[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
| Title: | AMIGA NOTES |
| Notice: | Join us in the *NEW* conference - HYDRA::AMIGA_V2 |
| Moderator: | HYDRA::MOORE |
|
| Created: | Sat Apr 26 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Wed Feb 05 1992 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 5378 |
| Total number of notes: | 38326 |
98.0. "ST Myths" by JOKE::ACCIARDI () Thu Sep 11 1986 12:53
This article has been making the rounds of the commercial information
networks. Makes for good reading, even if it does add to the stupid
"My computer can beat up your computer" type dialog.
Sheldon Leemon finally reached the breaking point when he saw the
Tramiel clones comments in the MicroTimes article; here's what he's
doing about it.
---------------------------------------------
Wed Jul 23, 1986
Since I did not want to write this thing in too much haste, I am writing
separate responses for each of a number of myths about the Amiga. This
is the first part, and I hope to add one each day. Some of the future
topics are:
MYTH 2: "THE ST DISPLAY IS MUCH BETTER THAN THE AMIGA'S".
MYTH 3: "THE AMIGA OPERATING SYSTEM CHANGES SO OFTEN AND IS SUCH A MESS
THAT NOBODY CAN PROGRAM THE MACHINE".
MYTH 4: "THE ST IS MORE EXPANDABLE THAN THE AMIGA"
MYTH 5: "THERE'S A LOT MORE SOFTWARE FOR THE ST THAN THE AMIGA"
MYTH 6: "THE AMIGA IS JUST A 'GAME MACHINE' ".
MYTH 7: "BECAUSE OF ITS FINANCIAL INSTABILITY, COMMODORE WILL SOON BE OUT OF
BUSINESS".
If you can think of other irritating half-truths, let me know. So without
further ado, I give you "The Myth of ST Superiority."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Myth of ST Superiority
by Sheldon Leemon
There is a lot of controversy these days over the relative merits of the
Atari ST computers and the Amiga. Even when based strictly in fact, the
comparisons made during such debates strongly tend to resemble the four
year old's "my dad can beat up your dad" type of argument. But the most
vocal element on the Atari side is ignoring the facts entirely. Instead,
these avid Atarians spout the "party line", an interesting mixture of
misconception and deception, no doubt inspired by a strong dose of what
we in the industry call "Amiga envy". Nowhere is this line more strongly
espoused than at Atari itself, as can be seen by the interviews with
Leonard and Sam Tramiel that in Mary Eisenhart's article in MicroTimes.
By chanting the same lame half-truths over and over again, Atari advocates
have promulgated a number of myths concerning the ST and Amiga cpmputers
that are being accepted in some quarters as the gospel truth.
I would like to shed the light of reason on these interesting and quaint
superstitions. I cannot claim strict impartiality, since I personally
prefer the Amiga to the ST. But, I can claim an intimate acquaintance
with theworkings of both machines. I am a registered developer for both
machines. I have had my ST since June, 1985 and my Amiga since September
of the same year, just about as long as anybody else. I have read the
developers materials and just about everything else available for both
machines. I have written two books about the Amiga, and plan to write at
least as many for the ST. I have programmed both computers in C and
machine language. I have experienced first hand the advantages and
disadvantages of both machines. So the following observations, if not
absolutely unbiased, are at least grounded in demonstrable fact. They are
not meant to be the definitive comparison of the two machines, but merely
to response to the myths and misconceptions about the Amiga that run
rampant in the the Atari community.
MYTH1: "THE ST IS MUCH FASTER THAN THE AMIGA". The first misconception
that needs to be laid to rest once and for all is the preposterous notion
that the Amiga's coprocessor chips slow down its operation. I will respond
to this absurd contention point by point, since it is so so widely quoted,
and so little understood:
(1) In some RARE cases, the Amiga coprocessor chips DO steal cycles
from the 68000. BUT, it NEVER happens when the Amiga is in any
of the graphics modes supported by the ST. In 640x400 mode with 2
colors, 640x200 with 4 colors or 320x200 with 16 colors, the custom
chips NEVER slow down the 68000. Period. End of sentence. In fact,
even using some modes that are not supported by the Atari, like
320x200 with 32 colors, the custom chips have no effect on processor
speed. You can have the music chip doing music and disk I/O and
have great graphics going on WITHOUT INVOLVING THE PROCESSOR AT ALL.
Sam Tramiel is quoted as saying "None of our modes steal any
processing power from the CPU; that's something we weren't going
to allow". Of course, the way they accomplished that was to LIMIT
their graphics modes to the same choices offered by the PCjr.
They simply "left out" any modes that might give them trouble. The
Amiga put these modes in, and left the choice up to the user and the
programmer. For those situations where graphics power is more
important than computation speed, the Amiga can handle a 640x400
display with 16 colors--the ST can't do that under ANY circumstances.
And of course, if computation speed is critical, you can cut the
Amiga display back to 640x200 or even 320x200 with only 1 bit plane
for color (2 color mode). This means that there is only 16K or 8K
of display memory to manage, a fraction of that used by the Atari
display. The fact is that the Amiga gives the programmer (and the
user) the option of using as much as four times as much memory for
the screen display as the ST, or as little as one quarter as much.
Isn't it strange,then, that the Tramiels always assume in their
speed estimates that the Amiga will always use MORE display options
than the ST provides? Is that their way of saying that 640x400 with
2 colors or 640x200 with 4 colors just isn't good enough? If so, its
too bad for Atari owners, because their display resolution just
doesn't get any better than that.
(2) Even the slight (and highly overestimated) slowdown that occurs in
the VERY RARE cases where you use all of the Amiga's graphics
capabilities at once can be ELIMINATED COMPLETELY by adding external
memory. The slowdown only occurs when ALL of the graphics are being
used AND the custom chips are using the same area of memory that the
program code is in. If you add a meg of external memory to the
Amiga, the custom chips use the internal memory, and the program
is put in the external memory. No conflict. Ever. No slowdown.
Ever. You might say that this gives you "Power Without the Price".
