gyuri@eneevax.UUCP (Gyorgy Fekete) (10/04/85)
I am trying to forward this, but twice before I was unsuccesful... So here it is, with a bit of delay... Date: Tuesday, 24 Sep 1985 23:53:23-PDT From: umcp-cs!seismo!allegra!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-cgvax2!boiko (Michael Boiko MKO2-2/KO2 264-3626) To: seismo!allegra!umcp-cs!eneevax!info-st (Distribution list @ST) Subject: More ST vs Amiga info...... Status: R Here's a note I came across yesterday that you all might be interested in reading. It sums up some of the thoughts an Amiga/ST developer has about the Amiga vs ST comparison question. The one question should be if the ST is that good (and I feel it is) why isn't the Computer media/trade mags. falling all over it. What's going on!! By the way I have had an ST for about 2-3 weeks,and I think it's one of the best bargains to come along in a long time..... Once again I would appreciate someone posting this to micro.net.atari, since I'am still having problems posting notes. Thank You Mike Boiko ============================================================================== Msg#: 0053 Lines=15 Sent: Sept 23,1985 at 10:11 PM To: DR. MICHAEL MITCHELL From: JOHN DEMAR Subj: st MICHAEL: I'm sure you are a sane, rational person, so I'll continue... I'm a software/hardware developer and an electronics engineer. I've seen and used computers from $50 to $5Million and have designed VLSI chips for 6 years at GE until starting my business last year. So, the following is said from technical expertise and not first-impression judgments from marketing "fluff"... I own (or have owned) both the Atari 520ST and Amiga PC. I've given them both a good bit of work and inspection, including o/s design and hardware architecture. Here are some facts and my conclusion: The Amiga's graphics IC's are very powerful in their own right and the sound/io chip definitely gives nice synthesized music. But, that is where the power stops dead. However, since people respond emotionally to sight and sound, the demos are easy to catch someone's eye. Inside the Amiga, there is very little true support for the power of a 68000 cpu In the low res mode, those fantastic graphics chips steal almost 70% (yes!) of the possible CPU time that the 68000 could be using to do real computer things like calculate, move/sort data, and plot graphics on your screen. Since the complicated screen data for the Amiga must come from the same ram on the same bus as the CPU, there are excessive wait-cycles imposed on the 68000. This, together with the CPU speed that is 10% or more slower than the Atari 520ST, the Amiga does not come close to the true power and useful capabilities of the ST. Inside the ST, you will find MORE custom IC's than the Amiga and MORE powerful chips 'off the shelf' than the Amiga. This adds up to a real optimized, fast and versatile computer. First, there are a pair of chips working together to optimize data bus and screen data access. The memory controller prefetches 16-bit data directly for the 68000 and also places screen data onto a separate bus for the screen refresh chip. This operation only steals 8-18% of the available true CPU time. Further into the hardware, the 520ST has three serial ports, RS-232, midi, and keyboard. All of these are handled separately from the concern of the 68000 and all in hardware. The 520ST has a 68901 interrupt controller that keeps track of 16 separate events in the system with very little intervention of the CPU (this chip is really a necessity in a true 68000 architecture and is missing in the Amiga). Now, the best feature and performer in the ST design is the custom disk DMA controller which transfers data to the RAM without using the CPU and does this at a rate of 1.3Megabytes per second! This IC also helps the Western Digital floppy controller and makes for the fastest micro computer disk access that I have ever seen. The ST brings in a 32K file in less than 4 seconds, including drive start up, directory search, etc. The Amiga takes almost 20 seconds!! Maybe you like waiting, I don't. Not to mention the optimized set-up that the DMA chip has for adding low-cost, fast peripherals like Hard drives and CD Roms. The Amiga uses the amiga has a non-standard disk configuration and does much of the disk support in software (ie. slow). The drives have slightly more capacity than the the ST's DS drives (880K to 720K) but this is at the expense of speed. The Amiga directory format (or lack of) is done much like a commodore-64. In fact, to get a directory, the Amiga goes out and finds a program called DIR, loads it and goes back searching! Now that I have started into the topic of software, I have more bad news for you. Intuition is graphically and color-wise more advanced than GEM or the MAC but fails to perform as a real user interface. The windows are poorly configured and move with flicker. I rate the MAC slightly higher then GEM in usefulness but GEM on the ST is much faster and more predictable for the user. The Amiga OS(s) are full of bugs and are clumsy to use after using GEM for 3 months. As far as real software goes, the ST already has many useful programs and there are more developers working on ST projects than Amiga. (I hope plan on mostly games!)... As a programmer, I found the 520ST documentation to be very well written and complete. And, if something was unclear, Atari was very open and very helpful. On the other hand, the Amiga has a great deal of documentation but things change everyday. Worst of all, you have to be God or Electronic Arts to talk to anyone at Commodore. They simply are not professional people. To finish off here, I would like to say a couple of BAD things about the ST... The case could be nicer and they should have picked easier-to- find connectors for the monitor and drive ports. Besides that, I think (and over 50,000 others think) that the Atari 520ST is most powerful and elegantly configured computer ever made. Also, I feel that Atari will sell more computers than any other company has ever sold to date. This is not solely due to marketing hype (like the C-64) but from true value and power that was never offered before. Save $1000 and take a vacation next summer.... buy an ST. Sincerely, John DeMar, QMI.
