This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.

Alberto Panno-Peano wrote:

> This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.

Except for the fact that the C64 sucks and the ST doesn't.

Maurits.

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:buiujr$15p$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Alberto Panno-Peano wrote:
>
> > This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.
>
> Except for the fact that the C64 sucks and the ST doesn't.
>

Shall we compare sales figures?

Clockmeister wrote:


>>>This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.
>>
>>Except for the fact that the C64 sucks and the ST doesn't.
>>
> 
> Shall we compare sales figures?

What does that have anything to do with it? Windows and Word also sells 
good. I rest my case. :)

Maurits.

"Alberto Panno-Peano" <moltotarl@yahoo.com.mx> wrote in message
news:a5a4ac7a.0401200143.74852e7e@posting.google.com...
> This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.

Provocative (and silly) comment; there is no comparison between the
machines.

The ST is superior, as it should be because it represents more recent
technology!

Bruce wrote:

> I hate trolls...
> What is the point on starting a flame-war ?

I just enjoy answering non-statements with non-arguments. :)

Maurits.

PS: I never liked the C64, sorry :)

Jason Davey wrote:


> The ST is superior, as it should be because it represents more recent
> technology!

Also, the C64 is ugly. :)

Maurits.

and it seems to me, that your mom, didn't like you...

I hate trolls...
What is the point on starting a flame-war ?


"Alberto Panno-Peano" <moltotarl@yahoo.com.mx> escribi� en el mensaje
news:a5a4ac7a.0401200143.74852e7e@posting.google.com...
> This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.

"Jason Davey" <acs@webaxs.net> wrote in message
news:buj8oi$2s64$1@arachne.labyrinth.net.au...
>
> "Alberto Panno-Peano" <moltotarl@yahoo.com.mx> wrote in message
> news:a5a4ac7a.0401200143.74852e7e@posting.google.com...
> > This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.
>
> Provocative (and silly) comment; there is no comparison between the
> machines.
>
> The ST is superior, as it should be because it represents more recent
> technology!

Like the "new" AY/YM PSG eh? lol

Bill Bertram wrote:


> Like the "new" AY/YM PSG eh? lol

At least it could play samples that sounded better than telephone 
quality. :)

Maurits.

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:buje44$gv1$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Bill Bertram wrote:
>
>
> > Like the "new" AY/YM PSG eh? lol
>
> At least it could play samples that sounded better than telephone
> quality. :)

Amazing what you can do with 8MHz versus 1MHz... ;-)

My God!!! I've just done some research and it seems that you are right...
Both ST and C64 have a CPU, RAM , ROM, Sound chip, keyboard, both are made
of plastic - the list of similarities is endless!!!

Incidentally, I loved my C64, it was a great machine at the time. I really
liked my Atari ST but although it was a better machine it didn't have the
same *magic* somehow.

Speeder.



"Alberto Panno-Peano" <moltotarl@yahoo.com.mx> wrote in message
news:a5a4ac7a.0401200143.74852e7e@posting.google.com...
> This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.

Bill Bertram wrote:


> Amazing what you can do with 8MHz versus 1MHz... ;-)

Well so there we have it.. the ST is not a C64. :)

Besides, the 1MHz was one of the reasons I thought the C64 sucked. My 
CPC did 4MHz and even the crappy processor in the C64 was capable of 
more IIRC.

Others were the keyboard (even worse than an ST), slow tape loading 
compared to other systems, separate text/graphic mode, the silly thing 
with the capitals and the graphic symbols, the disastrous BASIC and and 
and... :)

Maurits.

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:buj7ef$csu$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
>
> >>>This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.
> >>
> >>Except for the fact that the C64 sucks and the ST doesn't.
> >>
> >
> > Shall we compare sales figures?
>
> What does that have anything to do with it? Windows and Word also sells
> good. I rest my case. :)
>


Good thing you included that smiley there, or else you may have been taken
seriously and consequently shot down in flames.

"Jason Davey" <acs@webaxs.net> wrote in message
news:buj8oi$2s64$1@arachne.labyrinth.net.au...
>
> "Alberto Panno-Peano" <moltotarl@yahoo.com.mx> wrote in message
> news:a5a4ac7a.0401200143.74852e7e@posting.google.com...
> > This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.
>
> Provocative (and silly) comment; there is no comparison between the
> machines.
>
> The ST is superior, as it should be because it represents more recent
> technology!

The Amiga blew the ST off the planet, superior technology again plus it was
applied intelligently.

Anyway SID vs YM... SID is a clear winner.

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:bujeqt$hip$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Bill Bertram wrote:
>
>
> > Amazing what you can do with 8MHz versus 1MHz... ;-)
>
> Well so there we have it.. the ST is not a C64. :)
>
> Besides, the 1MHz was one of the reasons I thought the C64 sucked. My
> CPC did 4MHz and even the crappy processor in the C64 was capable of
> more IIRC.
>
> Others were the keyboard (even worse than an ST), slow tape loading
> compared to other systems, separate text/graphic mode, the silly thing
> with the capitals and the graphic symbols, the disastrous BASIC and and
> and... :)

....and the limited PSG which needs the CPU's help to use samples, the
limited grpahics chip, the single tasking OS, the lets rush this out the
door before Commodore releases the computer we should have had, but lost
because I wanted to sqeeze the last drops out of Amiga coporation... Doh!
The ST should have been called the "RC" - Revenge Computer, lol.

Don't get me wrong, I like and own (several) STs, but when the C64 is being
bashed I need to counter... :)

"Speeder" <almostelvis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bujegh$eha$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> My God!!! I've just done some research and it seems that you are right...
> Both ST and C64 have a CPU, RAM , ROM, Sound chip, keyboard, both are made
> of plastic - the list of similarities is endless!!!
>
> Incidentally, I loved my C64, it was a great machine at the time. I really
> liked my Atari ST but although it was a better machine it didn't have the
> same *magic* somehow.
>

You should have got an Amiga... it had a wow factor that the ST sadly did
not have.

Bruce wrote:

> Always hated the awful basic, extremely slow loading time (i had dinner
> while loading mission impossible), etc..

That's a good idea, that reduces the risk of you touching the cable 
while it loads.... ;)

> Anyways... it is like comparing apples with beans...

Exactly the same: Beans are ugly and taste like sand, apples taste great. ;)

Maurits.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:03:35 +0800, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> had a noticeable pleasure while writting:
>> The ST is superior, as it should be because it represents more recent
>> technology!
>
> The Amiga blew the ST off the planet, superior technology again plus it was
> applied intelligently.
>
> Anyway SID vs YM... SID is a clear winner.

Have you heard recent YM songs with socalled "SID-voices"?

YM in ST can do better then SID.

btw. I do not say that SID is bad, I'd really would like to see SID instead
of YM in ST.

-- 
Semper Fidelis

Adam Klobukowski
atari@gabo.pl

Bill Bertram wrote:

>>Others were the keyboard (even worse than an ST), slow tape loading
>>compared to other systems, separate text/graphic mode, the silly thing
>>with the capitals and the graphic symbols, the disastrous BASIC and and
>>and... :)
> 
> ...and the limited PSG which needs the CPU's help to use samples, the
> limited grpahics chip, the single tasking OS,

I was actually talking about the C64 but so far all you add is correct. ;)

> the lets rush this out the
> door before Commodore releases the computer we should have had,

Well, the Amiga was designed by people who thought it took Atari too 
long to design a 16-bit computer.. it's their own fault they then took 
even longer. :)

> but lost
> because I wanted to sqeeze the last drops out of Amiga coporation... Doh!

This happened after the ST was released. We're talking STe by then, but 
that didn't have just a PSG. :)

> Don't get me wrong, I like and own (several) STs, but when the C64 is being
> bashed I need to counter... :)

Comparing the C64 to 16-bitters is of course silly, but as 8-bitters go 
I still don't like the C64. :)

Commodore itself should get even less credit btw.. the VC20 and C64 were 
designed by Jack Tramiel, the Amiga was designed by ex-atarians.. 
(there's this Atari-line running along all better Commodore products..) ;)

Look at what they did without Ataris help, like the C16 (which was a C64 
with all its selling points removed), the Plus-4 and the PET (the only 
computer that could blow itself up softwarematically. Heh.).

Oh yes and not forgetting the disk drives and printers. Muahahah. :)

Maurits.

> > I hate trolls...
> > What is the point on starting a flame-war ?
>
> I just enjoy answering non-statements with non-arguments. :)

Yeah , me too xD
it's funny


> PS: I never liked the C64, sorry :)
>

I didnt like it either, but i had 2, and used it sometimes to play, or use
some games factory softwares.
Always hated the awful basic, extremely slow loading time (i had dinner
while loading mission impossible), etc..

Anyways... it is like comparing apples with beans...

Clockmeister wrote:


> The Amiga blew the ST off the planet, superior technology again plus it was
> applied intelligently.

Saleswise, the Amiga didn't blow the Atari off the planet at all. And 
this was probably due to it's crappy slow OS and of course MIDI helped 
Atari a lot.

Maurits.

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:bujir7$mq6$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> > the lets rush this out the
> > door before Commodore releases the computer we should have had,
>
> Well, the Amiga was designed by people who thought it took Atari too
> long to design a 16-bit computer.. it's their own fault they then took
> even longer. :)

Took Atari too long? Jay Minor left Atari before they even considered
designing any 16-bit hardware...

> > but lost
> > because I wanted to sqeeze the last drops out of Amiga coporation...
Doh!
>
> This happened after the ST was released. We're talking STe by then, but
> that didn't have just a PSG. :)

So the STe was around in 1984? I don't think so... It took atari 4 years to
realize, hey we need to match the Amiga! By 1989 no one cared that the ST
had a 4096 colour palette, or had a 4 channel DMA chip. The userbase was
stuck with the old ST.

> Commodore itself should get even less credit btw.. the VC20 and C64 were
> designed by Jack Tramiel, the Amiga was designed by ex-atarians..
> (there's this Atari-line running along all better Commodore products..) ;)

Jack Tramiel designed nothing, he was management... Bob Yannes designed the
VIC-20 and the SID. Makes it more ironic you love what is essentially a
Commodore product then... The ST was designed by Commodore engineers who
left Commodore after Jack asked them to join him at Atari...

> Look at what they did without Ataris help, like the C16 (which was a C64
> with all its selling points removed), the Plus-4 and the PET (the only
> computer that could blow itself up softwarematically. Heh.).

Heh, they also made the ST LOL! So I agree with you, they did make some
rubbish!

On 2004-01-20, Alberto Panno-Peano <moltotarl@yahoo.com.mx> wrote:
> This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.

Actually, an ST looks much more like an Amiga than a Commode-door.

-- 
There's no reason not to contribute to the stone soup if those    |||
contributions are not critical to your competitive edge.         / | \


                                                     

On 2004-01-20, Maurits van de Kamp <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
>
>> The Amiga blew the ST off the planet, superior technology again plus it was
>> applied intelligently.
>
> Saleswise, the Amiga didn't blow the Atari off the planet at all. And 
> this was probably due to it's crappy slow OS and of course MIDI helped 
> Atari a lot.

Commodore's pricing also didn't help.


-- 
There's no reason not to contribute to the stone soup if those    |||
contributions are not critical to your competitive edge.         / | \


                                                     

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:400d596c_6@news.athenanews.com...
> On 2004-01-20, Alberto Panno-Peano <moltotarl@yahoo.com.mx> wrote:
> > This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.
>
> Actually, an ST looks much more like an Amiga than a Commode-door.

It was made by Commode-door engineers, but they had to drop two letters,
because Atari ShiT didn't give the right impression...

On 2004-01-20, Bill Bertram <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:400d596c_6@news.athenanews.com...
>> On 2004-01-20, Alberto Panno-Peano <moltotarl@yahoo.com.mx> wrote:
>> > This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.
>>
>> Actually, an ST looks much more like an Amiga than a Commode-door.
>
> It was made by Commode-door engineers, but they had to drop two letters,
> because Atari ShiT didn't give the right impression...

