGA definitely gave the PC the capability to look respectable vs. the ST 1985-1988 or so, but many PCs were still running CGA at this time, and an EGA PC would likely have been 2x the price of the ST so I think the ST would have been perceived as 'good' graphics at the time.

The fact that your program had to copy all graphics data to video ram over an 8-bit 8mhz bus that was shared with other components meant that EGA wasn't doing high-performance graphics no matter what your CPU speed was.

 

Back then I used to feel envious about systems that had better graphics capabilities on paper.  At the time I got all my information from magazines.   Pretty screenshots and tech specs don't always tell you how it performs at real world tasks.  When I got to use the machines, performance was a bit of a shock.  It was good for presentations, but not that great for gaming.

[Xebec]

17 hours ago, zzip said:

I bought a 520STfm in 1987 for something like $399 without monitor.  I think this was the first time Atari was selling them without monitors.

 

The fact that your program had to copy all graphics data to video ram over an 8-bit 8mhz bus that was shared with other components meant that EGA wasn't doing high-performance graphics no matter what your CPU speed was.

 

Back then I used to feel envious about systems that had better graphics capabilities on paper.  At the time I got all my information from magazines.   Pretty screenshots and tech specs don't always tell you how it performs at real world tasks.  When I got to use the machines, performance was a bit of a shock.  It was good for presentations, but not that great for gaming.

Nice re: $399 - I was curious if the whole computer was the same price as "just a low end / average EGA card" :).

 

On one hand, I definitely agree with the EGA card + PCs not being great for gaming.. but the 640x350 @ 4 colors definitely made it useful for productivity with *some* gaming.  You certainly had point and click adventures well at hand for 'off hours', with slowly improving GUIs and nice large spreadsheets on the other hand.

 

That said - doesn't the base 520STf without the blitter have the same equivalent graphics performance potential as EGA on the ISA bus?  16-bit @ 8 MHz / 2 (shared) vs 8-bit @ 8 MHz (not shared memory), because the ST bus is shared between the video circuitry and the CPU? 

[ParanoidLittleMan]

9 hours ago, Xebec said:

Nice re: $399 - I was curious if the whole computer was the same price as "just a low end / average EGA card" :).

 

On one hand, I definitely agree with the EGA card + PCs not being great for gaming.. but the 640x350 @ 4 colors definitely made it useful for productivity with *some* gaming.  You certainly had point and click adventures well at hand for 'off hours', with slowly improving GUIs and nice large spreadsheets on the other hand.

 

That said - doesn't the base 520STf without the blitter have the same equivalent graphics performance potential as EGA on the ISA bus?  16-bit @ 8 MHz / 2 (shared) vs 8-bit @ 8 MHz (not shared memory), because the ST bus is shared between the video circuitry and the CPU? 

I bought my 520 ST in that year for approx. same price (1000 DEM) .

RAM  is shared between CPU and video, but it does not mean slowdown - cycle time for access is 500 nS from CPU and same from video, while RAM cycle time is 250 nS - and there are buffers to make possible that both access RAM if it happens in exact same time - clever design. And 8 MHz bus speed must be not same as bus speed of CPU clocked with 8 MHz. It depends from CPU design too.

[Lynxpro]

On 12/11/2020 at 12:09 PM, Xebec said:

 

Interesting on the EGA/VGA graphics comparison

 

At launch, EGA attached to the PC via an 8-bit bus @ 8MHz (maybe later 16-bit), but had it's own memory - 64KB.  That 64KB allowed for 640x350 with 4 colors (ahead of 640x400 / 2 colors on the ST).  320x200x16 color (4bit) was also possible which is equal to the ST, though the ST had a way better color palette - 512 colors vs 64 colors.  

 

Another angle is cost -- a "low end" EGA card or "Standard" card - the ATI EGA wonder was $399 in March of 1987.  The 512KB STs were probably under the $700 launch price by this time.  