By the way, adding memory to the Amiga (up to 8 meg) is a simple
matter of plugging in a board on the side. Adding memory to the ST
involves carefully soldering memory chips on top of the chips on
the motherboard, and patching in connections with wire. Dangerous
and messy at best. And the Atari OS does not even SUPPORT more
than 4 meg of RAM, even though the 68000 can address four times that
much directly.
(3) The most absurd notion of the lot is that the custom chips SLOW DOWN
the computer's throughput, when the whole point behind their design
is to FREE UP processor time by performing tasks independently that
ordinarily would be done by the 68000. Graphics is the prime example.
Atari is quick to point out the RARE instances when the Amiga custom
chips steal processor time when drawing graphics. What they fail
to mention is that when the ST is drawing graphics, ONE HUNDRED
PERCENT of the processor time is consumed in the process. For
example, when you draw a line on the Amiga, the processor tells the
blitter where the starting and endpoints of the line are, along with
some other stuff, and then goes back to serious computing while the
blitter actually manipulates the display memory in order to draw the
line. On the Atari, the program has to use the 68000 to calculate
each point of the line, and to set every memory location on the path
of that line a byte at a time. While it is doing this, the processor
cannot do ANYTHING else--in effect ALL of its cycles have been stolen.
So even in the RARE cases when the Amiga's custom chips steal cycles
(did I mention that this NEVER happens if you stick to the ST's
rather meager set of graphics modes?), its 68000 still gets SOME
processing time while the drawing is going on, whereas the ST's gets
ABSOLUTELY NONE. Just think of that every time you see that ST mouse
pointer flickering across the screen. Its 68000 is huffing and
puffing just trying to update the pointer display ("hmmm.. I've got
to redraw these pixels, save the background display memory, then
redraw the background, save the new background and redraw the
pointer"). On the Amiga, the pointer is a hardware sprite, so the
68000 just tells it "move there", and goes about its business.
The upshot of the above is that in many cases, the Amiga will work
MUCH FASTER than the ST. This is particularly true during graphics
drawing, when the blitter does all the work and leaves the 68000
alone to do its spreadsheet recalculations, or whatever it is that
processors do in their spare time. And in graphics-based systems
like GEM and Intuition, drawing goes on ALL THE TIME. Moving the
mouse pointer. Moving and sizing windows. Manipulating icons.
And most importantly, EVEN DISPLAYING TEXT ON THE SCREEN IS STRICTLY
A GRAPHICS OPERATION. Since the ST has a bit- mapped display rather
than one that is character-mapped, EACH DOT OF EACH TEXT CHARACTER
has to be drawn with BY THE 68000. When you are printing or scrolling
text on the ST, the processor has its hands full, and can't do
anything else. On the Amiga, the blitter moves the whole block of
bits for each text character, leaving the 68000 to do the job of
computing, not drawing text. A graphic (excuse the pun) example can
be seen by running the BASIC program:
FOR I=0 to 255:?CHR$(I):NEXT
on the ST. Such slow printing hasn't been seen since the the days
of the TI-99/4A (though in fairness to the ST, this is as much a
fault of its cheap BASIC interpreter than it is the system design).
All of a sudden, the ST doesn't look so powerful, does it? Why do
you think that Atari is trying so very hard to incorporate a blitter
chip into its ST series (so far without visible result)? They should
have thought of that earlier....like Amiga did.
In the article, Leonard Tramiel is quoted as saying "If you're going
to do a graphics but engineering-intensive program, DEPENDING ON
WHAT MODE YOU'RE RUNNING ON, it'll run a factor of three times
faster on an ST than on an Amiga (emphasis added). Hopefully, we've
already exposed the fraud of that "depending on what mode" business,
since the Amiga does not slow down at all in any mode that is
comparable to the Atari display. We must conclude, therefore, that
the determining factor is clock speed, and as Leonard himself pointed
out, the lead of the Atari is at best 15%. So where in the world did
he get the "three times faster" figure? Perhaps he meant if the
Amiga was running that application and three others at the same time
(try that on an ST). Because no known benchmarks bear him out. All
of the benchmarks that have been published show at very most a tiny
advantage to the ST, consistent with its slightly faster processor
speed. Many, in fact, give the edge to the Amiga, showing that often,
the benchmark is more a test of the compiler than the computer, and
that differences in compiler efficiency can easily compensate for
the small difference in processor speed. And while the Atari may
compute results slightly faster than the Amiga, heaven help us if it
has to print them. Or worse yet, scroll the printing. The upshot
of this is that the Atari is not the speed demon that Leonard Tramiel
depicts, nor is the Amiga the plodding tortoise. Hands on experience
with both machines leads to a very different impression.
MYTH 2: "THE ST DISPLAY IS MUCH BETTER THAN THE AMIGA'S".
The problem with this assertion is that most often, it is made on the basis
of comparing the ST and its color monitor with a smilar picture on the
Amiga and its color monitor. This of course proves nothing, since it
involves two variables, the computer and the monitor. When comparing the
two monitors side by side, it's natural that the Atari display looks sharper
and crisper, since it's smaller (the old Mac trick). Try running the Amiga
display to a 9" Sony hi-res monitor, though, and your opinion may change.
Also, the Atari monitor can be matched very closely to the machine, since it
is basically useable only with that machine (it runs only in analog RGB
mode, which is still fairly rare, and has a plug that is even wackier than
the one used by the Amiga). But the Amiga monitor is designed to function
as an analog or digital RGB monitor, as well as a separated composite
monitor, so it can be used with an IBM-PC or Atari 800XL.
The only reasonable way to compare the video quality of the two machines
is on the same color monitor. In all fairness, those who have run both
machines on the same display still give a slight edge to the Atari. But
this may be partially explained in terms of a design tradeoff on the part
of the Amiga. The Atari ST is designed to work with its own monitors,
and not much else, while the Amiga is designed to work with every kind of
monitor (and TV set) made. From the beginning, the Amiga was designed with
video applications in mind. In fact, unless I miss my guess, I'd say that
the reason that the clock speed of the Amiga is 7.2 MHz and not 8 MHz like
the ST is that the former figure is an even multiple of the 3.59 MHz color
burst crystal used in color televisions, so that using that clock speed
makes it easier to sync the display to a TV set.
