Which of these systems is the best doorstopper?

Discuss.

 "Blaine Adamson" <prison_mice@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message 
news:1133327818.894558.34980@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Which of these systems is the best doorstopper?
>
> Discuss.
>

Goes without saying, the xbox of course, it won't run either M.U.L.E. or 
Lords of Midnight :-)

Come to think it, was there a conversion of LoM for Atari ?

Lance


 http://landover.no-ip.com
Classic computers BBS 

Lance Lyon wrote:
>  "Blaine Adamson" <prison_mice@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message 
> news:1133327818.894558.34980@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>Which of these systems is the best doorstopper?
>>
>>Discuss.
>>
> 
> 
> Goes without saying, the xbox of course, it won't run either M.U.L.E. or 
> Lords of Midnight :-)
> 
> Come to think it, was there a conversion of LoM for Atari ?
> 

No, but you can emulate a speccy on a ST or better.

Besides the best 8 bit game was Alternate Reality, closely followed by 
Star Raiders of course. ;-)

Mark

On Wed, 29 Nov 2005, Blaine Adamson wrote:

> Which of these systems is the best doorstopper?
>
> Discuss.

I know this is an obvious troll, but I'm caught on the hook.

I say the XBOX 360 because it comes from M$.  At least the original XBOX 
could be modded into something almost resembling a PC so it wasn't TOO 
bad - anyone got Linux up on a 360 yet? >.>

-uso.

> I say the XBOX 360 because it comes from M$.  At least the original XBOX
> could be modded into something almost resembling a PC so it wasn't TOO
> bad - anyone got Linux up on a 360 yet? >.>

Why run Linux, if you could run Mac OS/X on it?

PeterV

It occurred to me that Peter de Vroomen wrote in comp.sys.cbm:
>> I say the XBOX 360 because it comes from M$.  At least the original XBOX
>> could be modded into something almost resembling a PC so it wasn't TOO
>> bad - anyone got Linux up on a 360 yet? >.>
>
> Why run Linux, if you could run Mac OS/X on it?

But you can't, now can you?

Martijn - who fails to see the point of doing *either* of them, but hey..
-- 
    Martijn van Buul - pino@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/
	 Geek code: G--  - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333
 The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...' Isaac Asimov

C64, its weight to size ratio is  better.

Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
 graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


"Blaine Adamson" <prison_mice@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message 
news:1133327818.894558.34980@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Which of these systems is the best doorstopper?
>
> Discuss.
> 

The Spectrum for hard floor surfaces.

If you flip it upside down those rubbery keys act like 130 (or
thereabouts) little grippy feet.

Xbox360 - will never buy it - Burnt once with an Xbox - will stick to
the Gamecube (and nintendo)
Spectrum - not enough experience with it to say one way or another

so

Atari vs C64

Atari 8bits hands down beat the C64. Better graphics, better sound,
better basic (with the exception of the screwy DIM statement), better
expansion etc. When using the C64 it just felt like it was cobbled
together by a commitee and then given to the programmer to figure out
how to make it work.

Martijn van Buul <pino@dohd.org> did eloquently scribble:
> 
> 
> It occurred to me that Peter de Vroomen wrote in comp.sys.cbm:
>>> I say the XBOX 360 because it comes from M$.  At least the original XBOX
>>> could be modded into something almost resembling a PC so it wasn't TOO
>>> bad - anyone got Linux up on a 360 yet? >.>
>>
>> Why run Linux, if you could run Mac OS/X on it?
> 
> But you can't, now can you?
> 
> Martijn - who fails to see the point of doing *either* of them, but hey..

Well, if you think about it....
The Xbox 360 costs microsoft over $100 for every model they sell...
Their goal is to recoup these losses on games...
But, if you bought it, installed linux, and used it as a quite powerful
little server or desktop box...
Well, that's depriving them of their recouped losses, and the more people
who do that, the more trouble it causes them.
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste!         |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|  I can SMELL!!!  KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and    |
|            in            |  get out the puncture repair kit!"              |
|     Computer Science     |     Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf              |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill H <bill@ts1000.us> did eloquently scribble:
> Atari 8bits hands down beat the C64. Better graphics, better sound,
> better basic (with the exception of the screwy DIM statement), better
> expansion etc. When using the C64 it just felt like it was cobbled
> together by a commitee and then given to the programmer to figure out
> how to make it work.
> 

Heheh, best description of the commode design in quite a while.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disagree on "better sound". Pokeys suck.
I'll give it to you on graphics and basic, though.

Bill H wrote:
> Xbox360 - will never buy it - Burnt once with an Xbox - will stick to
> the Gamecube (and nintendo)
> Spectrum - not enough experience with it to say one way or another
>
> so
>
> Atari vs C64
>
> Atari 8bits hands down beat the C64. Better graphics, better sound,
> better basic (with the exception of the screwy DIM statement), better
> expansion etc. When using the C64 it just felt like it was cobbled
> together by a commitee and then given to the programmer to figure out
> how to make it work.