 

A final angle would be around blitter or other capabilities;  if the ST has the blitter on 100% of machines as intended, that would have negated any advantages a separate buffer EGA cards had (Vs main ram), IMO.  EGA was pretty 'dumb' though as far as what it could do by itself.. 

 

EGA definitely gave the PC the capability to look respectable vs. the ST 1985-1988 or so, but many PCs were still running CGA at this time, and an EGA PC would likely have been 2x the price of the ST so I think the ST would have been perceived as 'good' graphics at the time.

 

As for STe;  completely agree.   It should have gotten at least a faster CPU (68000@16 MHz or better), and more than just the 4096 color palette on the graphics side - even if it was just more colors at same resolutions.  A 68020@16MHz MHz TT + blitter would have been really nice..  

 

Cost is not a real argument because Atari's own IBM PC compatibles at the same time had dedicated RAM for their video cards and the systems themselves were generally cheaper than the STs. And despite them having to license MS-DOS from Microsoft and GEM from DRI. And the first Atari PC clones had EGA graphics. In 1987/1988. 

[calimero]

I think that Atari PC had integrated EGA on the board... so it was cheaper then separate EGA card. 

[leech]

3 hours ago, calimero said:

I think that Atari PC had integrated EGA on the board... so it was cheaper then separate EGA card. 

Yeah, by at least the PC4 it had integrated MCA, CGA, EGA and VGA.  would have been pretty impressive back in the day.  But who thought 'I need a PC... I will buy an Atari!'?

[Xebec]

20 hours ago, Lynxpro said:

 

Cost is not a real argument because Atari's own IBM PC compatibles at the same time had dedicated RAM for their video cards and the systems themselves were generally cheaper than the STs. And despite them having to license MS-DOS from Microsoft and GEM from DRI. And the first Atari PC clones had EGA graphics. In 1987/1988. 

I apologize if I wasn't clear - I was responding to the earlier comments in this thread about how good the ST graphics were at the time of it's release in 1985;  EGA being a 'wide standard' (as it launched on the PC around the same time) seemed like a good comparison.  ST graphics are definitely ahead of PC CGA  (the Atari 8bit is basically CGA), but I'm not sure if the ST is actually any better than EGA.   

[leech]

1 hour ago, Xebec said:

I apologize if I wasn't clear - I was responding to the earlier comments in this thread about how good the ST graphics were at the time of it's release in 1985;  EGA being a 'wide standard' (as it launched on the PC around the same time) seemed like a good comparison.  ST graphics are definitely ahead of PC CGA  (the Atari 8bit is basically CGA), but I'm not sure if the ST is actually any better than EGA.   

Eh?  Atari 8bit have better colors and capability overall than CGA. 

[Xebec]

6 minutes ago, leech said:

Eh?  Atari 8bit have better colors and capability overall than CGA. 

Agreed; not here to talk about the 8bit or CGA though wrong forum

[leech]

5 hours ago, Xebec said:

Agreed; not here to talk about the 8bit or CGA though wrong forum

Ha, you went there first.  But yes.  

 

Also, didn't I visit the city of your Demise?

A little more back on topic, who else thinks that the Falcon should have had TT resolutions built into it from the beginning, instead of added to a version of TOS that never got an official release?  Would have been nice if TOS 5.0 had ever made it out.

[zzip]

On 12/12/2020 at 8:55 AM, Xebec said:

On one hand, I definitely agree with the EGA card + PCs not being great for gaming.. but the 640x350 @ 4 colors definitely made it useful for productivity with *some* gaming.  You certainly had point and click adventures well at hand for 'off hours', with slowly improving GUIs and nice large spreadsheets on the other hand.

There were a lot of games from that era that I'm sure would work fine.  Stuff like Bard's Tale comes to mind.  Adventure/RPG/Strategy games were very popular on computers.  But games that needed fast screen updates like arcade/action games were the one's that suffered.   Usually arcade style games were not that great on PC in the 80's

 

On 12/12/2020 at 8:55 AM, Xebec said:

That said - doesn't the base 520STf without the blitter have the same equivalent graphics performance potential as EGA on the ISA bus?  16-bit @ 8 MHz / 2 (shared) vs 8-bit @ 8 MHz (not shared memory), because the ST bus is shared between the video circuitry and the CPU? 