Two years ago, when I first saw a prototype Amiga, I was amazed to see that
it could display clear 80-column text on an ordinary (and rather cheap) TV
set. When I reported that fact, I got E-Mail from broadcast engineers,
video physicists, and even some guy who claimed to have won the Nobel Prize
for TV Repair, saying that it was flatly impossible. Funny how I never
hear from those guys since the Amiga came out, and they can see it for
themselves.
What difference does full NTSC video compatibility make in a computer? Well,
it does make it easier to hook the thing to a projection TV for a demonstra-
tion, something that I sorely miss when speaking to Atari groups. It also
makes it possible to use those great Amiga graphics for video titling on
your home video productions. Or use animation packages like the great
Video Construction Set to produce animated promotional videos for advertise-
ments and in-store displays (as many people are now doing). And with an
inexpensive Genlock interface such as the one Commodore has displayed (and
hopefully will soon produce), it will be possible to use the Amiga to
replace about $50,000 worth of video equipment for less than a tenth of
that cost, something that would be of interest to every cable TV company in
the land. So you see, though according to Leonard Tramiel "the ST was
designed to be a powerful, flexible machine, in as many directions as
possible", Atari seems to have neglected the direction of video production
work. By confining the ST to its own nice, crisp, (and somewhat nonstandard)
displays, it has ignored an extremely under-developed market segment. The
enormous flexibility that the Amiga's video capabilities offer to the user
are, in the opinion of many, well worth the very slight advantage in display
clarity -that it cedes to the Atari when it comes to analog RGB monitors.
The other part of the myth of the ST's video superiority concerns its
monochrome display mode. Again, quoting Sam Tramiel from the article cited
above:
"there's no monochrome mode on the Amiga, you can't run a 640x400
high-resolution monochrome machine. So for serious business applications,
terminal applications, you just can't do it".
Here we see two misconceptions expressed in as many sentences. The first
misconception is that a 640x200 display is not suitable for serious business
use such as "terminal applications". For one thing, that is the very
display resolution of the IBM Color Graphics Adapter, which is the current
STANDARD among business users (since the IBM monochrome adapter cannot
display Lotus 1-2-3 graphics). I find it odd that ATARI would argue that
IBM's equipment is not suited for business. And those of you reading this
article on-line using a 640x200 display would probably agree that it is at
least marginally suitable for terminal applications.
More troubling is the fact that the vast majority of ST owners have ONLY the
color monitor, whose MAXIMUM resolution mode is the exact same as that
offered as the default mode of the Amiga Workbench. For you see, in order
to make use of all three resolution modes offered by the ST (as compared to
about 20 offered by the Amiga), you need to buy TWO SEPARATE MONITORS. In
order to switch between medium and high resolution modes on the ST, you have
to unplug one monitor, plug in the new one, and reboot the computer -- there
is no convenient way to make the switch, though hopefully somebody will
invent a switchbox soon.
And some of the software written for the ST's color monitor, primarily game
software, will not work on the monochrome display (though everything works on
the color display). So while the Atari monochrome monitor DOES offer an
EXTREMELY nice small text display, very few ST owners use it as their only
monitor. In fact, Atari has stockpiled such a quantity of monochrome monitors
that they have been giving them away lately - their dealers get one mono-
chrome monitor free with every 520 and disk drive that they buy. Therefore,
it seems unlikely that we will see any software in the near future that
relies on the 640x400 resolution capabilities of the ST, since most ST
owners just do not possess this capability.
One last point about the ST display. While the color 640x200 4-color mode
has become the de facto standard for the ST, in one respect it is the least
pleasant to use. Because of space limitations (and cheapness), Atari opted
to include only one set of graphics data for its desktop icons. Since the
320x200 mode and the 640x400 mode have the same aspect ratio, they chose
graphics that would look good in those two modes. In the 640x200 mode,
however, those same icons look rather ridiculous -- they are tall and skinny,
half as wide as they should properly be. All in all, they give the impres-
sion of an El Greco version of GEM. So it is somewhat ironic that having
chosen to use only one set of icon graphics, Atari picked the set that
would look the worst in the mode that is used the most on its machines.
The other misconception expressed by Mr. Tramiel in the above quote is that
the Amiga does not have a useable 640x400 display mode. Nobody will deny
that with the current color Amiga monitor, it is not possible to use 640x400
interlaced text because of the the "jitter" of the low-persistance phospor
display. Even so, careful color selection and placement can be used to
avoid the problem entirely. For example, the Digi-View digitizer can create
black and white digitized images in 640x400 resolution with 16 grey levels,
and those extremely fine images do not "vibrate" in the least on the current
color display. Moreover, the user can always get a separate monochrome
monitor that uses a high-persistance phosphor, and enjoy 640x400 resolution
without the jitter. Such monitors are fairly inexpensive, and recent changes
made by the 1.2 version of the Amiga Operating System enable the use of a
640x400 Workbench environment.
The brightest prospect of all, however, is the potential use of analog RGB
monitors with high-persistance phosphors. Several such monitors are on the
market now, and Commodore-Amiga had them at the Spring Comdex. As one who
attended that show, I can tell you that the Amiga color display in 640x400
mode on such a monitor is every bit as good as the 640x200 display on the
current Amiga monitor, and the persistance of the phosphor was not high
enough to cause "trails" when the screen scrolled. While it is true that
these monitors currently sell in the $1000 price range, the same was true
two years ago of the kind of monitor now used with the Amiga. There seems
to be no reason why the price of such monitors cannot come down to the same
level of the present Amiga monitor. And there are newer monitors coming onto
the scene that can digitally store and combine the two frames of an inter-
laced display, creating a non-interlaced display from them. In short,
there is every chance that in the near future we will see an affordable
monitor that can be used for ALL of the Amiga graphics modes, including
640x400 in 16 colors. In the meantime, the truly fanatic Amiga user may
buy one color monitor for display resolutions of 640x200 and below, and a
separate monochrome for 640x400. Just like with the Atari ST.