Better graphics?  Better sound?  My favorite game is Trolls &
Tribulations which was hands down much better on the C64 than the
Atari.  Same with Spelunker.  Even some of the Atarisoft titles were
better on the C64 than the Atari.  Strange, but true!

Cobbled together - true.  Left to programmers to figure out how to make
it work - true again.

But I guess for a machine that was quickly put together and nobody knew
how to use, it did pretty darn good in the marketplace.

Now, back to the original thread -- best doorstop - the Timex Sinclair
- after all, its shaped a lot like a wedge.

Linux vs Microsoft - who cares!  That debate is tired and worn out!

XBOX 360 - got one for my son for Christmas.  Lets not forget that
these systems will be the Commodores and Ataris of their generation.
As long as he's happy with it, I don't care if its made by Microsoft,
Sony, or Nintendo - it's what he wanted.  Besides, what's wrong with
having them all?  Some games are just better on specific platforms --
why not play the game where it's best?

> > Atari 8bits hands down beat the C64. ... better sound

That must be why no-one has heard of the SID chip.  Oh, wait.  Everyone
knows that the C64 music was the best of the 8-bits and the SID was
voted as one of the most important chips ever made by Byte magazine and
people are still making re-mixes if C64 tunes because they were so
good.

>cobbled together by a commitee

No.  It was Bob Yannes and a few other people.  They were left to
pretty much do what they wanted.  Definitely not a commitee.


Anyway, the original question was about door-stops, not what is inside.
 The Spectrum is clearly the best for that as it is the correct shape
and has been used many times for that exact purpose.  The Commodore
employees used to use them (or it might have been ZX-81s) as door
stops.  A prototype C128 got its Z80 chip from one being used as a door
stop  :-)

Interesting that the C128 got its Z80 from the Timex Sinclair. I always
thought if you painted the C128 black it would look like either:

A TS1000 on steriods

or

A sterile hybrid from an illconcieved mating of a Vic 20 and a TS1000

Still - more software was written for the ZX81 / TS1000 than ever was
written for the z80 mode of the C128 (and this does not include the
CP/M software - that existed before the 128 was made).

All that aside. I actually liked the look of the C128 - must be hybrid
family resemblance slipping through.

On a slightly different topic. Has anyone ever considered using the
C128 z80 side to write a ZX81 or even Spectrum emulator? May go a long
way to mending fences... (in the back of my mind I hear Yoda "Dark side
of the force, powerful it is"

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:39:47 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>Martijn van Buul <pino@dohd.org> did eloquently scribble:
>> 
>> 
>> It occurred to me that Peter de Vroomen wrote in comp.sys.cbm:
>>>> I say the XBOX 360 because it comes from M$.  At least the original XBOX
>>>> could be modded into something almost resembling a PC so it wasn't TOO
>>>> bad - anyone got Linux up on a 360 yet? >.>
>>>
>>> Why run Linux, if you could run Mac OS/X on it?
>> 
>> But you can't, now can you?
>> 
>> Martijn - who fails to see the point of doing *either* of them, but hey..
>
>Well, if you think about it....
>The Xbox 360 costs microsoft over $100 for every model they sell...
>Their goal is to recoup these losses on games...
>But, if you bought it, installed linux, and used it as a quite powerful
>little server or desktop box...
>Well, that's depriving them of their recouped losses, and the more people
>who do that, the more trouble it causes them.

Spike, see a shrink. Seriously. You're obsessed. You've got some kind
of Slashdot disease.

It occurred to me that spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote in comp.sys.cbm:
> Martijn van Buul <pino@dohd.org> did eloquently scribble:

[Installing MacOS X and/or Linux]

>> Martijn - who fails to see the point of doing *either* of them, but hey..
>
> Well, if you think about it....
> The Xbox 360 costs microsoft over $100 for every model they sell...
> Their goal is to recoup these losses on games...
> But, if you bought it, installed linux, and used it as a quite powerful
> little server or desktop box...

I really don't see the point why I should spend $400 for an underpowered
machine with hardware problems. An XBox is a nice game system, but most of
its power (The whole CELL architecture, for instance) is rather pointless
for a server. For $400, I can buy a PC which is *much* faster than an 
XBox-360 _for desktop and server use_. 

Apart from the fact that it won't be a quite powerful little server (it'll
be a rather crap and underpowered little server), nor a nice desktop
box (It's severely underpowered for that), is "Microsoft is losing money
over it!" really a valid reason? 

"Hey, if I pay $400, Microsoft will have to shelve out another $100!". Somehow
that doesn't strike me as a solid business plan, if the goal is to make
MS bankrupt. 

> Well, that's depriving them of their recouped losses, and the more people
> who do that, the more trouble it causes them.

Right now, my bank account will miss that $400 a lot more than MS's bank
account will miss the $100. It kind of sounds like "Hey, I don't mind breaking
my legs, as long as you get a black eye during the process"

-- 
    Martijn van Buul - pino@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/
	 Geek code: G--  - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333
 The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...' Isaac Asimov

"Blaine Adamson" <prison_mice@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message 
news:1133327818.894558.34980@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Which of these systems is the best doorstopper?
>
> Discuss.

