roberts@nbs-vms.ARPA (12/20/85)
From: "ROBERTS, JOHN" <roberts@nbs-vms.ARPA>
Several Points of Comparison in the Amiga vs ST Debate
1) The official Atari price of the ST system that has received so much
praise in this mailing list is actually $1798 (799 for the monochrome
version, plus 999 for the color version). Each version will do things
that the other will not, and it is usually the composite of these
functions that is represented as the overall capability of the ST.
Atari has not to my knowledge offered to sell the monitors other than
as part of a package deal. (I personally tend to favor the monochrome
version - it seems to be best for the things the ST does the best.)
2) I expect a computer to be good for handling text, but for a
*personal* computer, I also enjoy sound and graphics capabilities. If
Atari users were all the sensible sort who want only the minimal
graphics required for text, one would expect only monochrome STs to
be sold. I don't have any national figures, but a local dealer
(admittedly a small sample) claims they are going about 50-50. Perhaps
even some sensible Atari users enjoy graphics.
With the ST, there is a choice between optimized color graphics
and optimized text that must be made at purchase time. The standard
Amiga monitor is reported to do a good job for both graphics and text,
and other monitors (including cheap monochrome monitors) can be used
if desired. The Amiga also has a lot of special hardware designed to
enhance sound and graphics capabilities with minimal impact on processor
performance.
3) It is to be expected that one would find a point in time in which
there is more software commercially available for the ST than for the
Amiga, since the ST is several months ahead in its development and
marketing. There was a large volume of software available for the
TRS-80 Model I long before the ST (or even the Atari 400) had even
been conceived. I notice that the Atari designers didn't give up in
despair, though. A variety of Amiga programs are just starting to
become widely available.
4) Commodore/Amiga has been fairly open and honest about the internal
structure and functioning of their machine, while by comparison
Atari has been relatively secretive (specific examples furnished upon
request). As a hardware designer, I like to know that there is
something other than a little green man in the box. As a customer,
I like to know what the machine is potentially capable of, which
to me involves knowledge of what's inside.
5) I have not heard much about ST expandability in terms of processors,
more memory, etc. The Amiga was designed with such expandability in
mind,and has bus ports, etc. for that purpose. Several companies are
working on expansions now.
6) Most of the Dhrystone benchmarks run on the Amiga (showing slightly
slower execution than the ST) have been run with the processor using
the same memory as the specialized chips. With an expanded memory
space (which could be desired for its own sake) performance should be
enhanced, especially for graphics-intensive applications. A faster
processor (the 68020) should give a greater increase in performance.
What should really give floating point performance a boost is the
addition of a good floating point processor chip (of which the 68881
is a logical choice for the 68000 family). I expect a 68881 to be
available for the Amiga long before the ST gets one (if ever).
7) A minimal Amiga system I would buy (512K, RGB monitor) costs
considerably more than a minimal Atari 520ST system I would buy.
I think the Amiga would better suit my intended applications.
8) Jack Tramiel of Atari has announced an intention (as of a few
months ago) to eventually sell hard disk and CD drives for ~$500.
Even if this figure cannot be met, Atari may still come out with
peripherals at much lower prices than those Tecmar is expected to
charge for peripherals for the Amiga. Following this observed
disparity, prices may be driven to more reasonable levels, to the
benefit of the consumer. In general, competition between the two
machines may help to keep prices in check.
9) The fact that the markets for the two machines do not completely
overlap may help both companies to survive. My perception of local
market conditions is that STs, Amigas, and C-128s (surprisingly) are
being sold as fast as the dealers can get them, at least for the
time being. Perhaps market share will be determined by which company
can produce computers most quickly.
10) Since the Amiga should be considered in the context of other
existing machines, point-by-point technical comparisons with the
ST and other machines seem to be appropriate and in keeping with
the spirit of the INFO-AMIGA/net.micro.amiga mailing list. Deliberate
smear campaigns, on the other hand, are in very poor taste, at best.
(All standard disclaimers apply, including thesearemyopinionsnotmy-
employers, allthetrademarksmentionedaretrademarksandshouldbetakena-
ssuch, idonthaveanythingtodowithanyofthesecompaniesexceptasacustomer,
someoftheabovestatementsarespeculativeinnatureandshouldnotbeconsid-
ededauthoritative, and notresponsiblefordamagescausedbytypographic-
alerrorsorerrorsinfact.)
Any further technical or marketing information on either machine
welcomed.
John Roberts
Arpanet: roberts@nbs-vms
Usenet: (I don't think you can send me
anything except through Rutgers.)
------mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (12/23/85)
> From: "ROBERTS, JOHN" <roberts@nbs-vms.ARPA> > > Several Points of Comparison in the Amiga vs ST Debate > > 1) The official Atari price of the ST system that has received so much > praise in this mailing list is actually $1798 (799 for the monochrome > version, plus 999 for the color version). Hold on there, you can buy a monchrome system (list $799,) and you can buy a color monitor seperately for about $400. Total price: ~$1200. That is the same price as an Amiga without any monitor at all. The monochrome version is far superior for text applications than either the color ST or the Amiga in any resolution. > > > 4) Commodore/Amiga has been fairly open and honest about the internal > structure and functioning of their machine, while by comparison > Atari has been relatively secretive (specific examples furnished upon > request). As a hardware designer, I like to know that there is > something other than a little green man in the box. As a customer, > I like to know what the machine is potentially capable of, which > to me involves knowledge of what's inside. Uh, I have the schematics at home, they came with the developers kit, availabler to the general public for $300. > > 6) Most of the Dhrystone benchmarks run on the Amiga (showing slightly > slower execution than the ST) have been run with the processor using > the same memory as the specialized chips. With an expanded memory > space (which could be desired for its own sake) performance should be > enhanced, especially for graphics-intensive applications. A faster > processor (the 68020) should give a greater increase in performance. > What should really give floating point performance a boost is the > addition of a good floating point processor chip (of which the 68881 > is a logical choice for the 68000 family). I expect a 68881 to be > available for the Amiga long before the ST gets one (if ever). > Wait, hold on here. Memory outside of the lower 256K on the Amiga is slower, not faster. The Dhrystone benchmarks are CPU only, not graphics intensive. Hell, if we redesign the ST it will be better also. > 7) A minimal Amiga system I would buy (512K, RGB monitor) costs > considerably more than a minimal Atari 520ST system I would buy. > I think the Amiga would better suit my intended applications. Even with your suggestion to buy two ST's, the Amiga costs more. > > 8) Jack Tramiel of Atari has announced an intention (as of a few > months ago) to eventually sell hard disk and CD drives for ~$500. Not to mention that the hard disk interface is onboard and supports up to 16 peripheral deivices. > > 9) The fact that the markets for the two machines do not completely > overlap may help both companies to survive. My perception of local > market conditions is that STs, Amigas, and C-128s (surprisingly) are > being sold as fast as the dealers can get them, at least for the > time being. Perhaps market share will be determined by which company > can produce computers most quickly. I haven't done a market survey, but at the local high volume retailer, (Bit Bucket, Newton MA,) the Amigas are stacked up to the ceiling, and they don't have an inventory of STs. (They report that the STs sell as fast as they come in, the Amiga business is slow and steady.) They also say that lack of Amiga software while the ST software is quite impressive, has had a severe impact on Amiga sales. -- Mark Roddy Net working, Just reading the news. (harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!comm!mark)
sansom@trwrba.UUCP (Richard E. Sansom) (01/03/86)
In article <800@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> roberts@nbs-vms.ARPA writes: > >Several Points of Comparison in the Amiga vs ST Debate > >1) The official Atari price of the ST system that has received so much >praise in this mailing list is actually $1798 (799 for the monochrome >version, plus 999 for the color version). Each version will do things >that the other will not, and it is usually the composite of these >functions that is represented as the overall capability of the ST. >Atari has not to my knowledge offered to sell the monitors other than >as part of a package deal. (I personally tend to favor the monochrome >version - it seems to be best for the things the ST does the best.) This is simply not true. A color monitor may be added to the monochrome system for less than $300. Alternatively, a monochrome monitor may be added to the color system for less than $200. >2) I expect a computer to be good for handling text, but for a >*personal* computer, I also enjoy sound and graphics capabilities. If >Atari users were all the sensible sort who want only the minimal >graphics required for text, one would expect only monochrome STs to >be sold. I don't have any national figures, but a local dealer >(admittedly a small sample) claims they are going about 50-50. Perhaps >even some sensible Atari users enjoy graphics. > With the ST, there is a choice between optimized color graphics >and optimized text that must be made at purchase time. Although the monochrome monitor is optimal for text processing, the color monitor is more than adequate for the job (I own both). >4) Commodore/Amiga has been fairly open and honest about the internal >structure and functioning of their machine, while by comparison >Atari has been relatively secretive (specific examples furnished upon >request). On the contrary, Atari is willing to furnish development kits to anyone willing to spend $300. Until recently, Commodore/Amiga refused to sell their development kits to anyone other than "official" developers. >5) I have not heard much about ST expandability in terms of processors, >more memory, etc. The Amiga was designed with such expandability in >mind,and has bus ports, etc. for that purpose. This, for me at least, is the ST's biggest shortcoming. Although expansion boxes are currently under development, the designers of the ST should be chastised for this serious omission :-( >6) Most of the Dhrystone benchmarks run on the Amiga (showing slightly >slower execution than the ST) have been run with the processor using >the same memory as the specialized chips. With an expanded memory >space (which could be desired for its own sake) performance should be >enhanced, especially for graphics-intensive applications. A faster >processor (the 68020) should give a greater increase in performance. >What should really give floating point performance a boost is the >addition of a good floating point processor chip (of which the 68881 >is a logical choice for the 68000 family). I expect a 68881 to be >available for the Amiga long before the ST gets one (if ever). I would say that ~500(?) v.s. 1092 Dhrystones is somewhat more than "slightly slower". Also, I thought the Amiga was not bogged down by the specialized chips. Needless to say, both the Amiga and the ST would execute the Dhrystone benchmark test faster with 68020's. And what makes you think (seriously) that the Amiga will have a 68881 before the ST? >7) A minimal Amiga system I would buy (512K, RGB monitor) costs >considerably more than a minimal Atari 520ST system I would buy. >I think the Amiga would better suit my intended applications. There is no doubt about the fact that the ST is less expensive than the Amiga. If the Amiga suits your needs better, then buy an Amiga. >8) Jack Tramiel of Atari has announced an intention (as of a few >months ago) to eventually sell hard disk and CD drives for ~$500. >Even if this figure cannot be met, Atari may still come out with >peripherals at much lower prices than those Tecmar is expected to >charge for peripherals for the Amiga. Following this observed >disparity, prices may be driven to more reasonable levels, to the >benefit of the consumer. In general, competition between the two >machines may help to keep prices in check. > >9) The fact that the markets for the two machines do not completely >overlap may help both companies to survive. My perception of local >market conditions is that STs, Amigas, and C-128s (surprisingly) are >being sold as fast as the dealers can get them, at least for the >time being. Perhaps market share will be determined by which company >can produce computers most quickly. Good points. Even though I took exception to several of the points stated in the included article, I am glad to see that some people are capable of posting articles which contain more substance than mud-slinging. Richard E. Sansom {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!trwrba!sansom