bryce@COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (06/09/87)
[ since this article is pro-Amiga, it won't be cross-posted to comp.sys.atari.st like the questions ] In article <943@cooper.UUCP> you write: :I am looking for opinions from Amiga and Atari 1040ST owners :as to which computer is better. :I am especially interested :in the animation,graphics and MIDI music areas. MIDI-> The ST provides a connector. That's a $10-$49 option on the Amiga. Software for both machines supports MIDI. On the Amiga several unique things have been done; for example when Mimetics Pro MIDI studio detects that a popular music program is also running (thanks to multi-taksking) it "hooks up" to provide the best of both worlds for the user. In the way of animation/graphics you will find the the ST has a plain, bitmapped display. Nothing special from a hardware standpoint. The Amiga has a plain bitmapped display, and then so much more... The blitter chip is just the start. Copper lists, hardware sprites, zoom, interlace option, more colors, block moves, hardware fills, shifts, hardware line draw, etc, etc, etc. In short, more of everything in the hardware. > Also are there any Lotus 123 comparable spreadsheets available for > either machine and if so how good are they. For the Amiga: "VIP professional", no word on how good. It is not only Lotus comparable, but Lotus compatible. "Logistix", from Grafox includes spreadsheet, timesheet, database and graphics. "LPD Planner" is from a company that has produced very good stuff in the past, I have not seen it yet. "Maxiplan Plus" gets good reviews. Rummor says that 123 has been ported to the Amiga, but Lotus is holding out on releasing it... >--------------- > We believe > that our best options are either the new Atari MegaST or the new Amiga 2000. > If you have suggestions as to what our best options would be, I would > appreciate receiving email with your advice. I have had extensive experience with many of the available personal computers, ranging from "winners" like the IBM PC and Commodore-64, to "mild success" like the Atari 800, to total flops like the Coleco Adam and TI 99/4. The perspective is split about 50/50 programmer/user. I use computers for both purposes. I'll say it out front -> I prefer the Amiga. Neither computer is shipping yet. Release dates, no matter what anyone may tell you, are not firm. The A2000 has been shipping in Europe for over a month, but not here in the states. The Amiga 500 is shipping, and looks very nice, it's the stripped down, consumer version of the Amiga. >--------------- > It would be very nice to be able to run background jobs > while doing tasks such as file keeping or word processing. True multitasking is quite simply, addictive. You won't realize it at the store, or even when you get the product home. You will never realize it if you have a PC that won't. With a multitasking machine you will soon become acclimated to fluid movement between different programs. To use a metaphor you bring out all the tools you wish to work with and pick and chose among them. With an older style PC you need to put each tool back into the garage, and later search for it when you need it again. In a short time you will become accustom to starting long jobs "in the background". For example compiling, data acquisition, sorting and other lengthy tasks that don't need your constant attention. A misconception about multitasking is that "Won't it slow down the machine?" or "If I'm running three things, won't it be three times slower?". NO! NO! NO! When a program has nothing to do it takes essentially ZERO processor time. ZERO. This is the primary difference between a machine designed to multi-task and one that is not. To use a (far too simplistic) example: When a wordprocessor is waiting for a keystroke on a older machine it would sit in a loop waiting for the key. On an multitasking machine that same program would call "Sleep()". It would wake up only when the user activated it again. Other tasks would still run full speed. [this barely touches on the technical aspects, but is enough for a user perspective] If you run a long compile or sort at the same time as a wordprocessor you would run it a lower priority. That way whenever you type or scroll the wordprocessor would have full access to the machine. Between keystrokes, and while you are thinking the background task gets to run at full speed. The Amiga is the only of the personal computers designed from the start to multitask. >--------------- > and what [expansion hardware] is available? For the Mega ST, none yet. The idea of expansion on ST series computers is new, and products a real rarity. For the Amiga, Ethernet, Cheapernet, AmeriNet, IEEE-488 (GIPB for old-timers), RAM up to 12.5 megabytes or so, SCSI, Hard Disks from 3.5 to ~110 megabytes, Optical Drives (SCSI mostly), Proto boards, extra parallel and serial ports, BSR type controllers, framegrabbers/digitizers (fast and slow scan), audio digitizers, 