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.