Your severed head? 

Jerry Kurtz <jerrykurtz@earthlink.net> did eloquently scribble:
> XBOX 360 - got one for my son for Christmas. 

Make sure you test it before giving it to him.
Worst thing to get on christmas day is a wow bang games machine that doesn't
work.
-- 
|                          |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
|  spike1@freenet.co.uk    |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
|                          |can't move, with no hope of rescue.             |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|Consider how lucky you are that life has been   |
|           in             |good to you so far...                           |
|    Computer Science      |   -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:44:45 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>Jerry Kurtz <jerrykurtz@earthlink.net> did eloquently scribble:
>> XBOX 360 - got one for my son for Christmas. 
>
>Make sure you test it before giving it to him.
>Worst thing to get on christmas day is a wow bang games machine that doesn't
>work.

It's overheating due to a faulty heatsink. This probably isn't the
case with European machines. Most of the machines are crashing inside
store display cases - why? Because they're badly ventilated. Also, the
poll that claim 16% of machines are broken is hogwash - because people
with broken machines are more likely to add to the poll and register
their disgust than people with working machines. There haven't been
any reported problems with consoles not working on startup, as far as
I know.

> It's overheating due to a faulty heatsink. This probably isn't the
> case with European machines. Most of the machines are crashing inside
> store display cases - why? Because they're badly ventilated. Also, the
> poll that claim 16% of machines are broken is hogwash - because people
> with broken machines are more likely to add to the poll and register
> their disgust than people with working machines. There haven't been
> any reported problems with consoles not working on startup, as far as
> I know.

Not right at startup but after only one game (in a well ventilated room!)
my daughter's boyfriend's 360 started flashing all red indicators and 
refused to
work at all after that.  He called the toll-free number and had to wait 45 
minutes
to reach someone at MS.  The guy there said they were being swamped with
calls about dead units.  No one listens to me when I tell them to wait a 
month
or two to let other people work out the bugs.  If you want the actual 
figures on
360 mortality, buy at least one share of MS stock.  They have to tell 
shareholders
the truth by law (at least in the US).

Tom Lake 

W Marsh <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> did eloquently scribble:
>>Well, if you think about it....
>>The Xbox 360 costs microsoft over $100 for every model they sell...
>>Their goal is to recoup these losses on games...
>>But, if you bought it, installed linux, and used it as a quite powerful
>>little server or desktop box...
>>Well, that's depriving them of their recouped losses, and the more people
>>who do that, the more trouble it causes them.
> 
> Spike, see a shrink. Seriously. You're obsessed. You've got some kind
> of Slashdot disease.

Hey, I was just saying what the point was, not that I was going to do it.
I wouldn't have a microsoft product in the house.
:-p
(oh, and I've disliked microsoft for a lot longer than slashdot, try since I
first saw their basic in '81? things haven't improved since then)
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"   |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|                                                 |
|            in            | "I think so brain, but this time, you control   |
|     Computer Science     |  the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..."  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill H <bill@ts1000.us> did eloquently scribble:
> On a slightly different topic. Has anyone ever considered using the
> C128 z80 side to write a ZX81 or even Spectrum emulator? May go a long
> way to mending fences... (in the back of my mind I hear Yoda "Dark side
> of the force, powerful it is"

Too slow, isn't it?
Didn't they do something incredibly stupid like clock both CPUs to 2Mhz or
something?  

-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"   |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|                                                 |
|            in            | "I think so brain, but this time, you control   |
|     Computer Science     |  the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..."  |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Blaine Adamson" wrote ...

> Which of these systems is the best doorstopper?
>
> Discuss.

Before using a computer for a doorstop, you should rip the ears from a troll
(Blaine Adamson's ears will do), and glue them to the bottom of the computer
so that it does not slide as easily on the floor.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:39:47 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>Martijn van Buul <pino@dohd.org> did eloquently scribble:
>> 
>> 
>> It occurred to me that Peter de Vroomen wrote in comp.sys.cbm:
>>>> I say the XBOX 360 because it comes from M$.  At least the original XBOX
>>>> could be modded into something almost resembling a PC so it wasn't TOO
>>>> bad - anyone got Linux up on a 360 yet? >.>
>>>
>>> Why run Linux, if you could run Mac OS/X on it?
>> 
>> But you can't, now can you?
>> 
>> Martijn - who fails to see the point of doing *either* of them, but hey..
>
>Well, if you think about it....
>The Xbox 360 costs microsoft over $100 for every model they sell...
>Their goal is to recoup these losses on games...
>But, if you bought it, installed linux, and used it as a quite powerful
>little server or desktop box...
>Well, that's depriving them of their recouped losses, and the more people
>who do that, the more trouble it causes them.