S-ixteen bit data bus
T-hirty two bit registers

-- 
There's no reason not to contribute to the stone soup if those    |||
contributions are not critical to your competitive edge.         / | \


                                                     

How old are you ?
i guess 9.

Please, stop the flame.

"Bill Bertram" <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> escribi� en el mensaje
news:bujlov$ie4ri$1@ID-155772.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:400d596c_6@news.athenanews.com...
> > On 2004-01-20, Alberto Panno-Peano <moltotarl@yahoo.com.mx> wrote:
> > > This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.
> >
> > Actually, an ST looks much more like an Amiga than a Commode-door.
>
> It was made by Commode-door engineers, but they had to drop two letters,
> because Atari ShiT didn't give the right impression...
>
>

your aware that at one stage commodore and Atari were owned by the same man
at the same time. before he sold off Atari to JTS and then let commodore
crash and burn. nevertheless, he;s retired living in a multimillion dollar
coastal villa now anyway.

"Alberto Panno-Peano" <moltotarl@yahoo.com.mx> wrote in message
news:a5a4ac7a.0401200143.74852e7e@posting.google.com...
> This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:bujivs$mq6$2@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Clockmeister wrote:
> Saleswise, the Amiga didn't blow the Atari off the planet at all. And
> this was probably due to it's crappy slow OS and of course MIDI helped
> Atari a lot.
>

Aghhh, you beat me to it. The machine was nice hardware wise, but the OS was
horrible and unusable at best.

Lannie

In article <400d4a44$0$4262$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>, 
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
>You should have got an Amiga... it had a wow factor that the ST sadly did
>not have.

Wow! This thing flies /so/ much better than my ST! Must be the external 
power supply saving weight, and the low-profile design!

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

In article <400d42ce$0$4260$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>, 
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
>
>The Amiga blew the ST off the planet, superior technology again plus it was
>applied intelligently.

My Amiga crashed all the time.

>Anyway SID vs YM... SID is a clear winner.

True.

Anyway, why not stack this up.

Amiga 1000
Atari 520 ST

Amiga 500
Atari 520STFM

Amiga 2000
Atari MegaST/2/4

Amiga CDTV
-----------

Amiga 600
Atari 520STE/1040STE (though, the STE predated the 600, and should be 
compared to 500plus)

Amiga 3000
Atari TT

Amiga 1200
Atari Falcon

Amiga 4000
----------

Amiga CD32
Atari Jaguar?

How did the lines evolve? Atari kept dropping good ideas, like the 
Falcon Microbox, but they still sold plenty of machines. What's an A1200 
worth now, �15 or something? Falcons go for �250 or more. Not only that, 
but an A1200 is still a fairly pointless device to have in stock form, 
whereas a Falcon is useful for music applications right out of the box.

The STE may not quite kick Amiga arse, but it was a worthwhile update, 
used SIMMs for expansion, and is very compatible with previous models.

The Amiga has no real comparison to the MegaSTE. Maybe an ECS A2000.

The Atari TT lacked the graphics of the A3000, but it had the stability 
the A3000 lacked.

All of the Ataris are useful for music as stock machines. Amigas are 
pretty useless except for games without any additional hardware.

Not that Amigas suck. It's just a case of different machines for 
different purposes. If you want to do serious stuff, get a Mac - that's 
what I did, I replaced my 1040STFM with a Mac IIx in 1989 :P

(And an Archimedes A3000, but we can't be right all of the time).

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

Ah yes, I did own an Amiga and it was great. Worth it for 'Civilization'
alone.

Speeder.

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:400d4a44$0$4262$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "Speeder" <almostelvis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bujegh$eha$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> > My God!!! I've just done some research and it seems that you are
right...
> > Both ST and C64 have a CPU, RAM , ROM, Sound chip, keyboard, both are
made
> > of plastic - the list of similarities is endless!!!
> >
> > Incidentally, I loved my C64, it was a great machine at the time. I
really
> > liked my Atari ST but although it was a better machine it didn't have
the
> > same *magic* somehow.
> >
>
> You should have got an Amiga... it had a wow factor that the ST sadly did
> not have.
>
>

>> You should have got an Amiga... it had a wow factor that the ST sadly did
>> not have.

  Well i have bought Amiga as well, so i could enjoy iy as well, altough im
Atari fan. And 1200 i got realy had a WOW factor. WOW this OS is so fucking
slow. Nice demo/gaming hardware, some nice solutions, but OS basicaly
useless. Amiga is machine with the MOST accelerators created, and thats not
because machine is fast, thats because machine is slow. Ataris with 1 or
4mb, falcons or ST are to this day still used in studios, and they are
unmodified. And many of those studios are big ones... They are used less
and less novadays, but it needed 15 and machines to exceed 1ghz to start
replacing them... Demo scener may not say wow, lame one, others will
cheerish good product on any machine, being ST or Amiga or VIC20! Midi user
will say WOW to ST... There is no bad and better machines, its all in
heads, and many seems to be quite empty here.

   Janez

Speeder wrote:

> Ah yes, I did own an Amiga and it was great. Worth it for 'Civilization'
> alone.

 Hehe :) yeah i know the feeling :) Same for me with Starglider on ST :)


    Janez

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:08:22 +0000 (UTC), Richard Kilpatrick <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> had a noticeable pleasure while writting:
> Amiga CD32
> Atari Jaguar?

I would not compare CD32 with Jaguar. CD32 is a Amiga1200 with CD in a
custom case, and Jaguar is a uniqe design.

-- 
Semper Fidelis

Adam Klobukowski
atari@gabo.pl

"LS" <me@email.net> wrote in message
news:Z0lPb.109375$8H.235668@attbi_s03...
> "Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
> news:bujivs$mq6$2@reader11.wxs.nl...
> > Clockmeister wrote:
> > Saleswise, the Amiga didn't blow the Atari off the planet at all. And
> > this was probably due to it's crappy slow OS and of course MIDI helped
> > Atari a lot.
> >
>
> Aghhh, you beat me to it. The machine was nice hardware wise, but the OS
was
> horrible and unusable at best.
>

You do remember that the ST came with that single tasking unstable
monstrosity TOS.

"Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g1SAF4Kh4kDAFwlo@btinternet.com...
> In article <400d42ce$0$4260$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
> >
> >The Amiga blew the ST off the planet, superior technology again plus it
was
> >applied intelligently.
>
> My Amiga crashed all the time.

Only 1.x was as unstable as any Atari OS.

> >Anyway SID vs YM... SID is a clear winner.
>
> True.
>
> Anyway, why not stack this up.
>
> Amiga 1000
> Atari 520 ST
>
> Amiga 500
> Atari 520STFM
>
> Amiga 2000
> Atari MegaST/2/4
>
> Amiga CDTV
> -----------
>
> Amiga 600
> Atari 520STE/1040STE (though, the STE predated the 600, and should be
> compared to 500plus)
>
> Amiga 3000
> Atari TT
>
> Amiga 1200
> Atari Falcon
>
> Amiga 4000
> ----------
>
> Amiga CD32
> Atari Jaguar?
>
> How did the lines evolve? Atari kept dropping good ideas, like the
> Falcon Microbox, but they still sold plenty of machines. What's an A1200
> worth now, �15 or something? Falcons go for �250 or more.

That's because there are many more A1200's out there, but the many upgrades
are more expensive ('060/PPC/PCI/USB etc)

Most of these upgrades are not available for any Atari.

Not only that,
> but an A1200 is still a fairly pointless device to have in stock form,
> whereas a Falcon is useful for music applications right out of the box.

What a rediculous comment.

> The STE may not quite kick Amiga arse, but it was a worthwhile update,
> used SIMMs for expansion, and is very compatible with previous models.

If offered nothing substantial. It was like the A600 upgrade from A500, two
steps forward and one step back.

> The Amiga has no real comparison to the MegaSTE. Maybe an ECS A2000.
>
> The Atari TT lacked the graphics of the A3000, but it had the stability
> the A3000 lacked.

The A3000 was plenty stable. I ran OS2.x for many years and it was very
stable compared to any other OS's at the time.

> All of the Ataris are useful for music as stock machines. Amigas are
> pretty useless except for games without any additional hardware.

Only if MIDI is your thing otherwise it is completely useless. Tracking and
sampling and music reproduction was handled very well by Paula over the
years.

As a video production tool the Amiga's ability in this area are
unquestionable.
> Not that Amigas suck. It's just a case of different machines for
> different purposes. If you want to do serious stuff, get a Mac - that's
> what I did, I replaced my 1040STFM with a Mac IIx in 1989 :P

The Mac offered very little to the creative mind in those days, unlike the
Amiga. For stuffy office apps a PC was the best solution.

> (And an Archimedes A3000, but we can't be right all of the time).

LOL

Had one of those too, for a few weeks. It wasn't a bad machine but little
software for it and I had been spoiled by the Amiga ;-)

"Janez Valant" <swe@atari.org> wrote in message
news:2quPb.1787$%x4.311130@news.siol.net...
>
> >> You should have got an Amiga... it had a wow factor that the ST sadly
did
> >> not have.
>
>   Well i have bought Amiga as well, so i could enjoy iy as well, altough
im
> Atari fan. And 1200 i got realy had a WOW factor. WOW this OS is so
fucking
> slow. Nice demo/gaming hardware, some nice solutions, but OS basicaly
> useless. Amiga is machine with the MOST accelerators created, and thats
not
> because machine is fast, thats because machine is slow. Ataris with 1 or
> 4mb, falcons or ST are to this day still used in studios, and they are
> unmodified. And many of those studios are big ones... They are used less
> and less novadays, but it needed 15 and machines to exceed 1ghz to start
> replacing them... Demo scener may not say wow, lame one, others will
> cheerish good product on any machine, being ST or Amiga or VIC20! Midi
user
> will say WOW to ST... There is no bad and better machines, its all in
> heads, and many seems to be quite empty here.
>

It's irrelevant today as it was then, but people will still bite.

Ofcourse it is a case of horses for courses, and for what I wanted out of a
computer the Amiga was the best solution...

"Dave T." <417ci-ohc-v8@Perth.com.au> wrote in message
news:400da95a$0$1746$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...
> your aware that at one stage commodore and Atari were owned by the same
man
> at the same time. before he sold off Atari to JTS and then let commodore
> crash and burn. nevertheless, he;s retired living in a multimillion dollar
> coastal villa now anyway.

He never owned Atari and Commodore at the same time. He didn't even own
Commodore in the 80's! He was simply the president and founder, but in the
1960's Irving Gould bought the controlling shares of Commodore. Commodore
crashed and burned because of Irving Gould, not Jack Tramiel... He did that
with Atari... :)

Thanks, I pieced the history together from many conflicting websites :)

"Bill Bertram" <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bun0al$jl9do$1@ID-155772.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Dave T." <417ci-ohc-v8@Perth.com.au> wrote in message
> news:400da95a$0$1746$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au...
> > your aware that at one stage commodore and Atari were owned by the same
> man
> > at the same time. before he sold off Atari to JTS and then let commodore
> > crash and burn. nevertheless, he;s retired living in a multimillion
dollar
> > coastal villa now anyway.
>
> He never owned Atari and Commodore at the same time. He didn't even own
> Commodore in the 80's! He was simply the president and founder, but in the
> 1960's Irving Gould bought the controlling shares of Commodore. Commodore
> crashed and burned because of Irving Gould, not Jack Tramiel... He did
that
> with Atari... :)
>
>

Clockmeister wrote:

> You do remember that the ST came with that single tasking unstable
> monstrosity TOS.

You can rightfully say a lot of bad things about TOS 1.00 but it was 
definitely not unstable.

And TOS + MiNT rules (as long as you don't use it as Atari corp. 
provided it) ;)

Maurits.

Adam Klobukowski wrote:

>>Amiga CD32
>>Atari Jaguar?
> 
> I would not compare CD32 with Jaguar. CD32 is a Amiga1200 with CD in a
> custom case, and Jaguar is a uniqe design.

