Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    I know very little of the Atari, however, I'll throw out my humble
    opinions.
    
    The IBM is obsolete technology, that is not to say that it doesn't
    work, it does but it's 10 year old technology and is very near the
    end of it's lifetime.
    
    The Amiga (particularly the 2000) is a very expandable and flexable
    machine. It's also very powerful compared to even a uVAX system (with a
    68030 processor installed it will do circles around a uVAXII or a
    GPX!), well worth a closer look.
    
    
    dbii 

    Hi,
    
    	I've had my Atari 1040ST for over a year now.  I've always liked
    ATARI hardware, and have had great luck with it.  There are tons
    of music software packages available (look in Keyboard magazine),
    and lots of public domain stuff as well.
    
        For general information on the ATARI ST line, look in the
    MAY14::ATARIST conference.  It's filled with information...
    
    Good Luck,
    
    _John_

    It's always risky to give opinions about equipment, particularly
    computers.  You say something bad about a piece of equipment and
    everyone who owns seems to interpret that as "you're machine's
    no good".  Witness the various "defenses" from owners of samplers that
    were not at the top of the list of keyboard's test.   Owners
    have used phrases like "tested poorly" even that qualitative assesment
    was not implied in the review ("poor").
    
    I gave serious thought to buying a computer about a year ago.
    
    A brief summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the major
    players AS I SAW IT (i.e., this is an "opinion"):
    
    ATARI ST:
    
    Great hardware, great price.  Bad part is that the ST is
    losing market share rapidly.  At the time I was looking, here in
    the Nashua area, the number of places to get Atari's went from
    4 down to 1 in the space of about 3 months.
    
    However, the Atari is WELL established as a MIDI workhorse.  This
    is probably due to it's builtin MIDI ports.   Almost every major
    MIDI software vendor that supports multiple platforms supports
    the ST.
    
    It would probably be my choice, but it has the most risk in that
    as a general PC, it's struggling in the market.  As it stands now,
    it seems certain that Amiga, Mac and IBM will outlive the Atari,
    but it's not clear that that's an issue.
    
    Atari seems to be the "Betamax" of PCs in some sense, although
    it's the VHS of MIDI applications.
    
    MAC: 
    
    good hardware (not great) but incredibly expenive compared
    to the Amiga and Atari.  Apple apparently feels no pressure to
    compete with them.  This is probably due to its being so well
    established and there be so very much support.
    
    In terms of available MIDI software availability, it doesn't seem
    to have much tangible advantage over the others.  There's tons
    of stuff available for each PC - how many different sequencers,
    patch librarians, etc. do you need right?  Answer: just one good one.
    
    IBM - 
    
    Crappy hardware, moderately expensive.  Probably the least
    supported by MIDI applications of all the brands, but there's still
    plenty of REALLY good stuff for it (Mark of the Unicorn in
    particularly).
    
    Clearly, the IBM is gonna be around for a long time.  If you use
    your PC for non-MIDI purposes you certainly have to give serious
    thought to it AND the Mac.
    
    AMIGA - 
    
    started out very slowly in terms of MIDI applications but it's
    grown so fast that that's no longer an issue.  Lots of good stuff
    available now.
    
    It probably has the best price/performance ratio of everything I've
    mentioned, and it has a very solid (though modest) foothold in the
    PC market.
    
    Now, I've talked a lot about both hardware and software.  But I would
    not be responsible if I didn't mention something we've described as
    "Fehsken's rule".
    
    Fehsken's rule goes something like: "Figure out what software you
    need and then buy the hardware that runs it".   It may oversimplify
    the real decisions.  You certainly have to consider things about
    the hardware like reliability, longevity, price, performance, etc.
    But even so, if you ask me, it is the FIRST RULE to apply to
    making the decision.
    
    You may ask: "What did I end up with?"  Well, I ended up not buying
    a PC.  I decided that at the current level I was at, the (then
    recently released) Ensoniq SQ-80 performed the functions I was
    looking at PCs for adequately (sequencing, bulk dumping, and patch
    library management) for my purposes, and the added complexity a
    PC would introduce to my system was something I sorta wanted to
    avoid - an admittedly quirkly attitude but I'm neither capable,
    inclined, nor willing to defend it.
    
    Someday, I know it will just be necessary to get one.  The advantage
    of waiting is that the one I end up with will be more powerful than
    the one I might buy today.
    
    Now, I hope I haven't pissed off any IBM, Atari, Amiga or Mac owners.
    Feel free to add opinions, but please don't be mad at me.  This is
    just how I saw things and things might have changed since then.
    
    	db

    
    Hi,
    
    	Basically I agree with everything that has been said before,
    with one exception. I think that the author of note -1 is in the
    States, and over there it is true to say that sales of the Atari
    ST have dropped dramatically. In Europe however, the ST is a big
    seller and support is VERY good. This may be a point worth remembering
    as the author of the base note is in Germany where they are very
    serious about the ST.
    
    Jason.
    
    By the way I have a 520 ST and Pro-24 and I am very impressed.

    I viewed things in a similar fashion to db when I was looking for a
    MIDI computer (except that the Amiga wasn't a choice).  I ended up
    getting the Atari.  Why? 

     o	available software 
     o	price (got 1040st and b/w monitor for $615)
     o	point and grunt user interface

    I don't give a rip about the "PC" capabilities of the machine; I sit in
    front of a tube all day long, and am honestly not that interested in
    running a spreadsheet or database package on *my* time.  (As an aside,
    there are tools available on the net that make the ST a very viable PC,
    including the plausibly best terminal emulation package ever written
    called WHACK.) 

    Assuming that you're in Europe (if you're in Deutschland it's even
    better), the "market share" and support issues cited by Dave are moot.
    The popularity of the ST in Europe is well-known. 

    I run Passport's MasterTracks Pro as a sequencer, Paradigm's
    Omni-Banker ST generic patch librarian, and a host of PD tools. Note
    that I do not use the machine live - without a hard disk (and given the
    rough environment on the road), a dedicated unit is probably
    preferable. 

    Anyway, I highly recommend the Atari.  I have not yet regretted my
    purchase. 

-b

    re: .1
    >
    >The IBM is obsolete technology...
    >
    
    An IBM or clone could be anything from a 4.77MHz original (that
    *is* obsolete!) up to a 25MHz 80386 machine. I don't think it'd
    be fair to call the later obsolete, but that's just my opinion.
    
    	-Keith          

    Point taken, however, even the 25mhz '386 can't compete with the
    Amiga (68030) for graphics, not even close.
    
    dbii

    I own an Amiga, and I love it, but I don't (yet) use it for music
    applications.  The graphics capabilities are extraordinary, and
    can't be touched except at several times the price.  However, the
    Amiga's processor is a standard 68000.  There are 68020 accelerators
    available at considerable additional cost (e.g., about $1K), but
    there are as yet *no* 68030 Amigas.  The Amiga's graphics capabilities
    come not from the processor, but from custom VLSI chip support that
    allow the bulk of the graphics to be done without bothering the
    processor.
    
    len.
    

    Better check the latest issues of AMIGA magazine I thought the '030 is an
    option these days, perhaps I meant '020 though...
    
    none the less it's a screaming machine, with a good archetecture.
         
    
    dbii

    Yes, you can get an '020 based Amiga, and it costs about $1K more
    than the '000 equipped Amiga 2000.  And right, be that as it may,
    it still runs circles around Atari-STs and MACs, especially when
    you consider the graphics-bang-for-the-bucks.
    
    len.