You've lost me. how exactly are they losing money if they make the machine for
$100 and sell it for $300?
-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:01:18 +0000, The Starglider
<the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:39:47 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
>>Martijn van Buul <pino@dohd.org> did eloquently scribble:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> It occurred to me that Peter de Vroomen wrote in comp.sys.cbm:
>>>>> I say the XBOX 360 because it comes from M$.  At least the original XBOX
>>>>> could be modded into something almost resembling a PC so it wasn't TOO
>>>>> bad - anyone got Linux up on a 360 yet? >.>
>>>>
>>>> Why run Linux, if you could run Mac OS/X on it?
>>> 
>>> But you can't, now can you?
>>> 
>>> Martijn - who fails to see the point of doing *either* of them, but hey..
>>
>>Well, if you think about it....
>>The Xbox 360 costs microsoft over $100 for every model they sell...
>>Their goal is to recoup these losses on games...
>>But, if you bought it, installed linux, and used it as a quite powerful
>>little server or desktop box...
>>Well, that's depriving them of their recouped losses, and the more people
>>who do that, the more trouble it causes them.
>
>
>You've lost me. how exactly are they losing money if they make the machine for
>$100 and sell it for $300?

I think he means that they take a loss of $100 on every machine.

I'm think they know more about their own marketing than sneering
snipers on the Internet, personally.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:08:48 +0000, W Marsh <wayneDOTmarshATgmailDOTcom@> wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:01:18 +0000, The Starglider
><the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:39:47 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>Martijn van Buul <pino@dohd.org> did eloquently scribble:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> It occurred to me that Peter de Vroomen wrote in comp.sys.cbm:
>>>>>> I say the XBOX 360 because it comes from M$.  At least the original XBOX
>>>>>> could be modded into something almost resembling a PC so it wasn't TOO
>>>>>> bad - anyone got Linux up on a 360 yet? >.>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why run Linux, if you could run Mac OS/X on it?
>>>> 
>>>> But you can't, now can you?
>>>> 
>>>> Martijn - who fails to see the point of doing *either* of them, but hey..
>>>
>>>Well, if you think about it....
>>>The Xbox 360 costs microsoft over $100 for every model they sell...
>>>Their goal is to recoup these losses on games...
>>>But, if you bought it, installed linux, and used it as a quite powerful
>>>little server or desktop box...
>>>Well, that's depriving them of their recouped losses, and the more people
>>>who do that, the more trouble it causes them.
>>
>>
>>You've lost me. how exactly are they losing money if they make the machine for
>>$100 and sell it for $300?
>
>I think he means that they take a loss of $100 on every machine.
>
>I'm think they know more about their own marketing than sneering
>snipers on the Internet, personally.

Oh, Spike's not a sniper, he's an old net friend in these Speccy parts, but I do
agree that the "costing Microsoft $100 for every 360 sold" is nonsense.

The original XBox only lost MS $40 per unit at the $100 price. And that was
simply done as a tactic against Sony to gain market share fron their first
console. now they have that share, they are being more money-wise. they will
clearly make a profit from each machine until such time they price match Sony's
PS3 in the future.

But the damage to Sony has already been done, by getting there first with the
next gen consoles. MS will have an almost clear 6 month headstart on Sony with
the 360, and with the already successful Live service and ever increasing
backwards compatibility that the 360 provides will only hurt the not-entirely
stable company that is Sony.
-- 
        **************The Starglider***************  Public E-Mail. 
        *  http://www.starglider.dynu.com/radio   * Ask for private
        *  Starglider Radio - listen and enjoy!   *    address.
        * E-Mail:the_starglider2002@wibble.co.uk  *     _WW_
        *     CHANGE WIBBLE TO YAHOO TO REPLY     *    /_  _\
        *******************************************   | O  O |
_____________________________________________________oOO_\/_OOo_____

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:31:22 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>
>Hey, I was just saying what the point was, not that I was going to do it.
>I wouldn't have a microsoft product in the house.
>:-p
>(oh, and I've disliked microsoft for a lot longer than slashdot, try since I
>first saw their basic in '81? things haven't improved since then)


qbasic?

Yeah, horrible thing.

"Lister" <fache@SPAMclara.net> wrote in message 
news:vovro1pjvsdr3u7ic41omkv0ckmhf20ho5@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:31:22 GMT, spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
>>
>>Hey, I was just saying what the point was, not that I was going to do it.
>>I wouldn't have a microsoft product in the house.
>>:-p
>>(oh, and I've disliked microsoft for a lot longer than slashdot, try since 
>>I
>>first saw their basic in '81? things haven't improved since then)
>
>
> qbasic?
>
> Yeah, horrible thing.

Lol, how about... Commodore Basic? It's still M$ ya know..

In article <1133352451.027678.172550@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 
bill@ts1000.us says...
> Atari vs C64
> 
> Atari 8bits hands down beat the C64. Better graphics, better sound,
> better basic (with the exception of the screwy DIM statement), better
> expansion etc. When using the C64 it just felt like it was cobbled
> together by a commitee and then given to the programmer to figure out
> how to make it work.

Ha ha.  This is a better troll than the original post.  The C64 is STILL 
light years ahead of anything Atari ever made.