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (10/04/85)
> ... and makes for the fastest micro > computer disk access that I have ever seen. The ST brings in a 32K file > in less than 4 seconds, including drive start up, directory search, etc. > The Amiga takes almost 20 seconds!! Maybe you like waiting, I don't. > Sincerely, John DeMar, QMI. Hmmmmmm ... my IBM PC/XT searches, locates, loads and begins executing a 44K file is less than 2 seconds. The XT is the one with the slow disk -- the AT is faster. Sounds like a hard disk would cut waiting time a lot on *both* the Amiga and the 520ST. -- Ed Nather Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather@astro.UTEXAS.EDU
gary@cirl.UUCP (Gary Girzon) (10/08/85)
In response to John Demar's comments, *FLAME ON: > > In the low res mode, those fantastic graphics chips > steal almost 70% (yes!) of the possible CPU time that the 68000 could be > using to do real computer things like calculate, move/sort data, and > plot graphics on your screen. How does one arrive at the magic 70% time figure? Also, the 68000 in the Amiga does not draw lines, polygons or fill areas. It is done by one of the coprocessors. SO the 6800 can do "real" computer things. > Since the complicated screen data for the > Amiga must come from the same ram on the same bus as the CPU, there are > excessive wait-cycles imposed on the 68000. Unless the ST has some sort of dual-ported RAM, the screen data must come from the same data bus in the ST as well. > Inside the ST, you will find MORE custom IC's than the Amiga and MORE > powerful chips 'off the shelf' than the Amiga. This adds up to a real > optimized, fast and versatile computer. If you measure a computer's worth by the number of chips, you might as well pick an IBM over a Mac. Perhaps the custom chips in the AMIGA are better integrated to perform several functions in one chip. Thus you do not need MORE chips if three can do the job. > The ST brings in a 32K file > in less than 4 seconds, including drive start up, directory search, etc. > The Amiga takes almost 20 seconds!! That is just not true! The BYTE Basic benchmark for reading and writting a 64k file takes 25 seconds. And this is in basic! Please check or tell us how you arrived at these figures. The Atari may be faster in disk accesses for some operations, but please do not misrepresent the Amiga. > The windows are poorly configured and move with flicker. They do? Not in my AMIGA. I feel that if one is to compare the AMIGA and the ST, at least one should have used them both. I get a feeling from the previous article that you have only used an ST and have ignored the AMIGA. While the ATARI hardware is glorified, we do not hear much about the inner workings of the AMIGA. I have not used an ST, so I cannot really compare the two architectures. The ST, however, does not have any expansion slots. All that is available is the DMA slot which is a byte wide interface. Thus to expand the ST requires a hardware hack. The ST does not offer an alternative to GEM for a "real" user environment. Icons may be more user friendly for applications, but real software development is much more efficient given a "shell" environment. I think the Amiga speaks for itself (no pun intended). If there is a problem with the AMIGA (I am surprised it was never mentioned) is the non-interlace screen resolution. The ST wins hands down with a 640 by 400 text display. *FLAME OFF UUCP: ...{ihnp4,harvard}!think!cirl!gary
kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth) (10/08/85)
I am confused. I am hearing wildly contradictory information about the
amiga and st. Just for instance
The st has fast floppy disks and a 1.33 Mb/Sec DMA channel...The amign
doesn't have DMA disks. (377@eneeval.UUCP and elsewhere)
The amiga has a custom programmable DMA controller (the 'copper') and
no less than 25 channels of DMA including video, disk, and audio. (BYTE
article).
OK, what is true. The st definitely has DMA. Does the amiga use DMA for
floppies? How fast is it?
