Atari Falcon 030 Tower

[Chewieshmoo]

May I just add in my humble opinion.....Great arguements from both sides!
Really is no right or wrong, just views from BOTH SIDES OF THE POND and also good to see you guys keeping it civil unlike the same arguement on some "other" sites!!!

[Harrison]

For me there is no point in turning any argument into a flame war. I never understand that on most forums. If you are going to discuss something then use facts and your opinion to write something constructive and hopefully of interest. What is the point in posting something online otherwise? I just don't get the trolls and flamers we all encounter on many forums these days.

A forum is for discussing, to air your opinions and views about something and to read others views on the same subject. To share ideas, to have a discussion. Why use agression and arogance when a good discussion can be had? And why do so many people see the need to win arguments all of the time on forums? A topic of discussion that is about something like this topic doesn't need a true conclusion.

There are those of use who prefer the Amiga, and those who prefer the ST. The hardware capabilities are obviously evident to everyone. However the purpose that you use either system for personally has a great effect on how you view that system and how useful and good it was for your personal needs. Regardless of processing power, graphics or sound capabilities, or the type of ports it had. If a platform delivers what you needed it to do then it is the best platform for you.

And my view on the ST vs Amiga arguments is very much that all computer systems have their plus and minus points, and were/are useful in their own right. Both the ST and Amiga were very capable systems in the 80's and early 90's and allowed their users to access software that was at the leading edge of computing at the time.

Before the ST and Amiga arrived the only other platform offering anything near to the same level of usability with a WIMPs interface was the Mac, and that was way over priced and out of the reach of normal users. Regardless of the differences, both the ST and Amiga provided the first two systems capable of finally giving users truely usable OSs to do more than basic tasks and gaming.

Yes, the capabilities of the Amiga were better then the ST's as I've been stating, but a system is only ever as good as its software. Again the Amiga's Workbench was years ahead of GEM. However the Amiga didn't have Cubase and that was a cutting edge piece of software for any digital musician and for that type of computer use the ST was a better system purely because the software was there, and the Amiga didn't have anything as good to compete in that market.

In contrast the ST had nothing to match something like Deluxe Paint for 2D bitmap and animation.

It's never clear cut from a productivity software point of view.

However you could also argue that the Mac was better than the ST because it had better DTP software and a port of Cubase, for which users did need to add a MIDI expansion. However because of cost the ST remained the favourite for MIDI enabled studios and lower budget DTP.

And actually it isn't always clear cut for gaming either. While the Amiga's hardware meant that in general games developed on the Amiga were better than the same games on the ST, it also came down to the developers. There were a few ST versions of games that are better than the Amiga versions due to poor development rather than the hardware. A great example of this is Captain Blood. This game was developed on the ST originally and used it's audio capabilities to the max to create very nice sounding music and in-game sound effects. On the Amiga, the game looked and played all but identically. However the audio was somehow messed up. The music sounded muddy and muffled by comparision and the game was missing the whol of the audio for alien speach, so you never heard a single thing in those parts of the game. Players of either version would still enjoy the game but it was better on the ST.

But back to actual hardware capabilities, and again I'm talking about what the actual internal electronics can do, not what it can be connected to. The Amiga demo scene was on the main thing that really highlighted the superiority of the Amiga over the ST at the time. Demos showing what the hardware could do with graphics and sound overshadowned anything the ST could do.

You may know more about marketing in San Diego than I do, so I may be mistaken... But, from what *I* have seen in San Diego, the marketing went like this:

Amiga: Video/Graphics & games
ST: Music/DTP
PC: Business machine

The whole if the US, not just Dan Diago. The Amiga didn't get the same support as a gaming system compared to Europe. I know this based on everything I read during the Amiga years, including US magazines alongside UK ones. The Amiga in the UK marketplace was seen as the ultimate gaming system in the late 80's. And I know this isn't generally the case in the US where it had Nindendo and Sega to compete against more so than in the UK. From my observations the US gaming market was always more console orientated, whereas in the UK home computers were more popular at the time for gaming.

And later into the life of the Amiga, the US pretty much dropped gaming and centred on professional uses like video production, 3D, Animation and graphics. Whereas in the UK the gaming market just kept on expanding. And support for the platform didn't die until the mid 90's, when most of the rest of the world had already abandoned the Amiga as a viable gaming platform.

Also it is worth noting that in the UK the ST was never widely marketed for either Music or DTP. It was marketed as a gaming platform competing directly against the Amiga. And in this marketplace the ST's hardware was woefully underpowered next to the Amiga. So often I would walk into a computer store and see the same game or demo running on both platforms alongside each other and the ST versions instantly showed the inferior capabilities of the hardware. Lower quality graphics due to a much more limited grange of colours available on screen at once, no overscan so the games always had 8-bit style borders, no copper effects so the games didn't have the great multicolours gaduated backgrounds giving the effect of a lot more colours on screen, mono tinny sound compared to 8-bit stereo sampled audio... for gaming the list of reasons why in the UK the ST was easily highlighted as a lesser system than the Amiga could go on and on.