And 64-bit.

:)

Maurits.

In article <400efac3$0$4260$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>, 
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
>> Not that Amigas suck. It's just a case of different machines for
>> different purposes. If you want to do serious stuff, get a Mac - that's
>> what I did, I replaced my 1040STFM with a Mac IIx in 1989 :P
>
>The Mac offered very little to the creative mind in those days, unlike the
>Amiga. For stuffy office apps a PC was the best solution.

Bollocks. The Mac offered considerably more, in the form of the Mac IIx. 
And before you say "You didn't try an Amiga", I 'replaced' the Mac IIx 
with an Amiga 1200 system, fully loaded, even with Commodore's 
overpriced multisync monitor.

Amiga Workbench is unintuitive and unreliable. About the best thing the 
Amiga could do was run Frontier.

My IIx had 24-bit colour, music and graphics packages.

Hell, I'd argue that an Apple IIgs was better than an Amiga in many 
cases.

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

Clockmeister wrote:

> Ofcourse it is a case of horses for courses, and for what I wanted out of
> a computer the Amiga was the best solution...

  And Atari did and still does, what i wanted. But that dont mean i will
force my choice to others and call other  ppl choices a crap and suggest
what they "should" have...

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:buo10k$nfn$3@reader08.wxs.nl...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
> > You do remember that the ST came with that single tasking unstable
> > monstrosity TOS.
>
> You can rightfully say a lot of bad things about TOS 1.00 but it was
> definitely not unstable.

Bombs galore for a single tasker it was rubbish.

> And TOS + MiNT rules (as long as you don't use it as Atari corp.
> provided it) ;)

Amiga OS blows it clean out of the water, at least any version 2.x or up.

"Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gaZw+WAOT5DAFwXB@btinternet.com...
> In article <400efac3$0$4260$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
> >> Not that Amigas suck. It's just a case of different machines for
> >> different purposes. If you want to do serious stuff, get a Mac - that's
> >> what I did, I replaced my 1040STFM with a Mac IIx in 1989 :P
> >
> >The Mac offered very little to the creative mind in those days, unlike
the
> >Amiga. For stuffy office apps a PC was the best solution.
>
> Bollocks. The Mac offered considerably more, in the form of the Mac IIx.
> And before you say "You didn't try an Amiga", I 'replaced' the Mac IIx
> with an Amiga 1200 system, fully loaded, even with Commodore's
> overpriced multisync monitor.
>
> Amiga Workbench is unintuitive and unreliable. About the best thing the
> Amiga could do was run Frontier.
>
> My IIx had 24-bit colour, music and graphics packages.
>
> Hell, I'd argue that an Apple IIgs was better than an Amiga in many
> cases.
>

Never have I heard such a complete load of rubbish. Your A1200 was either
broken are you are incapable of clear judgement.

"Janez Valant" <swe@atari.org> wrote in message
news:5ESPb.1866$%x4.318840@news.siol.net...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
> > Ofcourse it is a case of horses for courses, and for what I wanted out
of
> > a computer the Amiga was the best solution...
>
>   And Atari did and still does, what i wanted. But that dont mean i will
> force my choice to others and call other  ppl choices a crap and suggest
> what they "should" have...

But it brings a bit of life to the group, and some will keep taking the
obvious bait ;-)

In article <4010f7b4$0$4259$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>, 
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
>Never have I heard such a complete load of rubbish. Your A1200 was either
>broken are you are incapable of clear judgement.

How can you possibly claim that a 16Mhz, 68030, 68882, professionally 
marketed and priced system with standard memory, disks and a huge range 
of professional software, plus true 24-bit colour, sound that was 
arguably the equal of the Amiga, was in any way inferior to the 
crippled, proprietary A1200?

You're completely mad. AmigaOS may have had some good points, but it was 
unstable and frankly, weird.

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Clockmeister wrote:

> Amiga OS blows it clean out of the water, at least any version 2.x or up.


   MiNT in current state, and believe me that is NOT multitos, beats Amiga
OS in MANY ways... With this im not saying Amiga OS is bad, but im sure u
arent familiar with full MiNT setup. But heck, it is so easy to talk what
sux and what dont, esp if u dont use the thing that sux... Amiga OS have
some good specific stuff, MiNT/Magic etc has other. And few Amiga owners
i know did say they wouldnt mind the MiNTs aproach to Amiga OS..


   Janez

>This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.

Go make that statement on the Commodore sites. I am sure you will 
get better responses...
-- 
Edward S. Baiz Jr.
    (Gamer)

HADES 060: 256meg Ram, Yamaha & Sony CDRW Drive, 1 gig
 Jaz Drive, MicroTek E3 Scanner, Mach 64 w/4meg Ram, Epson
 Photo 700 printer, PCI Networking Card, ICQ#91257633
PROGRAMS: Extendos Gold, Cab 2.8, ScanX, GlueStik, aFTP,
 Calamus SL2002, Newswatch, Okami, PlayMyCD, Papyrus 8, Smurf,
 Nova Driver 2.67, NVDI 5, Mint(Net), Magic(Net), N.AES, Geneva

"SWE/YesCREW" <jvalant@atari.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.MNT.4.31.0401231654530.118-100000@TheFish...
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Clockmeister wrote:
>
> > Amiga OS blows it clean out of the water, at least any version 2.x or
up.
>
>
>    MiNT in current state, and believe me that is NOT multitos, beats Amiga
> OS in MANY ways... With this im not saying Amiga OS is bad, but im sure u
> arent familiar with full MiNT setup.

Which version AmigaOS?


 But heck, it is so easy to talk what
> sux and what dont, esp if u dont use the thing that sux... Amiga OS have
> some good specific stuff, MiNT/Magic etc has other. And few Amiga owners
> i know did say they wouldnt mind the MiNTs aproach to Amiga OS..


Every OS has it's good and bad points, and given the size of the scene it's
all fairly irrelevant now anyway.

"Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Hyu5EzGOdQEAFw40@btinternet.com...
> In article <4010f7b4$0$4259$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
> >Never have I heard such a complete load of rubbish. Your A1200 was either
> >broken are you are incapable of clear judgement.
>
> How can you possibly claim that a 16Mhz, 68030, 68882, professionally
> marketed and priced system with standard memory, disks and a huge range
> of professional software, plus true 24-bit colour, sound that was
> arguably the equal of the Amiga, was in any way inferior to the
> crippled, proprietary A1200?

Ask that of the many people enjoying their huge IDE drives, mountains of
RAM, PCI, USB, 060/PPC etc etc

The A4000 blew it out of the water with it's level of expandability.



> You're completely mad. AmigaOS may have had some good points, but it was
> unstable and frankly, weird.
>

Rubbish. TOS/GEM is a single tasking hybrid relic that belonged in another
era when it was released and Atari users have been battling ever since to
get something useful for their machines.

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:buo11b$nfn$4@reader08.wxs.nl...
> Adam Klobukowski wrote:
>
> >>Amiga CD32
> >>Atari Jaguar?
> >
> > I would not compare CD32 with Jaguar. CD32 is a Amiga1200 with CD in a
> > custom case, and Jaguar is a uniqe design.
>
> And 64-bit.
>
> :)
>

LOL good try.

Clockmeister wrote:


> Rubbish. TOS/GEM is a single tasking hybrid relic that belonged in another
> era when it was released and Atari users have been battling ever since to
> get something useful for their machines.

  Yes TOS was single task OS and defintely not advanced such as AmigaOS.
However im glad it was so. First of all it was very compact and sitting in
ROM, next it was FAST and on end it also included some sort of semi
mtasking thru .ACC modules. Result of all that, together with hi-res mono
monitor, still one of best and most solid screens i ever saw, was a machine
usable and a lot faster as Amiga for DTP, Midi apps, CAD/CAM and such.
While Amiga was better for raytrace apps etc.. The A1200 i have, is slower
with OS wise apps as my ST, and very serious apps such like Calamus,
Cubase, Signum, Papyrus runs faster on humble ST as lot smaller apps on
Amiga 1200. And we got Magic OS later, amd MiNT and so on.. Amiga OS was
inovative i wont deny it, when u get used to screens even more, but it was
to big, to bloated for even plain A1200. Fact remains, that ST and Amiga
were and ARE different, thanks good for that. Facti is also that many STs
are still in serious usage, mainly in studios, unmodified and with relic
TOS, reason is what i said: compact, ultra solid and fast.

  However, not to sound unfair, in contrary to STs hires mode and MIDI and
small OS (which was way developers choose, acording to Shiraz), Amiga had
some nice hardware advantages, mainly great blitter, sound hardware, so it
surely had moments in gaming, demos and due to video in gfx segment. ST
potr of DeLuxe paint was cool and very nicely done, but 4096 and some other
butons were "greyed out".. They were different machines, aimed toward
diferent users, and as is see they stil catch fans hearts... Sadly, the
already mystical Amiga owners attitude (to proud, spitingon everything
else) survived as well...

  Janez

In article <401327f6$0$4267$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>, 
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes

>Ask that of the many people enjoying their huge IDE drives, mountains of
>RAM, PCI, USB, 060/PPC etc etc

Yeah, all kludged on. And costing rather more than just going out and 
buying a Mac with PPC/USB/PCI etc.

>The A4000 blew it out of the water with it's level of expandability.

That's rubbish. The A4000 was out at the same time as the IIfx, which 
was faster, and machines like the 840av, which simply walked all over a 
stock A4000.

>Rubbish. TOS/GEM is a single tasking hybrid relic that belonged in another
>era when it was released and Atari users have been battling ever since to
>get something useful for their machines.

Yes, but I was saying that the Amiga isn't as good as a Mac. Do keep up. 
Mac OS, by the time of the IIx, was generally 7.1, which was 
multitasking, and offered a lot of features we take for granted now.

As it is, I happen to find single-tasking TOS more useful than Workbench 
anyway.

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

Richard Kilpatrick wrote:

  I had IIfx and only thing it was realy fast it was crashing. I uesd modem
at that time, and simple carrier drop, make it crash...


> Yes, but I was saying that the Amiga isn't as good as a Mac. Do keep up.
> Mac OS, by the time of the IIx, was generally 7.1, which was
> multitasking, and offered a lot of features we take for granted now.

   Sorry, but pre OsX Macos is a crap!! Type/Creator bits are annoying as
hell. I know many newbies to get frustrated by that a LOT. If u dont have
app file was created on, u need to fiddle with FilleBuddy etc, if there u
imported a lot pics from internet and have not configured inport filters u
had a lot of work. I realy dont see much of features Macos introduced and
we have them for granted.. Sliders sux, if u select 10 files u got no info
how much place that is, GetInfo opened 10 separate windows with info,
fileselector sux and so on. Without zillion 3rd party startup apps pre OsX
are crapy indeed.I have 3 Mac's at home, and they are only machines i never
drag from closet. Except 640C which i sometimes drag arround to play
Barrack, i love that game. Not to mention its slow. I have 75mhz PPC
machine here, it drags as hell, ct2 machine (030at50) is a lot more
responsive, plays mp3 easily, Performa cant, many tasks are way faster on
ct2. The gfx is better on performa, but thats all.

  Janez

Richard Kilpatrick wrote:


> Yes, but I was saying that the Amiga isn't as good as a Mac. Do keep up.
> Mac OS, by the time of the IIx, was generally 7.1, which was
> multitasking, and offered a lot of features we take for granted now.

   Well forgot to say this: mtasking on macos 7 and 8 is a joke! If i used
browser all the rest waited, if i play simple .MOD file the rest was
sluggish. Moving mouse make music to choke and so on... Amiga has proper
preemptive mtasking, just 68000 was to slow... But using my 640C or
Performa (75mhz PPC) using Macos 7.6.1 is a pain... Instaling Macos 8.5 on
Performa introduced nice look, no real new advatnages and make is even
slower, a lot! When ct2 (030 at 50mhz) can play mp3 in background while
system dont notice it, display jpegs at same speed as PPC 75mhz, run 16
channels, 16bit 50khz, or 8 channels at 16bit 50khz with realtime efects as
reverb, echo etc on EACH channel, play mpg movies or avi's (lowres) while
75Mhz PPC crawls like snail, etc there is something wrong....