John Black

Mark Bedingfield wrote:
> Lance Lyon wrote:
> >  "Blaine Adamson" <prison_mice@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
> > news:1133327818.894558.34980@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Which of these systems is the best doorstopper?
> >>
> >>Discuss.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Goes without saying, the xbox of course, it won't run either M.U.L.E. or
> > Lords of Midnight :-)
> >
> > Come to think it, was there a conversion of LoM for Atari ?
> >
>
> No, but you can emulate a speccy on a ST or better.
>
> Besides the best 8 bit game was Alternate Reality, closely followed by
> Star Raiders of course. ;-)
>
> Mark

Indeed. I think people writing RPG games today should be required to
look at AR before they start coding.  I still count it in the top 5
RPGs I have played and its 25 years old!  The level of immersion is
just something you do not see today.

Cliff

John Black wrote:
> The C64 is STILL light years ahead of anything Atari ever made.

Show me a C64 with a 262,144 colour palette at 640x480, 16-bit audio at 
50kHz, and 14Mb of RAM, and I might just believe you.

The Starglider wrote:

>>Well, if you think about it....
>>The Xbox 360 costs microsoft over $100 for every model they sell...
>>Their goal is to recoup these losses on games...
>>But, if you bought it, installed linux, and used it as a quite powerful
>>little server or desktop box...
>>Well, that's depriving them of their recouped losses, and the more people
>>who do that, the more trouble it causes them.
>>    
>>
>
>
>You've lost me. how exactly are they losing money if they make the machine for
>$100 and sell it for $300?
>  
>
Development cost and support personnel required for the M$ undocumented 
features of showing all LEDs at once and the random halt command to 
justify support.  They have implemented undocumented features for years.

To me, the best way to screw M$ is to not buy the console, or any 
console development and manufacturer purchased by M$ in future.. 

Bill H wrote:
> Atari vs C64
> 
> Atari 8bits hands down beat the C64.
You're high.
> Better graphics,
This is demonstrably false, and I suspect you are relying on people not 
having knowledge of both platforms.

The Atari 8bit hardware modes are severly lacking by comparison to the 
C64.  I use the highres mode as an example:

C64 Hires = 320x200 with 2 colors PER 8x8 cell (from a pal of 16)
Atari Hires = 320x192 with 2 colors PER screen, sharing a HUE!

And then there are the software modes, of which the C64 has legions, but 
I will name only two of the simplest that both defeat all of the Atari 
software modes that I know of:

C64 FLI = 16 colors in 136x200
C64 IFLI = 256 possible colors in 160x200

Atari APAC = 256 in 80x192
Atari Colorview = 4096 at 80x192 with terrible rolling
Atari HIP and RIP suffer from  is inferior with

 >better sound,
Not by a long run, though I suspect this has more to do with the coders 
on that platform than the hardware itself.  After all, it does have one 
more "channel" than the SID, though the POKEY's 4 "channels" are not 
nearly as independent of one another as the SID's "voices".

The SID has ring modulation, the POKEY does not, for example.
Put simply, while the SID could emulate a POKEY's sound, a POKEY could 
not emulate a SID's sound.  It simply lacks the features.

 >better basic
This is more a matter of opinion, though the C64 has a quite powerful 
BASIC, and didn't need to load it's DOS from a disk.  The Atari BASIC 
had some graphic commands similar to BASIC 7.0 on the 128.


> better expansion etc. 
Uh, no.  There is an enormous array of devices widely available for the 
C64 that you simply won't find even today on the Ataris.  Quick and easy 
hard drives are one example.

> When using the C64 it just felt like it was cobbled
> together by a commitee and then given to the programmer to figure out
> how to make it work.
This is by far the most ridiculous part of your entire statement.  I've 
used both, and having been in the position of wanting to use my Atari 
and lacking a DOS disk, will take the C64 over it any day. (And don't 
even get me started on that stupid SIO connector.)

Please, if you're going to make statements like this, stick to 
quantifiable comparisons.  We all like our machines of choice better 
than any other, and I'm sure we are all tempted to claim that they are 
the best.

I would be happy to stack the C64 next to an Atari, Apple, Spectrum, 
CoCo, whatever of similar spec and compare feature for feature.

Frankly, in these days where knowledge of these older platforms is 
dwindling, we should try to set aside our petty differences,  our 
communities should be coming together to support one another, to explore 
other retro-platforms, to share our enjoyment of our favorite platforms, 
to recount our stories of the glorious BBS-era days, and to become one 
single unified retro-computing community which embraces all platforms.

Just my %10 cents.
%0110

"Matthew Westcott" wrote ...

> John Black wrote:
>> The C64 is STILL light years ahead of anything Atari ever made.
>
> Show me a C64 with a 262,144 colour palette at 640x480, 16-bit audio at
> 50kHz, and 14Mb of RAM, and I might just believe you.

Show me an 8-bit Atari with all of that and we might take you seriously.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:48:37 +0000, John Black wrote:

> Ha ha.  This is a better troll than the original post.  The C64 is STILL 
> light years ahead of anything Atari ever made.
> 
> John Black

Even my Falcon? :-)

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:58:33 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:

> 
> "Matthew Westcott" wrote ...
> 
>> John Black wrote:
>>> The C64 is STILL light years ahead of anything Atari ever made.
>>
>> Show me a C64 with a 262,144 colour palette at 640x480, 16-bit audio at
>> 50kHz, and 14Mb of RAM, and I might just believe you.
> 
> Show me an 8-bit Atari with all of that and we might take you seriously.