Running the BALL demo, with a 3-D ball rolling and bouncing, and making
noise, less than 8% of the CPU is being used. (BYTE article)
The amiga's video controller takes up too many cycles and the amiga's
clock rate is lower. The amiga has much less horsepower for computing.
(377@eneevax.UUCP)
The amiga does run at 7.8Mhz vs 8Mhz for the st. How much of the rest is
true?
The amiga OS is full of bugs. (377@eneevax.UUCP)
AmigaDOS is a version of TRIPOS from Canbridge.
AmigaDOS was written by Metacompco (various)
If AmigaDOS is a version of a longstanding OS, how come it is full of
(presumably serious) bugs? Which rumor is true here. Furthermore, I have
personally crashed TOS on the st just fooling around with it at a computer
store. It took me 10 minutes before my first crash. Is the amiga getting
undeservedly bad press here? Doesn't TOS ever crash? Also, a note about
porting the multitasking OS9 to the ST: You will give up GEM if you port
OS9 probably. It seems like it will be difficult to link GEM to OS9 and
presumably difficult to duplicate its function. This means an OS9 will only
be useful to hacker types (like us all I suppose).
How about some additional opinions?
--
Kurt Guntheroth
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
{uw-beaver,decvax!microsof,ucbvax!lbl-csam,allegra,ssc-vax}!fluke!kurtparker@rochester.UUCP (Clint Parker) (10/12/85)
> In response to John Demar's comments, > > *FLAME ON: > > > > In the low res mode, those fantastic graphics chips > > steal almost 70% (yes!) of the possible CPU time that the 68000 could be > > using to do real computer things like calculate, move/sort data, and > > plot graphics on your screen. > > How does one arrive at the magic 70% time figure? Also, the 68000 > in the Amiga does not draw lines, polygons or fill areas. It is done by > one of the coprocessors. SO the 6800 can do "real" computer things. > > > Since the complicated screen data for the > > Amiga must come from the same ram on the same bus as the CPU, there are > > excessive wait-cycles imposed on the 68000. > > Unless the ST has some sort of dual-ported RAM, the screen data > must come from the same data bus in the ST as well. > > > Inside the ST, you will find MORE custom IC's than the Amiga and MORE > > powerful chips 'off the shelf' than the Amiga. This adds up to a real > > optimized, fast and versatile computer. > > If you measure a computer's worth by the number of chips, > you might as well pick an IBM over a Mac. Perhaps the custom chips > in the AMIGA are better integrated to perform several functions in one > chip. Thus you do not need MORE chips if three can do the job. > > > The ST brings in a 32K file > > in less than 4 seconds, including drive start up, directory search, etc. > > The Amiga takes almost 20 seconds!! > > That is just not true! The BYTE Basic benchmark for reading and > writting a 64k file takes 25 seconds. And this is in basic! Please check > or tell us how you arrived at these figures. The Atari may be faster in > disk accesses for some operations, but please do not misrepresent the > Amiga. > > > The windows are poorly configured and move with flicker. > > They do? Not in my AMIGA. > > I feel that if one is to compare the AMIGA and the ST, at least one should > have used them both. I get a feeling from the previous article that you > have only used an ST and have ignored the AMIGA. While the ATARI hardware > is glorified, we do not hear much about the inner workings of the AMIGA. > I have not used an ST, so I cannot really compare the two architectures. > The ST, however, does not have any expansion slots. All that is > available is the DMA slot which is a byte wide interface. Thus to > expand the ST requires a hardware hack. The ST does not offer an > alternative to GEM for a "real" user environment. Icons may be more user > friendly for applications, but real software development is much more > efficient given a "shell" environment. > > I think the Amiga speaks for itself (no pun intended). If there is a > problem with the AMIGA (I am surprised it was never mentioned) is the > non-interlace screen resolution. The ST wins hands down with a 640 by 400 > text display. > > *FLAME OFF > > UUCP: ...{ihnp4,harvard}!think!cirl!gary Funny, you complain 'that if one is to compare the AMIGA and the ST, at least one should have used both', but you say you don't have an ST, so how can you compare the two. I talked to John about this (before I saw this message) and I can tell you that he had both machines and did side by side comparisons. AMIGA user's might not like to hear it, but the ST is faster (at least in raw computing power, it remain to be seen how graphic programs would compare, but I would put my money on the ST for most aplications due to the AMIGA losing so many cycles for commands to the graphics chips). I don't have any direct experience with the AMIGA, so I can't make any direct claims. I think there is a place for both machines, but I'm putting my money on (an into) the ST. - Clint These are my own opinions and those of my employer :-)