Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eneevax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!eneevax!ravi From: ravi@eneevax.UUCP (Ravi Kulkarni) Newsgroups: net.micro.atari,net.micro.cbm Subject: Re: Amiga vs. ST Message-ID: <338@eneevax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 01:44:18 EDT Article-I.D.: eneevax.338 Posted: Thu Aug 8 01:44:18 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 11-Aug-85 04:46:16 EDT References: <268@ihnet.UUCP> <1669@hao.UUCP> <5436@fortune.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: U of Maryland, EE Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 46 Xref: linus net.micro.atari:932 net.micro.cbm:1471 >Just as the C-64/Atari/Apple ][ have a different market than the IBM PC-AT, >the Amiga has a different market than the Atari ST. Comparing the Atari ST >to the Amiga is like comparing a Timex to a PC-AT. I think that the Atari ST >sounds like a fine machine, and a good value for the money, but it is just >not in the same league as the Amiga. I am not trying to start any arguments, > ... I think your analogy of comparing the timex and pc-at with the atari 520ST and amiga is a little off base. I have seen a lot of hype about the amiga, but when I look at the specs the difference is not that great. I haven't seen the amiga but I am willing to admit that it is a more powerful machine, because of the special bit blt hardware and the multitasking os. Where people have to make the judgement is it worth all that extra money. The bitblt stuff is great if you are playing games or doing animation but I don't think it adds much for other applications. Even serious applications such as cad/cam don't benifit because at the resolutions we are talking about the 68000 is plenty fast enough. The multitasking feature is a definite plus, but again here it is not multitasking in the way us unix users are used to. Since there is no memory management the programs have to be well behaved and are limited to 32k segments. This is worse than the ibm pc which has 64k segments but at least has the option of large model compilers. The ST has the capability of running this type of multitasking os as well since it's io is asynchronous and has a prioritized interrupt controller and a dma controller. I imagine something like OS9 would run very well. The sound issue is a wash as the amiga has better builtin sound but the ST has integrated midi controllers into the machine. The ST has as open an architecture as the amiga through the 1Mbyte/sec dma channel. In fact if we are allowed to talk about vaporware, atari is planning on an expansion box connected to the high speed dma channel with better graphics capability and 32bit processors. So you decide if you want to pay $800-$1000 for an atari ST with a hard disk interface, with midi controllers, equivalent memory and processor speed to an amiga or pay $2000 for an amiga with bitblt support, better builtin sound, multitasking and don't forget to add more money for the hard disk interface, and the midi controllers. I didn't want to take sides in the ST vs Amiga argument, as I think the amiga is a nice machine, but it seems that the amiga is being over hyped both in the press and on the net. For example none of magazines reviewing the amiga compare features and price with the ST but only with overpriced products like the mac and the ibm pc. -- ARPA: eneevax!ravi@maryland UUCP: [seismo,allegra]!umcp-cs!eneevax!ravi