But the man said "anything Atari ever made"... :-)

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Six/Style wrote:
> C64 IFLI = 256 possible colors in 160x200

That one includes 16 shades of black, AFAIR.

ytm

-- 
Najlepsza sygnatura to brak sygnatury.
http://bossstation.dnsalias.org/

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Sam Gillett wrote:

> "Matthew Westcott" wrote ...
>
>> John Black wrote:
>>> The C64 is STILL light years ahead of anything Atari ever made.
>>
>> Show me a C64 with a 262,144 colour palette at 640x480, 16-bit audio at
>> 50kHz, and 14Mb of RAM, and I might just believe you.
>
> Show me an 8-bit Atari with all of that and we might take you seriously.

Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST in many 
respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of Tramiel you 
know. :P

-uso.

Six/Style wrote:

[...]

>  though the C64 [...] didn't need to load it's DOS from a disk.

Some of the Atarians will tell you that "all professional machines 
need", which of course doesn't change the fact that it sucks on 8-biter 
with floppy, eats RAM, slows down the startup etc.. Hey, it sucks on 
each and any-biter with floppy only but gives them their delusion of 
"professionality" ;-)

>> better expansion etc. 
> 
> Uh, no.  There is an enormous array of devices widely available for the 
> C64 that you simply won't find even today on the Ataris.  Quick and easy 
> hard drives are one example.

Well, they do have harddrive solutions (I own three of them) but... 
somebody forgot to write a DOS to boot that would support something 
beyond 16MiB on a partition, not to mention that somebody forgot to 
write a DOS to boot that would allow normal usage of removable media 
like ZIP/LS/SyQuest etc. and of course I wouldn't call any of those 
solutions "quick and easy", especially when compared to the 64 based 
ones but of course: "ataris have better expansion possibilities" ...

> I've 
> used both, and having been in the position of wanting to use my Atari 
> and lacking a DOS disk

Uh, oh... ;-) Have you tried booting from cassette? ;-) ... Erm, that 
would require a DOS cassette... erm so you can't just easily check 
what's on the diskette and load a binary from it? Hm... I think that's 
the price for "professional" feel of the bootable DOS ;-)

>, will take the C64 over it any day. (And don't 
> even get me started on that stupid SIO connector.)

That actually is possibly not THAT stupid. At least it was faster than 
the crippled IEC SERIAL bus on the 64... :-(

Lyrical Nanoha wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Sam Gillett wrote:
> 
>> "Matthew Westcott" wrote ...
>>
>>> John Black wrote:
>>>
>>>> The C64 is STILL light years ahead of anything Atari ever made.
>>>
>>>
>>> Show me a C64 with a 262,144 colour palette at 640x480, 16-bit audio at
>>> 50kHz, and 14Mb of RAM, and I might just believe you.
>>
>>
>> Show me an 8-bit Atari with all of that and we might take you seriously.
> 
> 
> Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST in 
> many respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of Tramiel 
> you know. :P
> 

And the Amiga from Atari;-).

IIRC the guys that developed the Atari 8-bit designed the Amiga and the 
guys that developed the C-64 developed the Atari ST.

Mark

silverdr wrote:
> Six/Style wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>  though the C64 [...] didn't need to load it's DOS from a disk.
> 
> 
> Some of the Atarians will tell you that "all professional machines 
> need", which of course doesn't change the fact that it sucks on 8-biter 
> with floppy, eats RAM, slows down the startup etc.. Hey, it sucks on 
> each and any-biter with floppy only but gives them their delusion of 
> "professionality" ;-)

No delusion here, I wouldn't consider the C-64 pro either. However we 
both could do things the big PC's could not;-)
> 
>>> better expansion etc. 
>>
>>
>> Uh, no.  There is an enormous array of devices widely available for 
>> the C64 that you simply won't find even today on the Ataris.  Quick 
>> and easy hard drives are one example.
> 
> 
> Well, they do have harddrive solutions (I own three of them) but... 
> somebody forgot to write a DOS to boot that would support something 
> beyond 16MiB on a partition, not to mention that somebody forgot to 
> write a DOS to boot that would allow normal usage of removable media 
> like ZIP/LS/SyQuest etc. and of course I wouldn't call any of those 
> solutions "quick and easy", especially when compared to the 64 based 
> ones but of course: "ataris have better expansion possibilities" ...

No one forgot, in 1978 there was no zip/ls/syquest avaliable. Who cares 
if it is better or worse on either platform? Both had strengths and 
weakness'. The debate is over, neither won.

