aer@alice.UucP (D. Rosenberg) (12/17/85)
I read an article in _The New York Times Today_, which confirmed my
suspicions that either Commodore or Atari will die after January or so.
Atari definitely appears to have the edge- a "cheaper," "faster," machine
with "better graphics" - or so they'd have us think.
But I saw lines like this in the "side - by - side comparison" charts in
some publications:
ATARI 520 ST ................ COMMODORE AMIGA
Colors: 512 (Yes)
Resolution
(non-interlaced) mono: 640x400 640x200
Come on. That's plain misleading advertising.
Definitely going to be a lot of mudslinging this Christmas around Silicon
Valley and Pennsylvania.. (:-)
--
##########################################################################
#D. Rosenberg "You've just seen *my* opinions."
#uucp: ..{ihnp4,research,allegra}!alice!aer tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (12/23/85)
In article <4710@alice.UUCP> aer@alice.UucP (D. Rosenberg) writes: >But I saw lines like this in the "side - by - side comparison" charts in >some publications: > > ATARI 520 ST ................ COMMODORE AMIGA > > Colors: 512 (Yes) > Resolution > (non-interlaced) mono: 640x400 640x200 > I also saw this in one magazine. Other magazines have it like this: ATARI 520ST ........................... COMMODORE AMIGA colors: 512 4096 color output: yes yes It looks like they just screwed up in some publications. As for misleading advetising, did you know the Amiga has a meg of ram? That was my first reaction to the ad that says the Amiga has twice as much memory as a Macintosh. At least Atari tells you what exactly they are comparing against. -- Tim Smith sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim || ihnp4!cithep!tim