I accept that for anyone wishing to use a computer for MIDI or DTP the ST delivered exactly what they needed. For everything else the Amiga had the advantage most of the time, especially when graphics and the OS came into the equation.

And one final thing to say. The ST wasn't born with the love that the Amiga had. Jay and the rest of the development team created something special that touched every Amiga user and continues to live on with them. For me the ST just didn't do this. It was a cabably 16-bit platform and could be used for many of the same tasks as an Amiga, but it was missing something special that the Amiga had and still has to this day every time we use them. It is the reason the Amiga community is still so active and hardware and software projects continue to be worked on and enthusiasticall received by the community. I just don't see this in the ST community. And what there was of the ST demo scene was small even at its height. The Amiga demo scene in contrast was a phenominen of great proportion and continues thrive to this day.

[Tiago]

I must say i really enjoy reading this topic.

A great example of this is Captain Blood. This game was developed on the ST originally and used it's audio capabilities to the max to create very nice sounding music and in-game sound effects

It was the first game i saw in the ST, the music was more then fantastic, 1988 i think.
One of the best games ever in the ST i think. Jean Michelle Jarre did an excellent work.

Here in Portugal, the Atari ST was very used for sound because of midi port. Many sound studios did used it for a long time. In 1989 i remeber a lot of musitians had the Atari connected to big keyboards.
Then i remember that a lot of people start to move from ST to Amiga with midi ports.
I think (may be wrong) the Atari had better software sound programs for some years, but the Amiga just did some really nice ones to, and by the 90's they were equal in music software but i think the amiga start to take a little advantage after 1990.
but in late 80's maybe they were simillar (in software)...
But i allways remember the Atari ST as a great sound studio, a lot of musitians used it (same with amiga, a bit later).
anyway, i think they were both great !! but the Amiga.... better

[quackmore]

Well it's quite easy to keep this civil since I've received such a warm welcome and inviting atmosphere!

I think I've had an advantage since I've owned both systems and can give a completely non-biased opinion. Also, I've had first hand exposure in professional environments with both.

For example, at game companies I've been to and worked at, A2000's were used to make video games for the Lynx & SNES.

TT030 to makes games on the Jaguar (I still have my Jaguar dev kit).

TT030 using DynaCad for mechanical engineering (at a company here in San Diego).

I've used multiple music studios which used ST's & Falcons (there was nothing like Cubase audio in the early 1990's).

I actually got my A4000 from work. It was used to make the glue screens and intros for Disney DVD's.

and the list goes on...

So you see, I don't come at this from merely from a user stand point, but from somebody who has seen first-hand what these computers actually have done professionally.


These questions are based on around 1992 or so...

Q: How can you replace an A500 with a ST when you need more on-screen colors?!
A: Buy a VERY expensive and perhaps even custom video card?!
- I don't think so....

Q: How can you replace a ST with an A500 when you HAVE to do repeatedly fast printing professionally?
A: Buy a VERY expensive laser printer with 4 megs of RAM OR a custom interface for the Amiga?!
- Same again, I don't think so...

Q: How can you replace an A2000 w/a video toaster with a ST when you're doing video production?
A: You can buy a genlock and fudge it? LOL!!!
- Please don't even try...

Q: How can you replace a Falcon running Cubase Audio to lay down audio tracks professionally with an Amiga?
A: You can buy a MIDI adaptor for the Amiga and resort to reel to reel recording, then pain-stakingly edit your tracks using the old 1960's method.
- Are you kidding?!?!?!

I rest my case!!! (unless someone keeps it going, PLEASE don't keep this going LOL)

[Harrison]

Some very good points listed in your Q/A summary and I have to agree when you look at both systems being used in the professional market place. For professional graphics and video the Amiga couldn't be beaten, and for affordable printing and music studios the ST was the best option. And I wouldn't argue with that.

The only thing I would add is that the ST was quite a budget option for the printing and DTP markets. The Apple Mac was the system that ruled both of these areas at the time and you hardly ever saw an ST or Amiga in them. Only in lower budget studios would you have possibly utilsed an ST for DTP because the Mac was so expensive.

However if you leave the dedicated professional marketplace, where the computer would be utlised for one specific task, and look at the home marketplace then things are quite different. In the home maketplace, unless you were a musician wishing to use MIDI then the Amiga's much more advanced architecture meant it was the better option for games, graphics, sound sampling, and pretty much everything else.