----------
By Sheldon Leemon
MYTH 3: "THE AMIGA OPERATING SYSTEM CHANGES SO OFTEN AND IS SUCH A MESS
THAT NOBODY CAN PROGRAM THE MACHINE".
This myth is a leftover from the pre-release days of the Amiga. The
developers who had to work with the earliest versions of the Amiga had an
uphill battle all right, not because the operating system was so buggy, but
because half of it hadn't been written yet! Don't forget, according to
MetaComCo, it was not until FEBRUARY 1985 that they produced the very first
prototype disk operating system for the Amiga. Until that point, you could
not even read or write a disk file conveniently. In contrast, the ST was
almost ready to ship to developers by then. Considering the amount of
catching up the Amiga had to do, and the time its developers had to do it
in, its small wonder that the operating system was changing "every week".
ST enthusiasts seem to be greatly amused that the internal version number of
the Amiga OS is already up to version 33. This amusement reveals nothing so
much as a lack of any programming experience. For example, a piece of
software for which I am currently writing documentation has gone through
11 beta versions in the past 6 weeks. Since each one represents a number
of compiles, the version number depends mostly on how many times you stop to
number the program. In no way should it be construed to mean that developers
have gotten 33 different versions of the Operating System to work with.
Only a handful of developers outside of Amiga ever SAW a version lower than
27. The fact is, the vast majority of developers received the official
release version as their first version of the Operating System. They, like
the general public, have been faced with exactly one revision of the OS
since the machines release (with another one in the works). This record
compares quite favorably to machines like the Mac, and even the ST, which has
had a similar number OS revisions since its release. The revisions have
maintained upward compatibility, so that software that worked under the older
versions will still work under the newer versions, something that is not
necessarily true of the Atari (there are some programs that do not run under
the TOS ROMs that did under TOS in RAM, though of course, you can always
load the RAM version if necessary).
Though the Amiga Operating System is far from perfect (and will undoubtably
be improved in the future, since it is not locked in ROM), it is a system
that was designed for maximum flexibility and expandability. There are
many design features that support future hardware enhancements, such as OS
support for screens as large as 1024x1024 pixels. The Amiga OS even is
designed to support the 68020 processor and the 68881 floating-point
coprocessor! A third-party maker of 68020 boards, CSA, was able to plug
their replacement board into the 68000 socket of the Amiga and get it to run
AmigaDOS with no modification. Needless to say, the ST's version of GEM will
have to be completely re-written for the 68020, making it highly unlikely
that current versions of ST software will ever benefit from the speed of
the '020. Some programs may be ported, and present ST owners who upgrade
to an '020 box using their current ST as a terminal will still be able run
the software on the 68000 side, but you will not be able to just stick an
'020 in the box and have the software run like you can do with the Amiga.
Ditto for '881 floating-point coprocessor support.
The virtues of the Amiga Operating System (and its faults) are too numerous
to discuss here in detail, but we cannot move on without mentioning the one
feature that the Atari community is most anxious to overlook -- multitasking.
This feature alone raises the Amiga OS to entirely different plane than that
of the ST. Those who have not had the benefit of this feature may think
that since most of us are used to doing one thing at a time, multi-tasking
is no more than a flashy gimmick. Those who have had the chance to use this
feature, however, think otherwise. For example, an Amiga owner recently
told me of his amusement upon reading the complaint of an ST user about a
terminal program that would not allow him to format disks while online.
With the Amiga, you can run a word processor, format disks, and play a game
simultaneously while online! Just think, never to be bored by a slow online
conference again. And wouldn't it feel great to just pull down that window
to reveal the desktop, and start up another program without closing the
current one?
Of course, as ST owners would be quick to point out, GEM can multi-task --
sort of. There are always desk accessories that can be launched from your
program (though most of the time, you can use either the program OR the
accessory, but not both at the same time). And there are Operating System
add-ons like the soon-to-be-released Micro RTX that is supposed to add a
fair level of concurrency to GEM (providing that all of the programs use
the GEM event manager to wait for events like mouse movements and the like).
But these are no real match for multitasking built into the lowest level of
the Operating System. Such a system allows ANY program to multitask with
another, subject only to the limitations of display space and memory.
While we are on the subject of Operating Systems bugs, it is only fair to
point out that the ST has certain problems in that area itself. In the
words of Russ Wetmore, a programmer who has worked with the ST as intimately
as anybody, and a man who is one of the leading lights in the Atari program-
ming community, "I 'hate GEM. I hate GEM. I hate GEM. Did I tell you that
I hate GEM?". Although Russ may have put it too strongly, he does have a
point. From a programmer's standpoint, GEM can be cumbersome to work with.
But what is far worse than GEM is Atari's implementation of it. Or rather,
lack of implementation. Big chunks of it are still missing, and not little
things, either. Things like software-loaded fonts. And virtual device
drivers. Lack of the latter is quite serious, since it is one of the core
elements of GEM. Currently, the ST has global support for its own printers,
and the Epson. That's it. As a result, application programs have to kludge
together their own support for other printers, the very thing that virtual
devices are supposed to prevent. So you have to track down a "First Word
printer driver" and a "Degas printer driver".
On the Amiga, there is global support for a dozen printers supplied with the
system, and third-party and public-domain support for dozens more. And when
I say global support, I mean global. Installing just ONE printer driver
makes your printer work with ANY program. And that means all of the special
features too, such as bold print, italics, underlining, and custom line
spacing. Of course, Atari has been promising for months that a GDOS addition
to GEM will be available Real Soon Now. This addition is supposed to supply
some things like the missing fonts, and graphics support for additional
printers. But it will not include the level of global support for special
printer features found in the Amiga.
Even if the ST version of GEM was as complete (and bug-free) as the IBM PC
version, it would still lack some of the nice "extras" found on the Amiga.
Like user-definable keymaps. A built-in speech synthesis device and text-
to-speech library. Even fundamental things like a built-in command line
interpreter.
