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: Atari ST worse than 800?
Message-ID: <271@ccivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 23:28:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccivax.271
Posted: Thu Sep 19 23:28:45 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 12:22:16 EDT
References: <3656@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group,  Rochester NY
Lines: 25

> Messages I have seen on this list imply that the new (ST) computer
> lacks even some of the graphics hardware that the 800 has.  Is this
> true?  Really?  Why!!??
> 
> BillW
> -------

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR APOLOGY ***

Actually, both AMIGA and ST have the same foundation around the GTIA
(the 800's graphics chip), in fact Tramael wanted to get it for
Commodore, but Atari had the patents.  Each crosses the best parts
of the GTIA, the 7220, and C64 chips.  Things like line drawing,
circles, arc's and fills are now done buy the video chip instead of
the processor.  The inventor of the GTIA was actually in charge of
AMIGA and added a lot of new features.  There were a few tradeoffs
though.  Amiga's chip uses more sprites and play field (involves very
tricky ram timing), the ST does a lot more DMA painting directly on
the screen.  It is possible for a sprite to leave a "tail" on the
Atari buy not erasing the entire sprite as it is being moved.

Sprites like "PAC MAN" are sort of "old hat" these days, things like
"battle zone" and "flight simulator" require a different approach.
Atari has focused more effort in this direction.  I wonder if one
of them has a "rotate playfield" command?