nep.pgelhausen@AMES-VMSB.ARPA (12/07/85)
> From: ucdavis!lll-crg!well!farren@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Mike Farren) > > In article <1886@islenet.UUCP>, jons@islenet.UUCP (Jonathan Spangler) writes: > > > > Instead, people at COMDEX saw an absolutely fantastic display > > of the same bouncing ball demo running -- SIDE-BY-SIDE, mind you -- three > > machines: 520ST, Amiga, and Mac. All three were running the same ball demo. > > Because of the speed difference, the ST was the clear winner, but not only > > becaue of the speed, but also the color which was much more brilliant. > One (of the many) things ATARI didn't mention in their bouncing ball > display was that this is an EASY, EASY, EASY demo to do! I'm pretty sure > (and don't you DARE call this bluff!!) that I could produce an acceptable > version of it to run on the Apple II! Instead, ask Atari if 1) there's > enough processor bandwidth left while it's running to do a LOT of processing, > 2) if there was sound to go with it, synchronized with the ball, and 3) How > long it took them to GET that display - I'd be willing to bet that they had > several of their hottest-shot programmers working on those, and do you really > think that they would bother to make the Mac version as pretty? > The impression I get of Atari lately (and don't get me wrong, I basically > like Atari's stuff) is that they will stop at NOTHING to get the public to > believe in their superiority, and if this includes providing insufficient > information for a true, objective comparison, well, thats the way it goes. > Personally, I find this kind of marketing scheme insulting not only to > the technically competent people like us, but even more to those who can't > know any better. > -- > Mike Farren > uucp: {dual, hplabs}!well!farren > Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667 > USnail: 390 Alcatraz Ave., Oakland, CA 94618 > Nobody is denying that the bouncing ball demo is more impressive looking than difficult. A recent message placed the Atari developement time at approx. one week also. The basic thrust of Atari's marketing is not "we are better than Commodore" but "we can do much of the same stuff they can, cheaper". Before the Atari-duplicate demo, the Commodore people were so proud of themselves....now they are saying "it was nothing anyway". Make up your minds!!! -Richard Hartman max.hartman@ames-vmsb ------
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (12/10/85)
In article <8512062142.AA07057@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> nep.pgelhausen@ames-vmsb.ARPA writes: >> >Nobody is denying that the bouncing ball demo is more impressive looking than >difficult. A recent message placed the Atari developement time at approx. >one week also. The basic thrust of Atari's marketing is not "we are better >than Commodore" but "we can do much of the same stuff they can, cheaper". > >Before the Atari-duplicate demo, the Commodore people were so proud of >themselves....now they are saying "it was nothing anyway". Make up your >minds!!! > > -Richard Hartman To me there are only a few important differences between the two machines: 1a. The Amiga is NTSC compatible which allows easy use with VTR's, home tv cameras for digitizing/overlaying etc. at the expense of flicker at 640x400. 1b. The Atari is virtually flicker-free at 640x400 at the expense of NTSC compatibility. 2a. The Amiga supports up to 4 bit planes in the max resolution mode, enough for decent grayscale digitizing/imaging, palette of 4096, and bit-blit & sprite hardware. 2b. The Atari supports up to 2 bit planes in the max resolution mode, with palette of 512 and little or no hardware graphics assistance. 3a. The Amiga supports a series of dedicated DMA channels that DO NOT INTERFERE with the CPU speed for 4 sound channels that utilize a wavetable (up to max available of the internal 512k ram) and associated volume and pitch tables, which effectively constitute a 4 channel 8-bit digital sampling synthesizer a-la Ensonique Mirage but with 4 channels instead of however many the Mirage has. 3b. The Atari uses a off-the-shelf 3 channel sound generator that's been around for awhile, and from all reports is not terribly sophisticated. If, after all that, you still can't tell the difference between the machines except price, then by all means buy yourself the 520ST. Someone should, as I am a firm believer in healthy competition. But for me, I bought an Amiga, the least expensive system that could do what *I* needed in a machine, because the 520ST couldn't do those things at all (imaging at 640x400, NTSC video compatibility, and digital sampling of sound). Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd # cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster) (12/11/85)
<>
So, Keith Doyle bought an Amiga. Thanks for letting us in on this fact,
Keith. (* end sarcasm *)
Can we have some *Atari* postings here? Although I'm an 8-bit Atari owner,
I don't mind reading through the ST information; I *do* mind seeing mindless
bickering over which machine better suits someone's personal desires. This is
an Atari forum, and should be kept that way. Likewise, the Amiga group
shouldn't be inundated with this crap either. How about a cease-fire
agreement? That way, the ST owners could spend their time and net-space
reviewing the $1000 worth of software that they bought with the money they
have left because they didn't buy an Amiga :-).
- Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster)fnf@unisoft.UUCP (12/12/85)
In article <977@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: > 1a. The Amiga is NTSC compatible which allows easy use with VTR's, home > tv cameras for digitizing/overlaying etc. at the expense of flicker > at 640x400. > > 1b. The Atari is virtually flicker-free at 640x400 at the expense of NTSC > compatibility. Perhaps this explains why I found the atari machine I looked at yesterday to have, in general, a much crisper and pleasing color desktop. Perhaps some readjustment of the default Amiga workbench colors would help. As a new Amiga owner, I am still satisfied with my choice, since for *me* it is the correct one for the things I want to do with the machine. By the way, you didn't mention the command line interface on the amiga. I would sorely miss this on the atari. In all, I thing both are nice little machines, and I hope they both do well in the marketplace. -Fred =========================================================================== Fred Fish UniSoft Systems Inc, 739 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,dual}!unisoft!fnf (415) 644 1230 TWX 11 910 366-2145 ===========================================================================
bammi@cwruecmp.UUCP (Jwahar R. Bammi) (12/13/85)
...... > > By the way, you didn't mention the command line interface on the amiga. > I would sorely miss this on the atari. > > In all, I thing both are nice little machines, and I hope they both > do well in the marketplace. > > -Fred There are three command line interfaces available right now for the ST - command.com : comes with the developers package. I have also seen it on more than one bulletin board. Msdos like. - Micro C Shell : very nice includes history, history editing, pipes, redirection, limited shell scripts, utilities like cc, pr, more etc etc, from Beckemeyer Dev. Systems in Oakland, CA (for only 49.95). The multitasking version is due in Jan. They are also putting out a real time executive. - Hos : comes with Habba C. Again unix like, though not even 10% as nice as Micro C Shell. BTW. your DBUG package is doing great on my ST. Jwahar R. Bammi Usenet: .....!decvax!cwruecmp!bammi CSnet: bammi@case Arpa: bammi%case@csnet-relay CompuServe: 71515,155 -- Jwahar R. Bammi Usenet: .....!decvax!cwruecmp!bammi CSnet: bammi@case Arpa: bammi%case@csnet-relay CompuServe: 71515,155