But there is no reason to belabor the point. As we shall see in the next
section concerning software, enough fine software has been produced for the
Amiga to belie the charge that it is impossible to program the machine
because of its OS.
----------
MYTH 4: "THERE'S A LOT MORE SOFTWARE FOR THE ST THAN THE AMIGA"
To find out how much software is available for a particular computer,
the traditional test is to stack up all of the diskettes one on top of
the other to see how high the pile reaches. Remember when IBM did just
that to show us how much software there was for the PCjr? By this
measure, the contest is very close. If you look at the catalogues of
available software put out by Amiga and ST for their dealers, you will
find a similar number of listing for each. Likewise, the number of ads
in magazines like AmigaWorld, Amazing Computing, Antic and STart are
pretty similar (if anything, there appear to be more ads in the Amiga
mags).
Sheer quantity does not mean much, however. I remember a period when
every time I would walk into an Apple dealer's showroom, the salesman
would start in on how there were over 20,000 software packages
available for the machine. I would look around, and see only two or
three dozen of those packages on the shelf. What happened to the other
19,964 I would wonder? Are they storing them in the back room, or are
they just too dreadful (or useless) to sell? When you come right down
to it, a handful of packages account for most of the software sales.
So the best strategy seems to be to compare the most important packages
in each category.
Word Processing: So far the ST has the numerical advantage over the
Amiga, with STwriter, First Word, Regent Word, and Final Word to the
Amiga's Textcraft, Scribble, and Write Hand. In terms of quality,
however, the call is a bit closer. True, Textcraft is something of a
dog (though I've used its replacement, TextCraft Plus, and it is much,
much better), and Scribble is not as fully debugged as one could wish.
But STwriter is no GEM itself (pun intended, since the package does not
take advantage of the user interface), and First Word has its
deficiencies too. Let's face it guys, in this department neither
machine has much to brag about. The top fifty word processing programs
for the IBM PC are all better than anything either can offer. Of
course, both machines have some good packages waiting in the wings.
Batteries Included is doing Paperclip Elite for the ST, and it will
probably show up on the Amiga as well. Atari has just announced an OEM
agreement with Microsoft for a stripped-down version of Microsoft Word
called Write, and Wordperfect Corp. has announced a version of the
highly-acclaimed Wordperfect 4.1 for the Amiga. So if we can all just
sit tight until Christmas (hopefully, Christmas 1986), both machines
should have software that can be considered of serious use in a
business environment.
Spreadsheets: Both machines have a pretty fair Lotus clone available.
In fact, it's the same one, the VIP Professional. Despite early
complaints about the first Atari version, the Amiga version appears to
work OK, though the program allocates all unused memory for itself, a
definite no-no for multitasking. The unreleased Maxi-Plan for the
Amiga looks interesting, in that it takes advantage of the user
interface (mouse, windowing, pull-down menus). So far, the software in
this category for both machines is just adequate. Close, but no Excel.
Database: Again, the most "respectable" product for both computers is
the same one, Dbman from Versasoft. And again, an IBM software clone,
being Dbase III compatible. Both machines also have databases that use
the windowing interface to better advantage, but are less powerful. In
general, there are a number of titles for each machine, but nothing to
challenge Paradox. We will no doubt soon see packages with more power
and a better user interface on both machines in the near future. The
final score is that each machine gets a "barely adequate", with a
slight nod to the ST since the Amiga version of Dbman is not yet in
release.
Accounting: Each machine has some accounting software (Rags to Riches
and Financial Plus on the Amiga, Sierra Online's One-Write system on
the Atari), but again, nothing good enough to dominate the market. Dac
Easy, the program that has been a huge hit on the PC at $49.95, has
been announced for both machines. Again, I don't think that either
side has much to boast about here.
CAD-CAM. Let's face it. Neither Aegis Draw on the Amiga side or Easy-
Draw on the Atari is AutoCad. CAD 3-D is cute, but not what you call
an engineering tool. Dynamic-CAD on the Amiga may turn out to be a bit
closer to the industry standard. Neither machine will take over the
market on the basis of current software, though.
Graphics: The Atari trio of Degas, N-Vision, and Neo are no match for
the Amiga's Deluxe Paint, Images, and Graphicraft. Tom Hudson will try
again with Degas Elite, which should give the current Amiga crew a run
for their money, but you can also expect a new revision to Deluxe Paint
(Super Deluxe Paint?) to follow soon afterwards, which may make Tom's
reign a short one.
One area in which the Amiga clearly has the advantage is in graphics
standards. Since Commodore-Amiga took the lead in adopting EA's IFF
(or Interchange File Format), all Amiga programs save their graphics
files in exactly the same format, which means that every program can
use the graphics output of every other program. For example, every
drawing program on the Amiga can be used to create new objects for
Deluxe Print, EA's superb Print Shop type program [Deluxe Print - JSP]
(a category which Amiga also dominates, by virtue of this excellent
program). You can also take the output from video digitizers (see
below), and read those digitized images into either Paint or Print
files. And data base packages that let you use IFF graphics fields on
the Amiga are right around the corner as well. The situation on the
Atari is very different, as each paint package has its own format. It
is interesting to note, though, that Degas Elite is supposed to support
the IFF standard as well. Bringing these two computers closer together
in any way possible is a great idea, since the real enemy is the
boredol machine from Intel and Big Blue.
Another area in which the Amiga firmly has a lead is in graphics
animation packages, since there are two for that machine and none for
the ST. EA's Deluxe Video is of special note, since it is an amazingly
powerful tool for putting together animated promotional videos. It
allows you to put together animated videos featuring music, digitized
sound effects, and a full range of video effects. All of this can be
taped on a VCR. There is probably less of a demand for such software
on a machine for the ST, which (so far) does not have an RF modulator
or any standard composite output.
Music: The Music Studio is about it for each machine so far. Users who
have tried it on each machine seem to favor the Amiga version. Neither
are worth writing home about, though. Electronic Arts has put out
Instant Music for the Amiga, but most are betting that its Deluxe Music
package will be the one to beat.