[quackmore]

Eventually the Mac ruled these areas, but not until about 1996 or so. Everyone I knew of used the Atari Falcon or dedicated embedded systems for laying down audio tracks.

Without Cubase Audio (or something like it), the Mac was worthless for laying down audio tracks. And this wasn't a software support issue, the Mac lacked the hardware to handle the job.

Back in the old days, the Mac was just an empty box (just like the PC). With co-processors for sound and a 2nd CPU (slave) especially made for digital signal processing (perfect for audio), I was able to do everything I needed on my Falcon. The Mac just simply wasn't up to the task.

As for DTP, by the mid 90's just about any computer could handle the job, handle it fast, and handle it right.

Thanks for the great conversation everyone. I'll be back from time to time especially when I resurrect my Amiga and try to get it onto the internet to grab some of those great games!

[Harrison]

Sorry, but some of those final statements just made me laugh because they are so inaccurate.

Eventually the Mac ruled these areas, but not until about 1996 or so.

How wrong is that statement!!! The Apple Mac was launched in 1984, with Aldus PageMaker in 1985. And the same year the Apple LaserWriter was launched, pushing Apple to the forefront of DTP. Then in 1987 QuarkXpress was launched, and the same year Adobe Illustrator and Aldus Freeland. From this point on all newspapers and magazines used them. And to this day Adobe Illustrator is still at the forefront of illustation, and Quark only lost out to Adobe when Indesign was launched.

The ST in contrast was nowhere in this marketplace. It was a budget alternative for a few years at the end of the 80's, and definitely not anywhere near to the same level as the Mac. The Mac completely dominated the DTP market until the mid 90's when the PC started to take over.

Back in the old days, the Mac was just an empty box (just like the PC).

It's called expandable, not empty! I personally see expansion slots as very useful. Not a nagative aspect. Being able to built a system using the expansion cards you need for a task, rather than a fixed design like the ST with some hardware you might not ever use!

With co-processors for sound and a 2nd CPU (slave) especially made for digital signal processing (perfect for audio), I was able to do everything I needed on my Falcon. The Mac just simply wasn't up to the task.

Well... the Mac was with some extra hardware added! And in the UK the Falcon was a non starter. Not seen in many stores and no one owned or used them. It was also a huge commercial desaster for Atari. Released in 1992 and canceled in 1993. And it's 68030 CPU was only clocked at 16MHz and although ti could address 32-bit memory, it was restricted to 16-bit memory to save money! Madness!. In the UK the Falcon was a novelty by the time is was launched, and by this point the ST and Atari were at deaths door, with Atari cancelling the ST completely in 1993. And by the time the Jaguar was released... Atari had sadly become a bit second rate, and the Jaguar was seen as a joke before it was even released. And the less said about the toilet seat add-on the better. If only they hadn't rejected Jay's design ideas for his 16-bit system Atari's history would be so different.

But please don't get me wrong. I followed the development of the ST family. I had really wanted a TT when they came out but they were over priced, and the Amiga was better. And I did follow the Falcon closely, and based on the development spec I really was interested in getting one. However the final finished system was way below Atari's original design ideas and fell short by a long way. The DSP was an interesting inclusion and obviously very useful for the Audio market. However it was also possible to utilise it for so much more. But sue to the Falcon being such a disaster we never got to see it really used for much more.

I do have fond memories of the ST as a home computer. While not as powerful as the Amiga, and while containing a much more inferior OS, the ST was still capable of delivering some useful productivity software (I used to do word processing (1st Word Plus), spreadsheets, databases, graphics (neochrome), and it was powerful enough for games developers to create good versions of most games. But it was just not on the same level as the Amiga.

Atari did try to fix this with the STE, with this updating version giving the same number of colours in the system palette as the Amiga, adding a DMA sound chip that produced Stereo 8-bit audio, a hardware blitter, and support for more memory. All things the AMiga could already do in 1985! It was however far too late as games and software developers already had a large STFM market to support so had to write their software to run on the older hardware. So the much better STE hardware was never really utilised. A bit of a shame.

[woody.cool]

May I just add in my humble opinion.....Great arguements from both sides!
Really is no right or wrong, just views from BOTH SIDES OF THE POND and also good to see you guys keeping it civil unlike the same arguement on some "other" sites!!!

Now, shall I start up a Commodore 64 vs Spectrum vs Amstrad CPC argument!?!

[v85rawdeal]

May I just add in my humble opinion.....Great arguements from both sides!
Really is no right or wrong, just views from BOTH SIDES OF THE POND and also good to see you guys keeping it civil unlike the same arguement on some "other" sites!!!

Now, shall I start up a Commodore 64 vs Spectrum vs Amstrad CPC argument!?!

CPC FTW (Mainly because I will use the big heavy-duty monitor to smash the other computers...)

[Buleste]

An FPGA board with all 3.