   Janez

In article <L4OQb.1971$%x4.332416@news.siol.net>, Janez Valant 
<swe@atari.org> writes
>   Sorry, but pre OsX Macos is a crap!! Type/Creator bits are annoying as
>hell. I know many newbies to get frustrated by that a LOT. If u dont have
>app file was created on, u need to fiddle with FilleBuddy etc, if there u
>imported a lot pics from internet and have not configured inport filters u
>had a lot of work. I realy dont see much of features Macos introduced and
>we have them for granted..

Publish and Subscribe, drag and drop... few others. I agree about the 
resource forks /except/ that you can easily add an extension to the 
filename for non MacOS machines.

OS X kicks arse. But then it should, it's Unix. OS 7.5 is poor, OS 8 
sucks, OS 9 is good again. Performas were never very good, but the 
8500-9600 models were great.

Richard

-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

Richard Kilpatrick wrote:


> Publish and Subscribe, drag and drop... few others. I agree about the
> resource forks /except/ that you can easily add an extension to the
> filename for non MacOS machines.
> 
> OS X kicks arse. But then it should, it's Unix. OS 7.5 is poor, OS 8
> sucks, OS 9 is good again. Performas were never very good, but the
> 8500-9600 models were great.

  Im not sure if drag n drop was initialy MACos invention but who cares.
Virtualy ANY OS in 80's introduced something new etc. I do know Performas
weren't any good, but i wanted to illustrate that what Falcon "loose" with
not so advanced OS/CPU it may gain thru custom chips and programable DSP
etc, and that is VERY VERY hard to say what system is best. Mac lost a lot
thru realy dumb OS, cute, but dumb... Each machine has pros and contras!
Atari and Amiga scene argued forever, Mac one was kinda detached and
ignorant and self sufficient, if thats the right word, but arround that
time, late in 80's, Acorn scene was quiet and they produce realy neat and
powerfull machine, the Acorn and RiscOS.. I get me A4000 last year and i
like the machine...

  Janez

"Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BJCIKcC$Q6EAFw6d@btinternet.com...
> In article <401327f6$0$4267$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
>
> >Ask that of the many people enjoying their huge IDE drives, mountains of
> >RAM, PCI, USB, 060/PPC etc etc
>
> Yeah, all kludged on. And costing rather more than just going out and
> buying a Mac with PPC/USB/PCI etc.

But available, and not kludged at all and well supported and NOT available
for your Atari which is what we were discussing.

> >The A4000 blew it out of the water with it's level of expandability.
>
> That's rubbish. The A4000 was out at the same time as the IIfx, which
> was faster, and machines like the 840av, which simply walked all over a
> stock A4000.

The IIfx had nothing to offer to a typical Amiga user, we had been spoiled.

> >Rubbish. TOS/GEM is a single tasking hybrid relic that belonged in
another
> >era when it was released and Atari users have been battling ever since to
> >get something useful for their machines.
>
> Yes, but I was saying that the Amiga isn't as good as a Mac. Do keep up.
> Mac OS, by the time of the IIx, was generally 7.1, which was
> multitasking, and offered a lot of features we take for granted now.

That co-operative multitasking was a hack, unstable and slow to the point of
annoyance. I doubt that you have used AmigaOS 3.x at all in fact, or you
would know that AmigaOS was far more elegant and stable then Mac OS 7.1.

> As it is, I happen to find single-tasking TOS more useful than Workbench
> anyway.
>

For you maybe, but for me TOS was lame and simplistic.

Clockmeister wrote:

>>You can rightfully say a lot of bad things about TOS 1.00 but it was
>>definitely not unstable.
> 
> Bombs galore for a single tasker it was rubbish.

I don't think there's any bug in the OS that will make it bomb without 
software causing it explicitly. Unless your ST is broken (bus errors can 
be caused by hardware). In the few times I've used an Amiga, I've seen 
more "Guru meditations" than I ever saw my ST bomb out.

> Amiga OS blows it clean out of the water, at least any version 2.x or up.

Even counting all Amiga fans I know, you're the first one who says 
something positive about the suckly OS itself. :)

Maurits.

Clockmeister wrote:

>>Yeah, all kludged on. And costing rather more than just going out and
>>buying a Mac with PPC/USB/PCI etc.
> 
> 
> But available, and not kludged at all and well supported and NOT available
> for your Atari which is what we were discussing.

Any aftermarket add-ons for our beloved platforms are mostly kludges, 
with very few exceptions. That's just the way it is, so that argument 
simply doesn't work either way.

>>That's rubbish. The A4000 was out at the same time as the IIfx, which
>>was faster, and machines like the 840av, which simply walked all over a
>>stock A4000.
> 
> 
> The IIfx had nothing to offer to a typical Amiga user, we had been spoiled.

Funny you didn't mention the 840av. ;)

> That co-operative multitasking was a hack, unstable and slow to the point of
> annoyance. I doubt that you have used AmigaOS 3.x at all in fact, or you
> would know that AmigaOS was far more elegant and stable then Mac OS 7.1.

You literally had me spit out my drink all over myself when I read that. 
The AmigaOS has always been far from elegant OR stable. Sorry, but you 
Amigoids are simply fighting a losing battle by arguing the merits of 
your OS. I happen to have an A1200 with AmigaOS 3.0 sitting on it's hard 
drive, and I have to say that it makes MultiTOS look like an absolute 
speed demon with more than one application open at once, let alone Mac 
System 7.x. For added fun, bumping the color palette up to 256 colors 
makes it downright unusable. BTW, you guys STILL don't have protected 
memory, and at the rate of OS 4.0's development, it looks like you never 
will. That's too bad, too, because that's the one thing that AmigaOS 
needs the most. Aren't you guys tired of seeing guru meditation screens?

>>As it is, I happen to find single-tasking TOS more useful than Workbench
>>anyway.
>>
> 
> 
> For you maybe, but for me TOS was lame and simplistic.

Anything that was actually fast and usable is lame and simplistic to 
you, I suppose. Some of us like to actually get some work done with our 
machines rather than wait 5 minutes for a window to redraw.

Tim

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:bv2lt8$h82$3@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
> >>You can rightfully say a lot of bad things about TOS 1.00 but it was
> >>definitely not unstable.
> >
> > Bombs galore for a single tasker it was rubbish.
>
> I don't think there's any bug in the OS that will make it bomb without
> software causing it explicitly.

The OS should trap broken software, something TOS was hopeless at.

 Unless your ST is broken (bus errors can
> be caused by hardware). In the few times I've used an Amiga, I've seen
> more "Guru meditations" than I ever saw my ST bomb out.

Meaning you only used AmigaOS 1.x, later versions did not have the "Guru
Meditations". 1.x was a little flakey, but given that it was breaking new
ground (unlike TOS) bringing a 32 bit multithreaded multitasking OS to home
users it was a real achievement... considering it took MS another 10 years
and Apple even longer.

> > Amiga OS blows it clean out of the water, at least any version 2.x or
up.
>
> Even counting all Amiga fans I know, you're the first one who says
> something positive about the suckly OS itself. :)
>

You are full of it, do you really believe your own BS?.

"Tim Wilson" <timkel@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:UT4Rb.10346$89.5522@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
> >>Yeah, all kludged on. And costing rather more than just going out and
> >>buying a Mac with PPC/USB/PCI etc.
> >
> >
> > But available, and not kludged at all and well supported and NOT
available
> > for your Atari which is what we were discussing.
>
> Any aftermarket add-ons for our beloved platforms are mostly kludges,
> with very few exceptions. That's just the way it is, so that argument
> simply doesn't work either way.
>
> >>That's rubbish. The A4000 was out at the same time as the IIfx, which
> >>was faster, and machines like the 840av, which simply walked all over a
> >>stock A4000.
> >
> >
> > The IIfx had nothing to offer to a typical Amiga user, we had been
spoiled.
>
> Funny you didn't mention the 840av. ;)
>
> > That co-operative multitasking was a hack, unstable and slow to the
point of
> > annoyance. I doubt that you have used AmigaOS 3.x at all in fact, or you
> > would know that AmigaOS was far more elegant and stable then Mac OS 7.1.
>
> You literally had me spit out my drink all over myself when I read that.
> The AmigaOS has always been far from elegant OR stable. Sorry, but you
> Amigoids are simply fighting a losing battle by arguing the merits of
> your OS. I happen to have an A1200 with AmigaOS 3.0 sitting on it's hard
> drive, and I have to say that it makes MultiTOS look like an absolute
> speed demon with more than one application open at once, let alone Mac
> System 7.x. For added fun, bumping the color palette up to 256 colors
> makes it downright unusable. BTW, you guys STILL don't have protected
> memory, and at the rate of OS 4.0's development, it looks like you never
> will. That's too bad, too, because that's the one thing that AmigaOS
> needs the most. Aren't you guys tired of seeing guru meditation screens?
>
> >>As it is, I happen to find single-tasking TOS more useful than Workbench

> >>anyway.
> >>
> >
> >
> > For you maybe, but for me TOS was lame and simplistic.
>
> Anything that was actually fast and usable is lame and simplistic to
> you, I suppose. Some of us like to actually get some work done with our
> machines rather than wait 5 minutes for a window to redraw.
>

Your comments are bordering on the stupid, as you well know. Still sour that
you had a crap OS running on mediocre hardware... ah well, us Amigans (at
the time) were well ahead of everyone else with our elegant, multitasking
OS.

If your experiences are really that different, you are either telling
porky's or had broken hardware.

Clockmeister wrote:

> The OS should trap broken software, something TOS was hopeless at.

You're really drifting into silly statements. If the software causes a 
bus error, an address error or anything like that, the OS cannot "trap" 
this any other way than to report this and kill the program. TOS does 
this with bombs.

> Meaning you only used AmigaOS 1.x, later versions did not have the "Guru
> Meditations". 1.x was a little flakey,

Hey hey, we were talking TOS 1.0 here. Don't start comparing it to later 
versions of other OSes.

> but given that it was breaking new
> ground (unlike TOS) bringing a 32 bit

hee hee..

> multithreaded multitasking OS to home
> users it was a real achievement...

Personally I cared more for the speed and the stability of TOS than a 
slow and crashing OS that has multithreading as an excuse for not working.

> You are full of it, do you really believe your own BS?.

Oh sure, just call me a liar.

Incidentally, what are you doing in an Atari newsgroup if you hate 
Ataris that much? You don't catch me subscribing to Amiga newsgroups 
just to shout about how crappy they are.

Maurits.

In article <UT4Rb.10346$89.5522@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com>, Tim Wilson 
<timkel@swbell.net> writes
>>   For you maybe, but for me TOS was lame and simplistic.
>
>Anything that was actually fast and usable is lame and simplistic to 
>you, I suppose. Some of us like to actually get some work done with our 
>machines rather than wait 5 minutes for a window to redraw.

People who like Amigas generally can be found in amusement arcades 
watching the flashing lights and pretty colours :)

Seriously, I know Clockmeister is trolling, but how can anyone argue 
that AmigaOS is more stable than TOS? An ST with 1Mb RAM can run Cubase 
reliably. What can you do with an Amiga with 1Mb RAM, other than play 
games or do simple word processing?

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

Richard Kilpatrick wrote:

> Seriously, I know Clockmeister is trolling,

Obviously. :)

> What can you do with an Amiga with 1Mb RAM, other than play 
> games or do simple word processing?

An ST can even do that with 512K. :)

Maurits.

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4014e928$0$4266$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...

> Your comments are bordering on the stupid, as you well know. Still sour
that
> you had a crap OS running on mediocre hardware... ah well, us Amigans (at
> the time) were well ahead of everyone else with our elegant, multitasking
> OS.
> If your experiences are really that different, you are either telling
> porky's or had broken hardware.