ST users may be surprised to find that the Amiga version of Music
Studio also supports MIDI, through one of several optional adapters
that cost under $50. In fact, some say the Amiga version has better
MIDI support. In addition, Mimetics is just about to release their Midi
Workshop program for the Amiga.
In summary, each machine has a fair assortment of software, considering
the amount of time that each has been on the market. Neither poses a
threat to the IBM or even Macintosh at this point, however.
MYTH 5: "THE AMIGA IS JUST A 'GAME MACHINE' "
This claim leaves me wondering whether I should laugh or cry. You
would think that the words "game machine" would be never be spoken at
the new Atari, since no company has suffered more (and undeservedly so)
from that image. And yet, in the interview cited above, Sam Tramiel is
quoted as saying "The Amiga's a great game machine... It's a great,
fast, low-end game machine". It takes almost unbelievable gaul for a
man who should know better to dismiss a hardware marvel like the Amiga
as nothing more than a toy. If you told a PC user that IBM was going
to come out with a true 16-bit computer that ran as fast as the AT,
came with a built-in 880K 3.5" disk drive, a half meg of RAM,
expandable to 8 1/2 meg, a fast color graphics display, built-in serial
and parallel ports, and a true multitasking Operating System he would
probably say "What a great business machine!". But apparently Sam
Tramiel hears the same specifications, specifications remarkably
similar to his own computer, by the by, and thinks "You could play some
really BIG game programs with 8 meg of memory. And you could store
TONS of games on an 880K floppy or 40 meg hard disk. And that
multitasking is really great for playing a WHOLE LOT of games at the
SAME TIME". This from a man who sells HIS computers through Toys-R-Us.
The whole notion of a "game" computer that is not powerful enough to
run "real" software like an accounting package could only be supported
by someone who just doesn't know how computers work. Any programmer
will tell you that most of the time, a business package sits there
loafing, waiting for the user to hit a key, and when he does hit it,
the program can take its own sweet time responding. Not so when that
user is tugging on a joystick, trying to shoot at alien monsters while
dodging laser blasts. A game that features fast-action real time
animation requires every ounce of computing power that a computer can
muster, because if the speed isn't there, there is no way to fake it.
Those space ships aren't going to come screaming down at you in
formation, and you won't be able to fire fifty blasts per second while
dodging them. Did you ever wonder why you don't see a lot of great
arcade games for the PC? Try programming one on a computer that
combines a slow processor with slow graphics. Those are the same
characteristics that cause the "serious" business user to tear his hair
when he tries to get a really big spreadsheet to recalculate, or has to
wait for Auto-Cad to redraw a complex object. Anyone who suggests that
a computer that has the raw power required to run great fast-action
arcade games like "Marble Madness" cannot handle the strain of sitting
around for millions of nanoseconds waiting for some bozo to press a key
on his wordprocessing program is using his head for a hatrack. That's
like saying the Lotus is a nice car for frivolous sports like racing,
but that you couldn't possibly use it for "serious" driving chores like
going to the store to buy some milk, or delivering pizzas.
| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 98.1 | | VIKING::BANKS | i}Daxx}} ~rB}i}iis | Tue Sep 09 1986 15:32 | 3 |
| Well, that was fun reading. Only thing is, most of us around here
knew that already. The real question is: Who wants to don the
flak jacket and escalate things a bit by telling the others?
|
| 98.2 | interesting reading | BAGELS::BRANNON | Dave Brannon | Thu Sep 11 1986 06:33 | 15 |
| re: .0 interesting reading, thanks for posting it
one nit - the 520ST currently ships with RF and composite video
the 1040ST does not have RF or composite video
Comment- does anybody really expect the Tramiels to say that Amiga
is better than the ST?
Why bother with the religious wars, just put in terms of why someone
should spent the extra $$$ for the features of an AMIGA. Edit out
the pro-AMIGA/anti-Tramiel arguments, and just state the benefits
for each feature. It will be an uphill battle for both machines
to take on the PC clones (the price of AT machines is dropping).
-Dave
|
| 98.3 | | RAINBO::BANKS | i}Daxx}} ~rB}i}iis | Thu Sep 11 1986 09:12 | 12 |
| Tramiel runs around telling outright lies about the Amiga. Lots
of other people like to repeat Tramiel's lies as if they were gospel.
Some of us get frustrated, and would like the record set straight
in as public a forum as afforded Tramiel for his lies. Unfortunately,
none is forthcoming, therefore, we get these myths propogated.
People seem happy propogating these myths. Some of these same people
are very unhappy if the myths are shattered by the truth.
I'm just naive. I always thought that if a company published outright
lies about their competition, the competition would have some recourse,
or would at least like to set the record straight on their own behalf.
Neither of these, of course, is true.
|
| 98.4 | | JOKE::ACCIARDI | | Fri Sep 12 1986 08:14 | 33 |
| Glad you liked the article, tho' its a bit long. The amazing thing
to me is that Commodore-Amiga seems to completely ignore the ST
as being any kind of competition. Lets face it, the ST is an amazing
value for the money, although we all know that the Amiga is much
more exciting for almost any application one can think of... I think
that C-A feels that the newest software arrivals for the Amiga will
speak for the machine's power, and no competitive analysis needs
to be done, but I remember how Tramiel's sleaze tactics with the
c'64 took the world by storm, and I fear he may do it again unless
truthful product comparisons are made available to the first-time
buyer.
By the way, the latest Consumer Reports did a ST-Amiga comparison,
and basically said that the Amiga was much faster, had a better
designed keyboard, better graphics, better sound, better software,
and then went ahead and recommended the ST...cause it was a 'couple
of hundred bucks less. Makes you wonder if they shouldn't stick
to toaster reviews.
Anyway, the thing to remember is that the Amiga can do ANYTHING
the ST can do, but not vice-versa. Programs like DeluxeVideo will
never be available for the Mac or the ST because it would bring
lesser machines to their knees.