I think the main difference is on ST the video ram was in main ram,  and on PC it had to be copied to video ram over an external bus.  Of course ST had to move memory around too.   So I don't know how much of an actual difference it made.   The ST's before blitter didn't exactly have stellar video performance,  you could especially notice it when blitting large objects.

[zzip]

17 hours ago, leech said:

Eh?  Atari 8bit have better colors and capability overall than CGA. 

CGA can actually do 16 color @ 320x200 when used on a composite monitor/TV.    But CGA cards with composite output became rare,  so it ended being used mostly for the ugly magenta/cyan mode we associate with CGA.

[+DarkLord]

3 hours ago, zzip said:

There were a lot of games from that era that I'm sure would work fine.  Stuff like Bard's Tale comes to mind.  Adventure/RPG/Strategy games were very popular on computers.  But games that needed fast screen updates like arcade/action games were the one's that suffered.   Usually arcade style games were not that great on PC in the 80's

 

 

Ugh. Ever seen Bards Tale under MS-DOS? Nasty/ugly stuff. The Bard on the opening screen looks like a zombie.

Don't know how many colors were used but sheesh...

 

Felt the same way with Arctic Fox on the PC. After seeing games under Amiga/Apple/Atari, they were *pale* in comparison.

 

Literally.

 

[leech]

17 minutes ago, DarkLord said:

 

Ugh. Ever seen Bards Tale under MS-DOS? Nasty/ugly stuff. The Bard on the opening screen looks like a zombie.

Don't know how many colors were used but sheesh...

 

Felt the same way with Arctic Fox on the PC. After seeing games under Amiga/Apple/Atari, they were *pale* in comparison.

 

Literally.

 

This is the reason having that PC4 was kind of disappointing as for the most part any 286 era DOS games looked FAR better on the ST / Amiga.  It wasn't really until 486 days with VGA and Soundblasters being common enough that they had gotten better.

[zzip]

20 minutes ago, DarkLord said:

 

Ugh. Ever seen Bards Tale under MS-DOS? Nasty/ugly stuff. The Bard on the opening screen looks like a zombie.

Don't know how many colors were used but sheesh...

 

Felt the same way with Arctic Fox on the PC. After seeing games under Amiga/Apple/Atari, they were *pale* in comparison.

 

Literally.

 

The EGA version generally looks better than the Apple II/C64 originals.   It resembles the enhanced graphics of the Amiga/ST versions, but doesn't have the color palette to fully pull it off.  Still I was talking about games that don't need fast graphics to be playable on PC,  not necessarily games that looked exceptional on PC :)

[leech]

7 hours ago, zzip said:

The EGA version generally looks better than the Apple II/C64 originals.   It resembles the enhanced graphics of the Amiga/ST versions, but doesn't have the color palette to fully pull it off.  Still I was talking about games that don't need fast graphics to be playable on PC,  not necessarily games that looked exceptional on PC

Shame that the IIGS didn't get Bard's Tale III.  I believe I read that Rebecca has the almost finished version of it but isn't allowed to publish it. 

Then again, I am irritated the ST didn't get 2 and 3.  Then again the ST got Phantasie 1-3 but the Amiga got only 1 and 3, which is even stranger.

It is a sad fact though that a lot of software back then was created on one platform then ported to others, and usually did not take advantage of each of the various benefits of those platforms.

[zzip]

11 hours ago, leech said:

Then again, I am irritated the ST didn't get 2 and 3.  Then again the ST got Phantasie 1-3 but the Amiga got only 1 and 3, which is even stranger.

Really?  That's weird.    Seems to be common thing for RPGs though.  ST has Ultima 2-6, but not 1.   Not even the "remastered" version of Ultima I that Origin released in 86.   And Questron II, but not I.