You're wasting your time with those two, they have their opinion (however
dumb), and you won't change them. Atari ST and spectrum owners are the same,
they point blank refuse to acknowledge they bought a technically inferiour
product. No matter what you say, they will come up with a "fact" we know not
to be true, but they want and need to believe to make their machine look
better than it is. So what if they like TOS better, let 'em suffer with it I
say...

Bill Bertram wrote:

> You're wasting your time with those two, they have their opinion (however
> dumb), and you won't change them. Atari ST and spectrum owners are the same,
> they point blank refuse to acknowledge they bought a technically inferiour
> product. No matter what you say, they will come up with a "fact" we know not
> to be true, but they want and need to believe to make their machine look
> better than it is. So what if they like TOS better, let 'em suffer with it I
> say...

Pot.. kettle...

Maurits.

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:bv334b$a8c$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Bill Bertram wrote:
>
> > You're wasting your time with those two, they have their opinion
(however
> > dumb), and you won't change them. Atari ST and spectrum owners are the
same,
> > they point blank refuse to acknowledge they bought a technically
inferiour
> > product. No matter what you say, they will come up with a "fact" we know
not
> > to be true, but they want and need to believe to make their machine look
> > better than it is. So what if they like TOS better, let 'em suffer with
it I
> > say...
>
> Pot.. kettle...

Really... I'll have a cup of tea then :)

In article <bv31ag$mrr7t$1@ID-155772.news.uni-berlin.de>, Bill Bertram 
<ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> writes
>You're wasting your time with those two, they have their opinion (however
>dumb), and you won't change them. Atari ST and spectrum owners are the same,
>they point blank refuse to acknowledge they bought a technically inferiour
>product.

You mean, there's an argument that a Spectrum is better than an Amiga? 
Well, I suppose it's possible...

All of these machines are inferior to a nice Archimedes system, anyway. 
Though I maintain that the Falcon was twice the computer the A1200 ever 
was.

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

Bill Bertram wrote:

>>Pot.. kettle...
> 
> Really... I'll have a cup of tea then :)

Enjoy it.. just don't complain when it's black. :)

Maurits.

"Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zzlk01GmoRFAFwGu@btinternet.com...
> In article <bv31ag$mrr7t$1@ID-155772.news.uni-berlin.de>, Bill Bertram
> <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> writes
> >You're wasting your time with those two, they have their opinion (however
> >dumb), and you won't change them. Atari ST and spectrum owners are the
same,
> >they point blank refuse to acknowledge they bought a technically
inferiour
> >product.
>
> You mean, there's an argument that a Spectrum is better than an Amiga?
> Well, I suppose it's possible...

Well you say the Archimedes is better than Atari and Amiga, so using your
logic, anything is of course possible...

> All of these machines are inferior to a nice Archimedes system, anyway.
> Though I maintain that the Falcon was twice the computer the A1200 ever
> was.

I agree the Falcon is a good computer, but not twice the computer, twice the
price maybe... If the Falcon sold for A1200 prices, then yes the Falcon
would have the edge, but how many falcon's were sold? hmm...

In article <bv377l$nl899$1@ID-155772.news.uni-berlin.de>, Bill Bertram 
<ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> writes
>> You mean, there's an argument that a Spectrum is better than an Amiga?
>> Well, I suppose it's possible...
>
>Well you say the Archimedes is better than Atari and Amiga, so using your
>logic, anything is of course possible...

Are you suggesting that the Archimedes isn't better than Atari and 
Amiga? It's more stable, faster, more expandable, and offers 
considerably better multi-tasking than the Amiga (or ST/Falcon models), 
with the benefits of a ROM-based OS. Unlike the ST or Amiga, you can 
still buy a direct, modern(ish) mass-produced(ish) descendant of the 
Archimedes - the Iyonix - which offers XScale, PCI and Podules, at 
merely the same price as, oh, a Mac G5 1.6GHz. RiscOS is vastly superior 
to Workbench/AmigaOS or TOS.

>I agree the Falcon is a good computer, but not twice the computer, twice the
>price maybe... If the Falcon sold for A1200 prices, then yes the Falcon
>would have the edge, but how many falcon's were sold? hmm...

The Falcon did sell for A1200 prices when new. I remember my CDTV being 
�399, and the A1200 being the same price when I took the CDTV back to 
Dixons because of the missing mouse. At the same time the Falcon was 
�399, but wasn't offered in places like Dixons, and had different RAM to 
the Amiga - the Amiga came with an HD at that price, the Falcon had more 
RAM (and DSP, and SCSI, and DSP) but no HD - the HD took it to �499/599 
and extra RAM made the most expensive Falcon �699 IIRC... My A1200 
system cost me nearly a grand with the overpriced Commodore multisync 
(needed to use games /and/ serious Apps - wish I still had that monitor 
now for my PS2 Linux box). Compared to the �3,000 my Mac IIx cost me, it 
was a cheap computer, but I got bored of it in a year, despite being 
someone who liked demos (and really like the A1200 demos).

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

"Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3RhF8MB0SSFAFw0b@btinternet.com...
> In article <bv377l$nl899$1@ID-155772.news.uni-berlin.de>, Bill Bertram
> <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> writes
> >> You mean, there's an argument that a Spectrum is better than an Amiga?
> >> Well, I suppose it's possible...
> >
> >Well you say the Archimedes is better than Atari and Amiga, so using your
> >logic, anything is of course possible...
>
> Are you suggesting that the Archimedes isn't better than Atari and
> Amiga? It's more stable, faster, more expandable, and offers
> considerably better multi-tasking than the Amiga (or ST/Falcon models),
> with the benefits of a ROM-based OS. Unlike the ST or Amiga, you can
> still buy a direct, modern(ish) mass-produced(ish) descendant of the
> Archimedes - the Iyonix - which offers XScale, PCI and Podules, at
> merely the same price as, oh, a Mac G5 1.6GHz. RiscOS is vastly superior
> to Workbench/AmigaOS or TOS.

Well I was using your logic about the speccy/amiga argument...

> The Falcon did sell for A1200 prices when new. I remember my CDTV being
> �399, and the A1200 being the same price when I took the CDTV back to
> Dixons because of the missing mouse. At the same time the Falcon was
> �399, but wasn't offered in places like Dixons, and had different RAM to
> the Amiga - the Amiga came with an HD at that price, the Falcon had more
> RAM (and DSP, and SCSI, and DSP) but no HD - the HD took it to �499/599
> and extra RAM made the most expensive Falcon �699 IIRC... My A1200
> system cost me nearly a grand with the overpriced Commodore multisync
> (needed to use games /and/ serious Apps - wish I still had that monitor
> now for my PS2 Linux box). Compared to the �3,000 my Mac IIx cost me, it
> was a cheap computer, but I got bored of it in a year, despite being
> someone who liked demos (and really like the A1200 demos).

Well I have have 2 Silica catalogues here, one for the Amiga and one for
Atari/PC/Consoles both from December 1993. A Falcon without HDD and 1MB RAM
was �399 with no software, discounted from �499. The base A1200 (No HDD 2MB
RAM) �299 (plus two games and another software pack). Compare a 4mb/209MB
HDD Falcon (�899) and a A1200 with 2MB/209MB HDD (�649). �250 for 2MB of
RAM!? Ok let's be fair, you have to include the DSP and 16MHz 030 CPU. The
Falcon was only competive against the A4000, which sold for silly money...
Even so, a 2mb 80MB HDD A4000 with 25MHz 030 was �899... The A4000 and
Falcon hold their value well over the years though! btw, I have the Falcon
page scanned if anyone wants it.

On 2004-01-26, Bill Bertram <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4014e928$0$4266$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
>> Your comments are bordering on the stupid, as you well know. Still sour
> that
>> you had a crap OS running on mediocre hardware... ah well, us Amigans (at
>> the time) were well ahead of everyone else with our elegant, multitasking
>> OS.
>> If your experiences are really that different, you are either telling
>> porky's or had broken hardware.
>
> You're wasting your time with those two, they have their opinion (however
> dumb), and you won't change them. Atari ST and spectrum owners are the same,
> they point blank refuse to acknowledge they bought a technically inferiour
> product. No matter what you say, they will come up with a "fact" we know not

Not at all. Also, there is a considerable difference between "techincally
inferior" and poorly engineered. Ataris represent very sensible design
tradeoffs for the time.

Power without the price wasn't just an advertising slogan.

> to be true, but they want and need to believe to make their machine look
> better than it is. So what if they like TOS better, let 'em suffer with it I
> say...

No, twits like you simply need to get over yourselves and realize that
people like us would still not have bought Amigas even if we had an
infinite amount of someone else's money to waste.

-- 
There's no reason not to contribute to the stone soup if those    |||
contributions are not critical to your competitive edge.         / | \


                                                     

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnc1afdc.krh.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2004-01-26, Bill Bertram <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> wrote:
> Not at all. Also, there is a considerable difference between "techincally
> inferior" and poorly engineered. Ataris represent very sensible design
> tradeoffs for the time.
>
> Power without the price wasn't just an advertising slogan.

The ST was designed in a amazingly short amount of time, and I agree they
made a nice computer considering the timescale involved.

> No, twits like you simply need to get over yourselves and realize that
> people like us would still not have bought Amigas even if we had an
> infinite amount of someone else's money to waste.

Oh that bitter are we? I'm open minded enough to want to own and use both
machines. I may think the machine is technically inferior, but it doesn't
stop me from liking or using the ST. I'm sure you would rather use your
sugar daddy's money on something useful like a 286 PC then...

On 2004-01-26, Bill Bertram <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:slrnc1afdc.krh.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2004-01-26, Bill Bertram <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> wrote:
>> Not at all. Also, there is a considerable difference between "techincally
>> inferior" and poorly engineered. Ataris represent very sensible design
>> tradeoffs for the time.
>>
>> Power without the price wasn't just an advertising slogan.
>
> The ST was designed in a amazingly short amount of time, and I agree they
> made a nice computer considering the timescale involved.
>
>> No, twits like you simply need to get over yourselves and realize that
>> people like us would still not have bought Amigas even if we had an
>> infinite amount of someone else's money to waste.
>
> Oh that bitter are we? I'm open minded enough to want to own and use both

Not at all. I've just never been very tolerant of assholes. You can
search archives of this group from 1988 if you would like to verify
that.

> machines. I may think the machine is technically inferior, but it doesn't
> stop me from liking or using the ST. I'm sure you would rather use your
> sugar daddy's money on something useful like a 286 PC then...

Any 32bit machine sold at a reasonable price with a flat memory model is fine.

That elimianates most Amigas and Macs. 

That also eliminates PC's until about 1993.

-- 
There's no reason not to contribute to the stone soup if those    |||
contributions are not critical to your competitive edge.         / | \


                                                     

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:bv2rtg$odg$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
> > The OS should trap broken software, something TOS was hopeless at.
>
> You're really drifting into silly statements. If the software causes a
> bus error, an address error or anything like that, the OS cannot "trap"
> this any other way than to report this and kill the program. TOS does
> this with bombs.

No, a proper OS gives you the option of killing or suspending the rogue
application whilst leaving the rest of the system intact. Had you ever
seriously used an Amiga you would understand how this works.

Perhaps you would also understand how my Amiga with OS2.0 operated for two
weeks without having to reboot after two applications which had crashed were
suspended by the OS.

> > Meaning you only used AmigaOS 1.x, later versions did not have the "Guru
> > Meditations". 1.x was a little flakey,
>
> Hey hey, we were talking TOS 1.0 here. Don't start comparing it to later
> versions of other OSes.

Regardsless, 1.3 featured smooth multitasking and could run software at
various resolutions on different screens. If you don't think that is cool or
useful then you are a twit, seriously.

