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