I've also spoken to a programmer for Elite, a Brittish company,
and they are developing animation routines for the Amiga that run
at 30 frames/sec...that is broadcast quality, by the way. By
comparison, their ST versions run at 10-12 frames/sec. So maybe
the software will sell the machine after all.
Ed Acciardi
|
| 98.5 | a coupla glitches, but I mostly agree | VAXWRK::PRAETORIUS | _636741600744_ | Fri Sep 12 1986 08:50 | 20 |
| I think toaster afficianados probably get just as pissed at Consumer
Reports as car and computer freaks, they're just not as numerous or as vocal :-)
The guy seems to imply that 640x400 mode takes twice as much memory
bandwidth on the Amiga as 640x200 (for the same number of bit planes). It
doesn't take twice as much bandwidth, just twice as much memory. Also, 5
and 6 bit plane 320x200/400 modes do steal cycles, just as 3 and 4 bit plane
640x200/400 modes do.
Although mouse/joystick port input, sound output, display (in most modes)
and sprite update, disk, parallel and serial I/O can all operate on the Amiga
without stealing cycles from the 68000, the blitter (and any future expansion
bus DMA products, which would, of necessity, live in the same timing domain as
the blitter) does compete with the CPU for cycles. The win is that it can
usually accomplish the same thing using 10 to 25% as many cycles as the 68000
would require to do the same job.
randomly,
RP
|
| 98.6 | | BAGELS::BRANNON | Dave Brannon | Fri Sep 12 1986 16:09 | 21 |
| The Sept issue of Byte has some interesting articles comparing O.S.
support and features available to application programs on MAC, Amiga,
and ST (not a straight compare, just war stories of what the features
can do).
Any chance of convincing Commodore that they must compete on a price
basis with the ST? I'd love to buy an Amiga for the price of a
520ST (I find it very hard to justify $1000+ for a home computer,
unless I has some business need for it).
re: C-A ignoring the ST
The Tramiels are selling the machine based on "Power without the
Price". What is the Amiga marketing message? "Quality machines
for Quality people"? (i saw the Amiga ads on TV, still not sure
what they were selling) C-A really needs to determine how to sell
multitasking and great graphics hardware to the masses.
-dave
|
| 98.7 | | JOKE::ACCIARDI | | Fri Sep 12 1986 17:26 | 8 |
| Maybe C-A's pitch is "Esoteric Machines for Fringe Techno-junkies".
Seriously, I never expected the Amiga to sell as well as the ST,
but there MUST be some reason other than lust for power to own one.
( I dont mean checkbook balancing programs, either). What is needed
is some real world application software that just cant run elegantly
on any other machine. This could justify the existance of AMIGA
for a larger market segment.
|
| 98.8 | | VIKING::BANKS | i}Daxx}} ~rB}i}iis | Fri Sep 12 1986 17:44 | 15 |
| Well, as nice a machine as the Amiga is, don't hold your breath.
All Commodore Amiga is interested in doing now is selling IBM PCs
in the form of the sidecar. It's one thing to let Tramiel slander
the Amiga, but it's entirely worse to have a non-existant marketing
policy at Commodore.
If you think I'm a bit more pissed at Commodore than Amiga, you're
right. On the other hand, we may have paid more for the AMiga,
but we got some features that can't seem to be had at any price
on the ST, and as a matter of fact, those features fairly well
correspond with what we wanted.
I could have bankrupted myself trying to buy those things on an
ST, and still not gotten them. Different machines, but their
power for the price doesn't come close to what I'm looking for.
|
| 98.9 | Who cares? | NEXUS::MORGAN | Garbage In, Gospel Out! | Sat Sep 13 1986 13:00 | 18 |
| It really does depend on what your _needs_ are and how much you are
_willing_ to pay. I still have friends who chide me for buying
a ST when their Apple ]['s met their needs ( and my ][c met mine).
Also timing should be taken into considerations When I bought my ST I
had first put money down for an Amiga. I changed my mind though when I
found that I could buy the ST for $600 less and also get a printer
thrown in too (which wasn't even considered in the Amiga price).
Everyone is going to have a bigger and better machine next year anyway
so I don't really know what all the hoopla' is for in the first place.
Mikie? (an amused ST owner who hopes the ][ (x) will be a good
machine. After all what would I have to spend all my
money on if not for home computers and software?)
P.S. Glad to see Commodore posted a profit last quater. Let's
all give Big Blue hell.
|
| 98.10 | Slightly jealous Acorn Master owner | WAR750::ELLIS | | Mon Sep 15 1986 18:13 | 11 |
| I agree that Commodore ought to get it's price & advertising policy
in order. Over here in the UK, the 1040 ST goes for 700 pounds (about
$805), the 512K Amiga with external drive, which is the minimum
configuration in Europe, for 1700 pounds (about $2550). Which do
you think most people will buy? I know alot of poeple that would
love to own an Amiga but at that price it is practically impossible
to justify to your normal person.
Martin "Who has got an almost equally good British product, but
would love an Amiga"
|
| 98.11 | The title is accurate | _SPHINX::DAVIS | | Fri Sep 19 1986 20:29 | 33 |
|
I wish I had a dime for every time I see the word "ST" in an Amiga
article. I've been getting the 16 bit USENET notes & reading the ST
notes on SPHINX & I still haven't seen any notes from Atari owners
saying anything about an Amiga. Show me one. If I look in any Amiga
notes I see a lot of "my Amiga is better than your computer" type
messages. Why bother? Oh well, I guess that it doesn't do any harm
so here goes:
Back to the original note. The title is quite accurate. "ST Myths" is
full of incorrect & misleading statements about the ST. It's kind of
ironic that it starts out by saying that it wants to dispel some
irritating half truths & then ends up by saying some irritating half
truths. I won't bother with all the minor items but among the more
obvious false statements include stating that the ST does not support
NTSC, GDOS is not available, and the implication that most software
probably will not support the monochrome monitor. Any properly written
software will work on any present or future GEM based system (including
an IBM PC) until the 32k by 32k virtual workstation screen resolution is
exceeded by new hardware technology. (Don't hold your breath) As for the
70hz vrs 30hz issue, I know that whenever I go to the UK the 50 hz flicker
on the TV drives me nuts. Thats only a 10 hz difference from our 60hz NTSC
spec. The 640x400 70 hz video on a paper white monitor that the ST has
really appeals to me. If I want to watch bouncing balls I can run it
through my TV. There are a few more half truths in the letter but I
don't want to put too much ST info in an Amiga note. All in all the ST
is a pretty nice computer for $495 but I still want an Amiga for the
superb animation & the multi-tasking. If I could only get a system box
for a decent price! $900 for a 256k computer without a monitor is way
too much.