> > but given that it was breaking new
> > ground (unlike TOS) bringing a 32 bit
>
> hee hee..
>
> > multithreaded multitasking OS to home
> > users it was a real achievement...
>
> Personally I cared more for the speed and the stability of TOS than a
> slow and crashing OS that has multithreading as an excuse for not working.
>
> > You are full of it, do you really believe your own BS?.
>
> Oh sure, just call me a liar.

From your comments it is plainly obvious that you do not know much about
modern operating systems and how they work which also explains why TOS would
be so appealing to you.

> Incidentally, what are you doing in an Atari newsgroup if you hate
> Ataris that much? You don't catch me subscribing to Amiga newsgroups
> just to shout about how crappy they are.
>

I don't hate Atari's, on the contrary, but I do know how to spot illinformed
bullshit when I see it as I have owned and used both systems.

"Bill Bertram" <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bv31ag$mrr7t$1@ID-155772.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4014e928$0$4266$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> > Your comments are bordering on the stupid, as you well know. Still sour
> that
> > you had a crap OS running on mediocre hardware... ah well, us Amigans
(at
> > the time) were well ahead of everyone else with our elegant,
multitasking
> > OS.
> > If your experiences are really that different, you are either telling
> > porky's or had broken hardware.
>
> You're wasting your time with those two, they have their opinion (however
> dumb), and you won't change them. Atari ST and spectrum owners are the
same,
> they point blank refuse to acknowledge they bought a technically inferiour
> product. No matter what you say, they will come up with a "fact" we know
not
> to be true, but they want and need to believe to make their machine look
> better than it is. So what if they like TOS better, let 'em suffer with it
I
> say...
>

They deserve TOS ;-)

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnc1afdc.krh.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2004-01-26, Bill Bertram <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:4014e928$0$4266$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
> >
> >> Your comments are bordering on the stupid, as you well know. Still sour
> > that
> >> you had a crap OS running on mediocre hardware... ah well, us Amigans
(at
> >> the time) were well ahead of everyone else with our elegant,
multitasking
> >> OS.
> >> If your experiences are really that different, you are either telling
> >> porky's or had broken hardware.
> >
> > You're wasting your time with those two, they have their opinion
(however
> > dumb), and you won't change them. Atari ST and spectrum owners are the
same,
> > they point blank refuse to acknowledge they bought a technically
inferiour
> > product. No matter what you say, they will come up with a "fact" we know
not
>
> Not at all. Also, there is a considerable difference between "techincally
> inferior" and poorly engineered. Ataris represent very sensible design
> tradeoffs for the time.
>
> Power without the price wasn't just an advertising slogan.
>
> > to be true, but they want and need to believe to make their machine look
> > better than it is. So what if they like TOS better, let 'em suffer with
it I
> > say...
>
> No, twits like you simply need to get over yourselves and realize that
> people like us would still not have bought Amigas even if we had an
> infinite amount of someone else's money to waste.
>

That only shows who the real twits are in this silly nostalgic excercise,
and it certainly isn't former Amiga users.

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:bv2src$pi9$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Richard Kilpatrick wrote:
>
> > Seriously, I know Clockmeister is trolling,
>
> Obviously. :)
>
> > What can you do with an Amiga with 1Mb RAM, other than play
> > games or do simple word processing?

What could you do with a 1Mb ST that you couldn't do on a 1Mb Amiga back
then?

> An ST can even do that with 512K. :)
>

Bombs away...

In article <401647bb$0$4268$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>, 
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
>What could you do with a 1Mb ST that you couldn't do on a 1Mb Amiga back
>then?

Run a MIDI sequencer reliably. On an Amiga you'd need an additional 
interface, and it still wouldn't be as good as Cubase.

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

On 2004-01-27, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> "Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
> news:bv2rtg$odg$1@reader11.wxs.nl...
>> Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>> > The OS should trap broken software, something TOS was hopeless at.
>>
>> You're really drifting into silly statements. If the software causes a
>> bus error, an address error or anything like that, the OS cannot "trap"
>> this any other way than to report this and kill the program. TOS does
>> this with bombs.
>
> No, a proper OS gives you the option of killing or suspending the rogue
> application whilst leaving the rest of the system intact. Had you ever
> seriously used an Amiga you would understand how this works.

Most "guru meditations" do infact leave the rest of GEM intact.

[deletia]

Any sane OS is going to terminate an application that causes
a bus error. This simply isn't something that any sane person
can knock GEM for.

"real" operating systems KILL rogue processes with extreme prejudice.


-- 
There's no reason not to contribute to the stone soup if those    |||
contributions are not critical to your competitive edge.         / | \


                                                     

On 2004-01-27, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:slrnc1afdc.krh.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2004-01-26, Bill Bertram <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> > news:4014e928$0$4266$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
[deletia]
>> Not at all. Also, there is a considerable difference between "techincally
>> inferior" and poorly engineered. Ataris represent very sensible design
>> tradeoffs for the time.
>>
>> Power without the price wasn't just an advertising slogan.
>>
>> > to be true, but they want and need to believe to make their machine look
>> > better than it is. So what if they like TOS better, let 'em suffer with
> it I
>> > say...
>>
>> No, twits like you simply need to get over yourselves and realize that
>> people like us would still not have bought Amigas even if we had an
>> infinite amount of someone else's money to waste.
>>
>
> That only shows who the real twits are in this silly nostalgic excercise,
> and it certainly isn't former Amiga users.

Regardless of how much you might like to kid yourself, an Amiga remains
for all practical purposes just a rediculously overpriced ST.

Some of us had lives even then, and other things to spend money on.

-- 
There's no reason not to contribute to the stone soup if those    |||
contributions are not critical to your competitive edge.         / | \


                                                     

"Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fkhfxsN0ykFAFwSW@btinternet.com...
> In article <401647bb$0$4268$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
> >What could you do with a 1Mb ST that you couldn't do on a 1Mb Amiga back
> >then?
>
> Run a MIDI sequencer reliably. On an Amiga you'd need an additional
> interface, and it still wouldn't be as good as Cubase.
>

And for creating MOD's using trackers, Paula was much more suited to
creating and playing back samples then that YM POS. There were more people
creating MOD's on their 1Mb Amigas then Atari users using their MIDI port,
I'm willing to bet.

> > No, twits like you simply need to get over yourselves and realize that
> > people like us would still not have bought Amigas even if we had an
> > infinite amount of someone else's money to waste.

I didn't get an Amiga back when....because they cost a bloody fortune that I did
not have at the time, and the only thing the campus Amiga heads were interested
in were hacked games.

Instead, I got an ST with a Super Charger DOS box, and a Spectra GCR.  Later
traded all that in for a Falcon.  My PC/Mac frends were envious as I was running
3 systems, faster than the real thing, for the price of one high end
Amiga...minus any PC-DOS bridgeboard.

Now, I have an Amiga 2000 to go with my Ataris and PCs.  Someone was using it
for a door jam in his garage.  It's pretty neat; althoe I'm having a booger of a
time getting it to see a CD-ROM drive or read-write MS-DOS disks.  The more I
download from aminet, the more I realize an average user can't install any of
this stuff and get it working.  It's all poorly documented, assumes you know
Amiga DOS inside and out, often doesn't work unless you have some specific
version of ROMS, Workbench, etc...and repalce this thinggy with that thinggy and
hack up a script or two.

I'm looking forward to learning....but so far it's taken a lot more time/money
than I care to spend on it.

With my Atari machines...I had entire networks set up in the time I've spent
just trying to connect a CD drive to this Amiga.  I slapped together a 5 synth
studio with synced tape decks and was producing music in less than 2
hours....but with the Amiga....I'm still trying to figure out how to tell
software and the OS the difference between my Multiface ports and the built in
ones.

The Amiga OS is so much more complex for the user...which I'm sure is a good
thing in that in theory, it can do more.  It's really hard to figure out, and
things just aren't documented very well.  Get a book?  I did!  Four of them, and
they appear to be written by and for programming gurus.  I'm learning....but
slowly.

I've also noticed the Amiga has lots of stuff that just doesn't work.  I.E.  Set
it for all these cool colors it's supposed to support, and the thing runs so
slow it hurts.  For a reasonably snappy work bench....things are about
equilvilant to an ST.  One app, 2 to 16 colors, and not much real estate area on
the screen.

I'm having better luck with the Amiga Forever Emulator!  Now that's been
fun/cool....I just wish the sound was better.

Brian

Clockmeister wrote:

>>You're really drifting into silly statements. If the software causes a
>>bus error, an address error or anything like that, the OS cannot "trap"
>>this any other way than to report this and kill the program. TOS does
>>this with bombs.
> 
> No, a proper OS gives you the option of killing or suspending the rogue
> application whilst leaving the rest of the system intact. Had you ever
> seriously used an Amiga you would understand how this works.

I never saw the "Guru" ask me to suspend an application that caused a 
processor violation. Rightfully, since this would be an extremely silly 
option.

> Perhaps you would also understand how my Amiga with OS2.0 operated for two
> weeks without having to reboot after two applications which had crashed were
> suspended by the OS.

If an application bombs out on an Atari, you don't have to reboot 
either. Actually, in the time I did seriously use an Amiga, the system 
usually didn't recover very well from the guru meditations.

> Regardsless, 1.3 featured smooth multitasking and could run software at
> various resolutions on different screens. If you don't think that is cool or
> useful then you are a twit, seriously.

[troll-response-mode on] MiNT has Vconsoles and can start and stop the 
AES (gui) at will. My system is cooler than yours blah blah. 
[troll-response-mode-off].

> From your comments it is plainly obvious that you do not know much about
> modern operating systems

Probably.. that must be why I am the system administrator and Linux 
consultant here, and run my own webhosting company on the side, managing 
a NetBSD server.

> and how they work which also explains why TOS would
> be so appealing to you.

I do prefer Linux (and OSX and MiNT) over plain TOS. I just never liked 
Amiga's attempt at an operating system very much. It was ugly, slow and 
unstable. And if it's only ugly, slow and unstable to someone who 
doesn't know much about modern operating systems, it still sucks.

> I don't hate Atari's, on the contrary, but I do know how to spot illinformed
> bullshit when I see it as I have owned and used both systems.

Me too, and I know how to spot trolls.

Feeding time is over. :)

Maurits.

Clockmeister wrote:

>>An ST can even do that with 512K. :)
>>
> 
> Bombs away...

I see you can only spot illinformed bullshit in other people's posts, 
not your own.

Maurits.

In article <4016df6f$0$4263$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>, 
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
>And for creating MOD's using trackers, Paula was much more suited to
>creating and playing back samples then that YM POS. There were more people
>creating MOD's on their 1Mb Amigas then Atari users using their MIDI port,
>I'm willing to bet.

You'd probably lose. Besides, what use are MODs beyond saying "look what 
my computer's sound chip can do". An Apple IIgs can comfortably urinate 
on Paula from a great height, and when we bring in the STE and Falcon 
sound hardware, the Amiga is again left behind.

MODs are cool, sure, but they're not useful in any way.

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:bv7rvc$55$1@reader08.wxs.nl...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
> >>You're really drifting into silly statements. If the software causes a
> >>bus error, an address error or anything like that, the OS cannot "trap"
> >>this any other way than to report this and kill the program. TOS does
> >>this with bombs.
> >
> > No, a proper OS gives you the option of killing or suspending the rogue
> > application whilst leaving the rest of the system intact. Had you ever
> > seriously used an Amiga you would understand how this works.
>
> I never saw the "Guru" ask me to suspend an application that caused a
> processor violation. Rightfully, since this would be an extremely silly
> option.

The Guru wouldn't, as it disappeared after AmigaOS1.3...

> > Perhaps you would also understand how my Amiga with OS2.0 operated for
two
> > weeks without having to reboot after two applications which had crashed
were
> > suspended by the OS.
>
> If an application bombs out on an Atari, you don't have to reboot
> either. Actually, in the time I did seriously use an Amiga, the system
> usually didn't recover very well from the guru meditations.