68020 boards, digital and analog sense/output controllers. The selection is not as good as it would be for an IBM PC or clone. If you go with the Amiga 2000 you may need to by some PC cards, plug them into the A2000's IBM slots and talk to them from the Amiga side. A 80386 bridge card for the Amiga 2000 is in the works... (don't ask for details, I can't give them out) >------------- > We would like to get all of the typical business type functions of a pc > such as spreadsheets, database management, inventory control, word > processing, etc. I have not explored this region extensively, but here is one tidbit: the inventory control system programs for the Amiga (and possibly the Atari) let you include digitized pictures of the item with the database entry. One MAJOR advantage that the Amiga stumbled into is called "IFF". It stands for "Interchange File Format" and means that ALL of the graphics programs for the Amiga share files. ALL of the database programs can accept graphics from ALL of the paint programs. There are IFF standards for graphics, digital samples, musical scores, midi sequencing and more. With any other computer each program has it's own, incompatible format. At best you can buy a "conversion" utility. At worst you are stuck with hand-copying. The IFF standard is so good that it is starting to be picked up for use on the Macintosh and Atari ST. >-------------- > Upward compatibility with a 68020 board is very nice, as may be the easy > compatibility with IBM products. Atari made several stupid mistakes with the OS, it will NOT run unmodified on a 68020. Many programs will break because of a lack of developer guidelines on the 68020. Apple is having just this problem with the Mac II. The Amiga OS detects the type of processor and sets flags anyone can look at. When it detects the 68020 it enables the on-chip instruction cache and modifies the stack-frame handling. On page 7 of the Amiga programming "Bible" is a section on 68010/68020/68030 compatibility. Flags for the 68881 math co-processor are also present, an important addition for heavy statistical number crunching. > Another hardware item we will want is a good modem. Both machines -> Take your pick of 1200 or 2400 baud external modems. They will all work, just connect to the serial port. (BTW: at this very moment I am ~110,000 characters into a 589,999 character download. That is going on in a background window. I can check on it whenever I like. When it is done it will beep at me) >-------------- > Additional software/hardware systems we may want are speech and audio > signal processing systems. Several digitizers are available including SoundScape, FutureSound etc. These provide digitizing and basic signal processing features. The Amiga comes with two software functions -> the translator which does a lousy job of turning english text into phonemes and the narrator which "speaks" phonemes. The Amiga has 4 independent DAC's each with it's own DMA (Direct Memory Access) channels. Each is 8 bits with a separate 6 bit volume control. They can be linked. This is about the most ideal setup possible, far, far superior to the very cheap sound chip in the ST or the very expensive, but crippled, chip in the Apple ][gs. (There are several nice picture processing systems, but you did not ask about that) >------------- > So any items that you can give me ideas on would be appreciated. If you decide on the Amiga GET EXTRA MEMORY. It stands to reason that if you can easily run 5 different things, you will. That will require memory. Plan on a total of at least 2 megabytes. Keep your options open for expansion to at least 5 megabytes. Misc notes: Don't let Commodore advertising fool you... the Amiga's resolution is up to 704*464 pixels. In that resolution you can chose 16 colors per line out of the 4096 available. A special mode called "HAM" lets you do *very* nice pictures; it lets you have up to ~300 colors on a line (mileage will vary, some restrictions apply) GEM (the Atari ST graphical interface) imposes silly restrictions on the number of windows and other things like the tiny maximum number of desk accessories. Intuition (the Amiga user interface) allows "How much memory do you have?" windows and "How much memory do you have?" desk accessories. With a 512K machine, 150 windows is no problem. >------------ > Performance is more of a consideration than cost, though we have a > limited budget. (who doesn't!) Then the choice is clear! :-) :-) :-) Seriously, except for cost I can't see a reson to go back to using the Atari ST. The Amiga is a superset of the ST hardware. Even the "blitter" that will be available for the ST at the end of the summer has only 1/10 the functionality of the Amiga blitter/bimmmer/copper combination. Same goes for the operating system. WARNING: This is an opinion. ------------- Ack! (NAK,EOT,SOH) |\ /| . {o O} . bryce@cogsci.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!cogsci!bryce ( " ) U Single tasking? Just say *NO!*