|
| 98.12 | Ever been on Compuserve? | JOKE::ACCIARDI | | Sat Sep 20 1986 01:40 | 16 |
| The original article appeared on Compuserve during the height of
the ST vs Amiga wars, and the bull was flying pretty heavy on both
sides. I'm glad that some real hardware engineers got to comment
on the article. I'm just a mechanical engineer who doesn't know
squat about 'puters, but wanted a new toy.
As to your last comment, every dealer I know will sell a 256k box
with monitor for $995.00 A 256k expander card can be had for $89.00
A 512k box, monitor, and 2nd drive runs about $1300.00, still more
than a 1040, but a lot less than the "official" price of $2180.00.
1 meg ram boards run from 375 to 500. The hard disks are an
unbelievable ripoff at this time, tho' Supra plans to announce ST
type prices around January '86.
This is not a paid advertisement for C-A, I'm just trying to dispel
another myth (hehe) :^)
|
| 98.13 | I don't want a Commodore monitor | SPHINX::DAVIS | | Sat Sep 20 1986 19:48 | 13 |
|
re.-1
I've seen quite a few dealers & $900 for a system box is the best I've
done. As for the monitor, I don't want it & giving me something I don't
want is not adding value. 2 of my TV's have RGB inputs & I have enough
CRT's. BTW, according to Amiga Word Commodores give away of the monitor
to dealors was over on June 1st. Most dealers must still have stock but
I wouldn't expect it to last forever. If you want a Commodore monitor
with your Amiga it may be best to act now. I don't want one so I'll wait.
Perhaps Commodore will come out with a deal on extra memory or an extra
drive or something useful like that.
|
| 98.14 | I didn't either! | JAKE::ACCIARDI | | Sun Sep 21 1986 17:24 | 8 |
| Thats a good point.the Amiga 1080 monitor is a rip-off even if it's
free..since you have to pay to cart it away...I use a Sony KV1311CR,
which, in combo with a glare screen, completely eliminates any hi-res
flicker. I use Deluxe Paint in Hi-Res all the time, and have no
problems at all...but cheer up, if C-A wants to stay alive, they
HAVE to cut prices dramatically...Sometime I wish that Tramiel,
bastard that he is, were still in charge...He'd have the price down
to ST levels.
|
| 98.15 | price to high? | TRUMAN::LEIMBERGER | | Sun Sep 21 1986 20:59 | 28 |
| It's ok to talk if you have bucks.I am in a posistion where my finances
are very tight,and if it wern't for the moniter deal I would be
using my TV.I bought my Amiga four months ago for someware around
$1250,plus I paid the shot on my added ram.Today I still have only
one drive an no printer.In lue of all this I woulden't trade my
system for an ST with an extra drive, and printer + the cost difference.
It seems every one is hung on prices.In reality why should the Amiga
cost the same as an ST,they are not playing in the same league.I
hear remarks all the time about better graphics,multitasking,more
color,etc well we got what we payed for.I feel the user base for the
Amiga, while smaller now will continue to grow and gather support
on the strength of the machine,an the support offered by current
users dispite price.Where CBM has failed is in communicating it's
potential to a largely computer illiterate public.Electric Design
had an article (may 1986 pg.42) on the Amiga breaking ground as
a tool for engineers in the laboratory by a firm called Datacraft.
I read another blurb about Computer System Associates sidecar type
enhencement that made a 32 bit TURBO AMIGA."according to the company,
the TURBO-AMIGA ran the Dhrystone benchmark program 50% faster than
a VAX 11/780 and outperformed an IBM AT by a facter of forty in
another test"($5,765).Now I don't pretend to even know what the
Dhrystone benchmark is, an who knows what "other test" means !What
I do realize is that in both instances the Amiga was chosen as the
base system because it's potential was reconized.We(by WE I mean
the current users) can have a great impact through word of mouth,
on how the future grows.Instead of finding fault with CBM on priceing
we should be quick to point out why the price difference to begin
with, then if prices do come down it will be icing on the cake.
|
| 98.16 | Volume sells, not quality. | JAKE::ACCIARDI | | Mon Sep 22 1986 12:11 | 11 |
| I hate to be a wet blanket, and I too, love my Amiga for all the
features that can't be had at any price, but a dedicated hardware
guy can work wonders with almost anything...for example, a Brittish
company uses an ST as the front end for a transputer-based parallel
processor that runs at 15 Mips...for something like $2700.00.
But I agree, that right out of the box, without any "extras", the
Amiga is a great buy at twice the price...problem is, most people
can't afford the BASE price. C-A needs to address this before Atari
runs away with the market.
|
| 98.18 | | BAGELS::BRANNON | Dave Brannon | Tue Sep 30 1986 13:01 | 17 |
| i went to Computer Mart in Nashua NH on Saturday 9/27 about 4:30pm
(wanted to avoid the crowd of people coming to see the ][GS). The
sales folks were talking about the introduction of the ][GS as the
biggest non-event Apple has ever had. They had the machine running
demos and lots of promotional literature, but no crowd of curious
customers.
They have an Amiga with, i believe, the 512k upgrade, 1080 monitor,
and second disk drive for $1395 (store demo unit). They also had
an Amiga by the front door but it wasn't turned on.
The Apple marketing message for the ][GS is that this a bridge
product to link the Apple II world with the MAC world. It fills
the current gap in there product line for a high end Apple II
and a low end color MAC.
-dave
|