Once again pointing to you only having used 1.x

> > Regardsless, 1.3 featured smooth multitasking and could run software at
> > various resolutions on different screens. If you don't think that is
cool or
> > useful then you are a twit, seriously.
>
> [troll-response-mode on] MiNT has Vconsoles and can start and stop the
> AES (gui) at will. My system is cooler than yours blah blah.
> [troll-response-mode-off].


[troll mode on]
Yawn.
 [troll mode off]

> > From your comments it is plainly obvious that you do not know much about
> > modern operating systems
>
> Probably.. that must be why I am the system administrator and Linux
> consultant here, and run my own webhosting company on the side, managing
> a NetBSD server.
>
> > and how they work which also explains why TOS would
> > be so appealing to you.
>
> I do prefer Linux (and OSX and MiNT) over plain TOS. I just never liked
> Amiga's attempt at an operating system very much. It was ugly, slow and
> unstable. And if it's only ugly, slow and unstable to someone who
> doesn't know much about modern operating systems, it still sucks.

And not having used anything above AmigaOS 1.x disqualifies any arguement
you might have as you simply wouldn't know how AmigaOS has done things in
the last 15 years.

> > I don't hate Atari's, on the contrary, but I do know how to spot
illinformed
> > bullshit when I see it as I have owned and used both systems.
>
> Me too, and I know how to spot trolls.
>
> Feeding time is over. :)
>

The only troll here is you.

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnc1db3p.gsf.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2004-01-27, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> > news:slrnc1afdc.krh.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> >> On 2004-01-26, Bill Bertram <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:4014e928$0$4266$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
> [deletia]
> >> Not at all. Also, there is a considerable difference between
"techincally
> >> inferior" and poorly engineered. Ataris represent very sensible design
> >> tradeoffs for the time.
> >>
> >> Power without the price wasn't just an advertising slogan.
> >>
> >> > to be true, but they want and need to believe to make their machine
look
> >> > better than it is. So what if they like TOS better, let 'em suffer
with
> > it I
> >> > say...
> >>
> >> No, twits like you simply need to get over yourselves and realize that
> >> people like us would still not have bought Amigas even if we had an
> >> infinite amount of someone else's money to waste.
> >>
> >
> > That only shows who the real twits are in this silly nostalgic
excercise,
> > and it certainly isn't former Amiga users.
>
> Regardless of how much you might like to kid yourself, an Amiga remains
> for all practical purposes just a rediculously overpriced ST.
>

but with lots of cool stuff that made us wonder why anyone could possibly
spend money on such a bland machine.

> Some of us had lives even then, and other things to spend money on.
>

Others were creative and needed a machine to express their creativity... and
Atari wasn't an option unless MIDI was your only release.

"Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:au4+jKFR+8FAFwSb@btinternet.com...
> In article <4016df6f$0$4263$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
> >And for creating MOD's using trackers, Paula was much more suited to
> >creating and playing back samples then that YM POS. There were more
people
> >creating MOD's on their 1Mb Amigas then Atari users using their MIDI
port,
> >I'm willing to bet.
>
> You'd probably lose. Besides, what use are MODs beyond saying "look what
> my computer's sound chip can do". An Apple IIgs can comfortably urinate
> on Paula from a great height, and when we bring in the STE and Falcon
> sound hardware, the Amiga is again left behind.
>
> MODs are cool, sure, but they're not useful in any way.
>

Except to create music ofcourse... duh

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:bv7s2s$55$2@reader08.wxs.nl...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
> >>An ST can even do that with 512K. :)
> >>
> >
> > Bombs away...
>
> I see you can only spot illinformed bullshit in other people's posts,
> not your own.
>

You didn't pick up on the irony... ah well

Clockmeister wrote:

> The Guru wouldn't, as it disappeared after AmigaOS1.3...

Oh I see you're still comparing latest AmigaOS versions to TOS 1.0.

> Once again pointing to you only having used 1.x

Oh I see you're still comparing latest AmigaOS versions to TOS 1.0.

> And not having used anything above AmigaOS 1.x disqualifies any arguement
> you might have as you simply wouldn't know how AmigaOS has done things in
> the last 15 years.

Oh I see you're still comparing latest AmigaOS versions to TOS 1.0. 
(Have you watched MiNT lately? That kinda discharges your arguments 
about AmigaOS'es brilliant multitasking).

> The only troll here is you.

Sure, whatever you want. :)

Maurits.

In article <40183b13$0$4262$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>, 
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
>Except to create music ofcourse... duh

Music that is unsaleable and pointless, except for demonstrating what 
Paula can do. Yeah, some people may have tapes of MODs in their car, and 
some people might like tapes of Stylophone music too. MOD music is 
irrelevant. An ST can help you produce commercial music. That's useful. 
/Any/ computer can help you produce music that demonstrates what their 
music hardware can do.

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:bvaefn$oul$1@reader10.wxs.nl...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
> > The Guru wouldn't, as it disappeared after AmigaOS1.3...
>
> Oh I see you're still comparing latest AmigaOS versions to TOS 1.0.

Latest? OS2.0 is hardly the latest, it's ancient.

"Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:y+20HNCnnNGAFw+$@btinternet.com...
> In article <40183b13$0$4262$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
> >Except to create music ofcourse... duh
>
> Music that is unsaleable and pointless, except for demonstrating what
> Paula can do. Yeah, some people may have tapes of MODs in their car, and
> some people might like tapes of Stylophone music too. MOD music is
> irrelevant. An ST can help you produce commercial music. That's useful.
> /Any/ computer can help you produce music that demonstrates what their
> music hardware can do.
>

Sure, but I can point you to sites with literally thousands of tracker/MOD
tunes but where do I find all these Atari created MIDI masterpieces?

Clockmeister wrote:

> Sure, but I can point you to sites with literally thousands of tracker/MOD
> tunes but where do I find all these Atari created MIDI masterpieces?

Contrary to those thousands of tracker tunes hidden away in obscure 
scene directories, you'll find Atari created MIDI masterpieces in 
seriously published music. Especially in the first ten years after the 
ST was released, most composers relied on them (most mainstream dance 
producers, but also great names like Klaus Schulze). Some still do, like 
Fatboy Slim; watch the interview on the Moulin Rouge DVD.. yes, that 
music is also composed on an ST.

(This might be why "Atari" is even mentioned in Lady Marmalade's lyrics!) ;)

Maurits.

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:bvao5g$203$1@reader10.wxs.nl...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
> > Sure, but I can point you to sites with literally thousands of
tracker/MOD
> > tunes but where do I find all these Atari created MIDI masterpieces?
>
> Contrary to those thousands of tracker tunes hidden away in obscure
> scene directories, you'll find Atari created MIDI masterpieces in
> seriously published music.

Oh, http://www.modarchive.com/ is hardly obscure, just off the top of my
head. Aminet has a large Amiga created MOD section.

 Especially in the first ten years after the
> ST was released, most composers relied on them (most mainstream dance
> producers, but also great names like Klaus Schulze). Some still do, like
> Fatboy Slim; watch the interview on the Moulin Rouge DVD.. yes, that
> music is also composed on an ST.

Great, but it sounds so clinical.

I like this...

 http://www.modarchive.com/cgi-bin/download.cgi?F/FOUNTAIN.MOD

Fatboy Slim doesn't blow my hair back either.

Clockmeister wrote:

> Oh, http://www.modarchive.com/ is hardly obscure, just off the top of my
> head. Aminet has a large Amiga created MOD section.

I'm just comparing modfiles to normally published music.

> Great, but it sounds so clinical.

Oh, and modfiles don't? :)

> Fatboy Slim doesn't blow my hair back either.

Well, he sucks according to me, but he was the first name that came to 
mind. My point is, Ataris were (and sometimes still are) used by pro 
composers, modfiles (sometimes also made on Ataris btw) are used by 
sceners. I think you'll find more Atari compositions than modfiles in 
the average music lover's CD collection.

Maurits.

In article <4018dfe1$0$4262$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>, 
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
>Sure, but I can point you to sites with literally thousands of tracker/MOD
>tunes but where do I find all these Atari created MIDI masterpieces?

Try pretty much any pop album from the mid 80s.

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

"Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FuE5jVKuWPGAFw4u@btinternet.com...
> In article <4018dfe1$0$4262$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
> >Sure, but I can point you to sites with literally thousands of
tracker/MOD
> >tunes but where do I find all these Atari created MIDI masterpieces?
>
> Try pretty much any pop album from the mid 80s.
>

Eighties pop music sucked big time, you will excuse me if you find Atari
produced music sadly lacking from my CD collection... LOL

"Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
news:bvaqsf$4fk$1@reader10.wxs.nl...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
> > Oh, http://www.modarchive.com/ is hardly obscure, just off the top of my
> > head. Aminet has a large Amiga created MOD section.
>
> I'm just comparing modfiles to normally published music.
>
> > Great, but it sounds so clinical.
>
> Oh, and modfiles don't? :)
>
> > Fatboy Slim doesn't blow my hair back either.
>
> Well, he sucks according to me, but he was the first name that came to
> mind. My point is, Ataris were (and sometimes still are) used by pro
> composers, modfiles (sometimes also made on Ataris btw) are used by
> sceners. I think you'll find more Atari compositions than modfiles in
> the average music lover's CD collection.
>

Who cares about CD collections when it is music I want to create without
additional hardware (except maybe a sampler, although I did without) for me
and my likeminded pals?

You will find no Atari or Amiga music productions in my CD collection ;-) I
did produce a couple of mods featuring guitar pieces played by me. I
borrowed a friends sampler and used my 1Mb A500 with external drive.

Long lost, unfortunately, amazing what disappears (along with a diary) when
moving house :-(

In article <4018fce5$0$4264$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>, 
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
>
>Eighties pop music sucked big time, you will excuse me if you find Atari
>produced music sadly lacking from my CD collection... LOL

Ah, see, I'm very much into the 80s. My CD collection has everything 
from Sandra and Hall & Oates to Sisters of Mercy, Jarre and some 70s 
stuff.

In fact, the only music I don't like is R&B/Gangsta.

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

OK, why the HELL is this thread getting so much attention?

Word to the wise: if you post anything intelligent in this thread,
it'll probably be ignored as flamebait...you should probably just
quote and post anew if possible.

moltotarl@yahoo.com.mx (Alberto Panno-Peano) wrote in message news:<a5a4ac7a.0401200143.74852e7e@posting.google.com>...
> This is true.It looks 100% the same as the C64 and it probably is one.

Will someone PLEASE take this mutating thread outside and shoot it!

Or better still, opt for the ancient greek classical era method of
disposing of pointless and unwanted things, by leaving it exposed to
die on a cold bare  mountain ;-)

"Chris Holland CiH" <ciholland@talk21.co.uk> wrote in message
news:927978b.0401290924.f7d751@posting.google.com...
> Will someone PLEASE take this mutating thread outside and shoot it!
>
> Or better still, opt for the ancient greek classical era method of
> disposing of pointless and unwanted things, by leaving it exposed to
> die on a cold bare  mountain ;-)

No dammit, it must live. This thread will live for as long as there are
Atari users defending their obsolete equipment...

"Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oAcSovNNFQGAFwvN@btinternet.com...
> In article <4018fce5$0$4264$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
> >
> >Eighties pop music sucked big time, you will excuse me if you find Atari
> >produced music sadly lacking from my CD collection... LOL
>
> Ah, see, I'm very much into the 80s. My CD collection has everything
> from Sandra and Hall & Oates to Sisters of Mercy, Jarre and some 70s
> stuff.
>
> In fact, the only music I don't like is R&B/Gangsta.
>

I'm with you on that, although I thought Eminem had some interesting ideas
but that wore off quickly.

In article <40196eca$0$4266$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>, 
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
>> In fact, the only music I don't like is R&B/Gangsta.
>>
>
>I'm with you on that, although I thought Eminem had some interesting ideas
>but that wore off quickly.

That's because they were mostly Dr. Dre's ideas, which we now get to 
hear from D12? I think. And Missy Elliott.