> 
>> I've used both, and having been in the position of wanting to use my 
>> Atari and lacking a DOS disk
> 
> 
> Uh, oh... ;-) Have you tried booting from cassette? ;-) ... Erm, that 
> would require a DOS cassette... erm so you can't just easily check 
> what's on the diskette and load a binary from it? Hm... I think that's 
> the price for "professional" feel of the bootable DOS ;-)

Dos is Disk Operating System. Not cassette. Personally I never got left 
without a copy of Dos 2.5. Just bung it in the 1050 when you move it.
> 
>> , will take the C64 over it any day. (And don't even get me started on 
>> that stupid SIO connector.)
> 
> 
> That actually is possibly not THAT stupid. At least it was faster than 
> the crippled IEC SERIAL bus on the 64... :-(

Ain't that the truth. I could not believe the loading times on the C-64 
when I first saw one. Personally never had any hassles with SIO either. 
My 850 works fine;-).

Mark

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Mark Bedingfield wrote:

> Ain't that the truth. I could not believe the loading times on the C-64 when 
> I first saw one. Personally never had any hassles with SIO either. My 850 
> works fine;-).

Yeah, even compared to Apple's disk ][ and later Unidisk 5.25, the 1541 
was agony. x.x;

-uso.

"Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>
> Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST in many
> respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of Tramiel you know.
> :P

Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the same fertile 
minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the world, the Commodore 64 was 
the best 8-bit computer of its time.

Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, but Irving 
Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization.  So, 
Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

"silverdr" wrote ...

> Some of the Atarians will tell you that "all professional machines need",
> which of course doesn't change the fact that it sucks on 8-biter with
> floppy, eats RAM, slows down the startup etc.. Hey, it sucks on each and
> any-biter with floppy only but gives them their delusion of
> "professionality" ;-)

I used to have an XT Clone that had MS-DOS in ROM.  The Custom Phoenix BIOS 
could be set to boot from ROM, A: drive, then C: if no disk in A:, or C: 
without checking A: first.  The DOS in ROM was version 3.31 IIRC.

Booting from the hard drive was reasonably fast, but a boot from ROM was much 
faster, even if doing so was very unprofessional.    :-)

> Well, they do have harddrive solutions (I own three of them) but...
> somebody forgot to write a DOS to boot that would support something beyond
> 16MiB on a partition, not to mention that somebody forgot to write a DOS to
> boot that would allow normal usage of removable media like ZIP/LS/SyQuest
> etc. and of course I wouldn't call any of those solutions "quick and easy",
> especially when compared to the 64 based ones but of course: "ataris have
> better expansion possibilities" ...

Drill a hole in the case, insert one stick of dynamite, and the Atari will 
expand quite nicely!    ;-)
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

Sam Gillett wrote:
> "Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
> 
>>Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST in many
>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of Tramiel you know.
>>:P
> 
> 
> Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the same fertile 
> minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the world, the Commodore 64 was 
> the best 8-bit computer of its time.

Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better was 
the 130XE.
> 
> Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga,

And he did. In fact several.

but Irving
> Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization.  So, 
> Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)

Which was a better computer than the Amiga games console;-).

The Amiga was initially setup by Atari, don't forget.

Man this is like 1990 all over again. Look we all know the Atari 
machines where the best.

Mark

��� Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:16:11 -0500,o(h) Mark Bedingfield  
<mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> ������:

>
> IIRC the guys that developed the Atari 8-bit designed the Amiga and the  
> guys that developed the C-64 developed the Atari ST.
>
> Mark

And the guys that wrote Amiga DOS 1.x wrote it on a Sinclair QL using  
Metacomco's BCPL of all things :-) (Well at least the kernel)
Plus the Amiga can execute QDOS software natively using QDOS Classic -NOT  
an emulator really- (and there's even a replacement Kickstart ROM that  
turns it completely into a QL). As a matter of fact until the Q60 <url:  
http://www.q40.de/> came along, a souped-up Amiga (with an 060) was the  
fastest QL compatible that one could get his hands on.

Phoebus

-- 
����������� �� ������������ ��������� ������������� ��� Opera:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:P9vjf.8101$ea6.1906@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Sam Gillett wrote:
>> "Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>>
>>>Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST in many
>>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of Tramiel you 
>>>know.
>>>:P
>>
>>
>> Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the same 
>> fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the world, the 
>> Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
>
> Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better was the 
> 130XE.
>>
>> Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga,
>
> And he did. In fact several.
>
> but Irving
>> Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization.  So, 
>> Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>
> Which was a better computer than the Amiga games console;-).

Nonsense, the ST was weak.

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:P9vjf.8101$ea6.1906@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Sam Gillett wrote:
>>
>>>"Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST in many
>>>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of Tramiel you 
>>>>know.
>>>>:P
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the same 
>>>fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the world, the 
>>>Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
>>
>>Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better was the 
>>130XE.
>>
>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga,
>>
>>And he did. In fact several.
>>
>>but Irving
>>
>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization.  So, 
>>>Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>>
>>Which was a better computer than the Amiga games console;-).
> 
> 
> Nonsense, the ST was weak.
> 
>


Nonsense, the Amiga was weak.

