Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!rb
From: rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Big, Slimy Atari Ads
Message-ID: <267@ccivax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 22:09:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccivax.267
Posted: Wed Sep 18 22:09:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 10:12:55 EDT
References: <3644@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group,  Rochester NY
Lines: 74

> From: Dan Franklin 
> 
> The Atari ad was really very clever in its subtle distortions and omissions.
> For anyone who couldn't remember offhand, when seeing that ad, just why
> the Amiga might be worth $1000 more than the Atari 520ST, here are some entries
> they SHOULD have had in that table but didn't...
> 
> 		        ATARI 520ST     Amiga
> Screen Resolution
> Interlaced, color	640x200		640x400

	you forgot to mention amiga has more color's at comparable resolutions.
> 
> Windowing Hardware      No (I assume)   Yes
> 
> Maximum RAM		???		8 MB (theoretically, anyway)
  Maximum RAM		2MB**		 (how much will it cost?)
> 
> Multitasking OS		No (I assume)	Yes
			Not at this time
 
> Sprite Hardware		No (I assume)   Yes
 			  Yes (but not TI/800/COMMODORE)
> Hardware collision      No              Yes
> detection		 (are you sure?)
> 
> IBM PC Emulation        No              Yes

Is anything really compatible with IBM (AT isn't) ?
			 (no but program look-alikes are coming)
			(data format compatiblity if you can find the
			 one of a kind DIN plug [a contradictory term],
			a cable and 5 1/4 disk are all that's needed.

The operating system will suppore at least 1 meg with a theoretical maximum
of 2 meg, but it is a "hardware hack" to do the expansion. (anybody tried
adding two meg yet?)

> And of course Atari quotes the Amiga price with color monitor and compares it
					     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I thought the monitor brought the price well above what they quoted.
> to the Atari 520ST price with monochrome monitor.


The point of this ad is not which machine is techically better (Commodore
is Clearly a better machine), but whether the Commodore is at least TWICE AS
GOOD, and whether you want to pay that much.  It is interesting that they
didn't compare themselves to the PC, APPLE ][, and the C-128.  For that
matter, they could have compared themselves in price to VT100's, low res
graphics terminals, and other "business alternatives".  It looks like they
wanted to be compared with business machines.

If there is a war between the AMIGA and the ST over the next "Industry
standard",  the ability to get more machines on the market because of
a lower price may be Atari's only edge.	 The PDP-11 wasn't as powerful
as an IBM-370, but it broke IBM's choke-hold on the market.  Commodore
is priced right at IBM's best market, IBM can always upgrade their
graphics (EGA,PGA??), that is a very dangerous position.

The winner (Atari/Commodore) should be obvious by the end of November.
The one with the most software to support it, will probably carry the
"New Standard".  Buy the way, there are already a few companies
discussing "Atari Compatibles", or OEM'ing ST's.  How hard would it be
to make a "Commodore Compatible" (very)?  How hard to make a TOS
compatible (the hardware could be virtually anything).  My guess is
that we will see a "Third party standard" for BOTH machines (OS9-68K or
Xenix ?) because we need a familiar multitasking system and Un*x is too
expensive.  If AT&T wanted to get a BIG market for SYS-V, they could
clean-up with an unbundled kernal for under $100, but WILL THEY DO IT?

Let's just hope they keep their OS in RAM long enough for someone to
develope a multi-tasking system (NO MORE MUCKING AROUND IN THE BIOS)
see Dvorak's Column in Infow*ld for a good description of the effects
of BIOS HACKING APPLICATIONS.