8 Mile destroyed what little credibility he had left.

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

On 2004-01-28, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> news:slrnc1db3p.gsf.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2004-01-27, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
>> > news:slrnc1afdc.krh.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> >> On 2004-01-26, Bill Bertram <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:4014e928$0$4266$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>> [deletia]
>> >> Not at all. Also, there is a considerable difference between
> "techincally
>> >> inferior" and poorly engineered. Ataris represent very sensible design
>> >> tradeoffs for the time.
>> >>
>> >> Power without the price wasn't just an advertising slogan.
>> >>
>> >> > to be true, but they want and need to believe to make their machine
> look
>> >> > better than it is. So what if they like TOS better, let 'em suffer
> with
>> > it I
>> >> > say...
>> >>
>> >> No, twits like you simply need to get over yourselves and realize that
>> >> people like us would still not have bought Amigas even if we had an
>> >> infinite amount of someone else's money to waste.
>> >>
>> >
>> > That only shows who the real twits are in this silly nostalgic
> excercise,
>> > and it certainly isn't former Amiga users.
>>
>> Regardless of how much you might like to kid yourself, an Amiga remains
>> for all practical purposes just a rediculously overpriced ST.
>>
>
> but with lots of cool stuff that made us wonder why anyone could possibly
> spend money on such a bland machine.
>
>> Some of us had lives even then, and other things to spend money on.
>>
>
> Others were creative and needed a machine to express their creativity... and
> Atari wasn't an option unless MIDI was your only release.

The ST was a reasonable compromise of features and price. It made
less arcane computing highly accessable. It did this better than
the Amiga did.

-- 
There's no reason not to contribute to the stone soup if those    |||
contributions are not critical to your competitive edge.         / | \


                                                     

On 2004-01-29, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> "Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in message
> news:bvaqsf$4fk$1@reader10.wxs.nl...
>> Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>> > Oh, http://www.modarchive.com/ is hardly obscure, just off the top of my
>> > head. Aminet has a large Amiga created MOD section.
>>
>> I'm just comparing modfiles to normally published music.
>>
>> > Great, but it sounds so clinical.
>>
>> Oh, and modfiles don't? :)
>>
>> > Fatboy Slim doesn't blow my hair back either.
>>
>> Well, he sucks according to me, but he was the first name that came to
>> mind. My point is, Ataris were (and sometimes still are) used by pro
>> composers, modfiles (sometimes also made on Ataris btw) are used by
>> sceners. I think you'll find more Atari compositions than modfiles in
>> the average music lover's CD collection.
>>
>
> Who cares about CD collections when it is music I want to create without

CD's are what REAL MUSICIANs of any merit will eventually produce.
These can be enjoyed by anyone, rather than being limited to
pathetic old trolls.

[deletia]

Someone's cyberstudio home movies vs. Babylon 5.

-- 
There's no reason not to contribute to the stone soup if those    |||
contributions are not critical to your competitive edge.         / | \


                                                     

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnc1iut0.iit.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2004-01-28, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> > news:slrnc1db3p.gsf.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> >> On 2004-01-27, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
> >> > news:slrnc1afdc.krh.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> >> >> On 2004-01-26, Bill Bertram <ADSR6581_removethis_@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:4014e928$0$4266$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
> >> [deletia]
> >> >> Not at all. Also, there is a considerable difference between
> > "techincally
> >> >> inferior" and poorly engineered. Ataris represent very sensible
design
> >> >> tradeoffs for the time.
> >> >>
> >> >> Power without the price wasn't just an advertising slogan.
> >> >>
> >> >> > to be true, but they want and need to believe to make their
machine
> > look
> >> >> > better than it is. So what if they like TOS better, let 'em suffer
> > with
> >> > it I
> >> >> > say...
> >> >>
> >> >> No, twits like you simply need to get over yourselves and realize
that
> >> >> people like us would still not have bought Amigas even if we had an
> >> >> infinite amount of someone else's money to waste.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > That only shows who the real twits are in this silly nostalgic
> > excercise,
> >> > and it certainly isn't former Amiga users.
> >>
> >> Regardless of how much you might like to kid yourself, an Amiga remains
> >> for all practical purposes just a rediculously overpriced ST.
> >>
> >
> > but with lots of cool stuff that made us wonder why anyone could
possibly
> > spend money on such a bland machine.
> >
> >> Some of us had lives even then, and other things to spend money on.
> >>
> >
> > Others were creative and needed a machine to express their creativity...
and
> > Atari wasn't an option unless MIDI was your only release.
>
> The ST was a reasonable compromise of features and price. It made
> less arcane computing highly accessable. It did this better than
> the Amiga did.
>

Sales figures would suggest otherwise, and digital imaging and effects were
pioneered on the Amiga both commercially and affordably for the home user.

To suggest otherwise is plain rediculous.

"Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:40dW1zAKCXGAFw+q@btinternet.com...
> In article <40196eca$0$4266$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
> >> In fact, the only music I don't like is R&B/Gangsta.
> >>
> >
> >I'm with you on that, although I thought Eminem had some interesting
ideas
> >but that wore off quickly.
>
> That's because they were mostly Dr. Dre's ideas, which we now get to
> hear from D12? I think. And Missy Elliott.

I have the D12 CD but it lacks something. Missy Elliot isn't my cup of tea
either.

> 8 Mile destroyed what little credibility he had left.
>

Agreed.

In article <40198bf0$0$4262$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>, 
Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
>Sales figures would suggest otherwise, and digital imaging and effects were
>pioneered on the Amiga both commercially and affordably for the home user.

I would suggest that digital imaging was primarily a Mac field. Video is 
another matter, though you needed a farm of expensively modified Amigas 
to do anything useful.

Richard
-- 
Acorn 8-bits, 32-bits, some in bits... Amiga 600,    |\      _,,,---,,_
Compact Macs, PB G4, G4, G5, Dell P410, ACW/ABC210   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,
http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/             |,4-  ) )-,_. ,\ (  `'::.
Music? http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/        '----''(_/--'  `-'\_)Morticia

"Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9bGnO1Dk2YGAFwMr@btinternet.com...
> In article <40198bf0$0$4262$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
> >Sales figures would suggest otherwise, and digital imaging and effects
were
> >pioneered on the Amiga both commercially and affordably for the home
user.
>
> I would suggest that digital imaging was primarily a Mac field.

Not back then it wasn't, the Mac was useless for that sort of stuff.

 Video is
> another matter, though you needed a farm of expensively modified Amigas
> to do anything useful.
>

Digitizing images in 4096 colours was childsplay on my A500, and hardly
expensive. The Amiga was used extensively in professional and amateur
productions, surely you are not denying that?

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnc1j29d.iit.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2004-01-29, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Maurits van de Kamp" <james.t.kirk@enterprise.nasa.gov> wrote in
message
> > news:bvaqsf$4fk$1@reader10.wxs.nl...
> >> Clockmeister wrote:
> >>
> >> > Oh, http://www.modarchive.com/ is hardly obscure, just off the top of
my
> >> > head. Aminet has a large Amiga created MOD section.
> >>
> >> I'm just comparing modfiles to normally published music.
> >>
> >> > Great, but it sounds so clinical.
> >>
> >> Oh, and modfiles don't? :)
> >>
> >> > Fatboy Slim doesn't blow my hair back either.
> >>
> >> Well, he sucks according to me, but he was the first name that came to
> >> mind. My point is, Ataris were (and sometimes still are) used by pro
> >> composers, modfiles (sometimes also made on Ataris btw) are used by
> >> sceners. I think you'll find more Atari compositions than modfiles in
> >> the average music lover's CD collection.
> >>
> >
> > Who cares about CD collections when it is music I want to create without
>
> CD's are what REAL MUSICIANs of any merit will eventually produce.
> These can be enjoyed by anyone, rather than being limited to
> pathetic old trolls.

You are getting producers and musicians mixed up. Musicians don't create
muzak for the masses...

On 2004-01-30, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> "Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9bGnO1Dk2YGAFwMr@btinternet.com...
>> In article <40198bf0$0$4262$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
>> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
>> >Sales figures would suggest otherwise, and digital imaging and effects
> were
>> >pioneered on the Amiga both commercially and affordably for the home
> user.
>>
>> I would suggest that digital imaging was primarily a Mac field.
>
> Not back then it wasn't, the Mac was useless for that sort of stuff.
>
>  Video is
>> another matter, though you needed a farm of expensively modified Amigas
>> to do anything useful.
>>
>
> Digitizing images in 4096 colours was childsplay on my A500, and hardly
> expensive. The Amiga was used extensively in professional and amateur
> productions, surely you are not denying that?

....after they recieved expensive aftermarket upgrades.

Stock amigas were as much toys as ST's were.

-- 
There's no reason not to contribute to the stone soup if those    |||
contributions are not critical to your competitive edge.         / | \


                                                     

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnc1lbih.rl9.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2004-01-30, Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Richard Kilpatrick" <richard@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:9bGnO1Dk2YGAFwMr@btinternet.com...
> >> In article <40198bf0$0$4262$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net>,
> >> Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com> writes
> >> >Sales figures would suggest otherwise, and digital imaging and effects
> > were
> >> >pioneered on the Amiga both commercially and affordably for the home
> > user.
> >>
> >> I would suggest that digital imaging was primarily a Mac field.
> >
> > Not back then it wasn't, the Mac was useless for that sort of stuff.
> >
> >  Video is
> >> another matter, though you needed a farm of expensively modified Amigas
> >> to do anything useful.
> >>
> >
> > Digitizing images in 4096 colours was childsplay on my A500, and hardly
> > expensive. The Amiga was used extensively in professional and amateur
> > productions, surely you are not denying that?
>
> ...after they recieved expensive aftermarket upgrades.
>

What? A genlock? Big deal, hardly expensive considering what it allowed you
to do at home where previously it was not possible.

> Stock amigas were as much toys as ST's were.
>

Deluxe paint and Amiga, the program and machine that started a revolution.

Like it or lump it, the Amiga was capable of true multimedia compared to
anything else available for the home and at that price. You could do MIDI on
any computer, but you couldn't do what the Amiga was capable of as a single
solution package on any other home computer.

You don't get a say in that, it is in the history books as clear cut fact.

Clockmeister wrote:


> Like it or lump it, the Amiga was capable of true multimedia compared to
> anything else available for the home and at that price. You could do MIDI
> on any computer, but you couldn't do what the Amiga was capable of as a
> single solution package on any other home computer.

  U really are experienced MIDI user i see. Any machine can do MIDI, but
also any machine except ST had sync problems with MIDI. Even to this date
ppl go back to STs   for pure MIDI things... Altough last few years that
does get better. Spare us Amiga ultra capapbility, i know what is it realy
capable whren u dont use useless modes like HAM etc.. For Your information
in mode similar to HAM ST displays 4096 colors and STE 32K colors, program
is called Photochrome. As i said, Amiga had own part of cake (speaking bout
Amiga 500 and 1024ST here, 1986 machines...) like GFX. PCM sound,  nice
hardware for demos/games, ST on other hand had the mono mode. And aps like
Calamus, Signum, CAD stuff etc which were eons infront of Amiga apps, and
on high res on ultra stable display, i agree it is monochrome tho.. And in
MIDI ST are up til today in usage in serious studios, while unmodified
Amigas are not in use at all.  I will repeat, Amiga is machine with most
accelerator boards, A1200 gets accelerators virtualy same days as it came
out. There MUST be reason for that, and ultra useability and coolnes and so
on, certainly is NOT  that reason. And i do own Amigas as well, im not one
of those (most of those who start those blames do not OWN and know other
machines) who has ever seen other machine. I admit many good facts Amiga
had(has)  but cant really stand all that bollocks bout ST and other
machines. If u really think Amiga was so damn superrios, check Acorn
Archimedes, u may be realy surprised...

  Janez

"Clockmeister" <no-one@nowhere.com> wrote
>
> Shall we compare sales figures?
>

I don't see that that matters - but I'd be really interested if you have
them. Are they for a certain country or world-wide ?

Steve M