Da Smog wrote:
> ��� Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:16:11 -0500,o(h) Mark Bedingfield  
> <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> ������:
> 
>>
>> IIRC the guys that developed the Atari 8-bit designed the Amiga and 
>> the  guys that developed the C-64 developed the Atari ST.
>>
>> Mark
> 
> 
> And the guys that wrote Amiga DOS 1.x wrote it on a Sinclair QL using  
> Metacomco's BCPL of all things :-) (Well at least the kernel)
> Plus the Amiga can execute QDOS software natively using QDOS Classic 
> -NOT  an emulator really- (and there's even a replacement Kickstart ROM 
> that  turns it completely into a QL). As a matter of fact until the Q60 
> <url:  http://www.q40.de/> came along, a souped-up Amiga (with an 060) 
> was the  fastest QL compatible that one could get his hands on.

Talk about being in bed with each other. One big Atari/Amiga/Sinclair 
family. Here's a question, was Amiga DOS under development during the 
period Atari were going to release the Amiga?

Mark

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.cbm.]
> Nonsense, the ST was weak.

*peers over his shoulder*

It looks like it's a pretty sturdy doorstop, though.

-- 
    Martijn van Buul - pino@dohd.org - http://www.stack.nl/~martijnb/
	 Geek code: G--  - Visit OuterSpace: mud.stack.nl 3333
 The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...' Isaac Asimov

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:N_wjf.8175$ea6.654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:P9vjf.8101$ea6.1906@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST in 
>>>>>many
>>>>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of Tramiel you 
>>>>>know.
>>>>>:P
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the same 
>>>>fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the world, the 
>>>>Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
>>>
>>>Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better was the 
>>>130XE.
>>>
>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga,
>>>
>>>And he did. In fact several.
>>>
>>>but Irving
>>>
>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization. 
>>>>So, Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>>>
>>>Which was a better computer than the Amiga games console;-).
>>
>>
>> Nonsense, the ST was weak.
>>
>
>
> Nonsense, the Amiga was weak.
>

Moving from the ST to the Amiga was like a revelation. The ST was the 
weakest of all the Motorola 16 bit computers from that time.

"Martijn van Buul" <pino@dohd.org> wrote in message 
news:slrndot7cm.rl7.pino@mud.stack.nl...
> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.cbm.]
>> Nonsense, the ST was weak.
>
> *peers over his shoulder*
>
> It looks like it's a pretty sturdy doorstop, though.
>

:-) 

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Clockmeister wrote:

> Moving from the ST to the Amiga was like a revelation. The ST was the
> weakest of all the Motorola 16 bit computers from that time.

Having GEM as the GUI and a DOS clone as the OS didn't help much either. 
It was basically a PC with a 68000-class CPU.

-uso.

Sam Gillett wrote:

> 
> "Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
> > 
> > Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST
> > in many respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of
> > Tramiel you know.  :P
> 
> Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the same
> fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the world, the
> Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
> 
> Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, but
> Irving Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM
> organization.  So, Jack had to settle for second best and build the
> Atari ST.    ;-)



Fortunately. That Irving Gould and Mehdi Ali are the most worse
IT-Manager I ever knew and know. bahh...

But at least the ATARI (8 and 16bit) is more usable, today.




Daniel Mandic


P.S.: Speccy is full Support. Better than ever! Forget about all other
8bit.

Matthew Westcott wrote:

> John Black wrote:
> > The C64 is STILL light years ahead of anything Atari ever made.
> 
> Show me a C64 with a 262,144 colour palette at 640x480, 16-bit audio
> at 50kHz, and 14Mb of RAM, and I might just believe you.



Hi Matthew!



You mean 16MB, yes? :-) But how do you came to 16Bit 50KHz?




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

John Black wrote:


> 
> Ha ha.  This is a better troll than the original post.  The C64 is
> STILL light years ahead of anything Atari ever made.
> 
> John Black



Hmhmm.

Only the Space Shuttle has been designed and developed on an ATARI.
nop, that?s nothing, I know. So seen, is ATARI the most living Computer
Brand!!!!!! And much better in sound than a C64, of course.



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

pakitching@hotmail.com wrote:

> > > Atari 8bits hands down beat the C64. ... better sound
> 
> That must be why no-one has heard of the SID chip.  Oh, wait.
> Everyone knows that the C64 music was the best of the 8-bits and the
> SID was voted as one of the most important chips ever made by Byte
> magazine and people are still making re-mixes if C64 tunes because
> they were so good.


No, better is a C64 with a Software-Sequencer (24) connected to a
synthesizer. That�s digital. Forget abot th�s clunkky, lousy and
irksome digital-soundchips. They are sounding alltogether terrible,
also SID.



Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic

Mark Bedingfield wrote:


> 
> The Amiga was initially setup by Atari, don't forget.
> 

I forget.

Jay Miner initiated the Antic-descendent (however he would have name
it). Money was low, so a Joystick Company called AMIGA adopted
(cooperated) the financial things..... ATARI could buy AMIGA and the
A1000 but Commodore paid obviously more for the mighty AMIGA. Etc
Etc-.....





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

��� Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:11:25 -0500,o(h) Daniel Mandic  
<daniel_mandic@ping.at> ������:

> Matthew Westcott wrote:
>
>> John Black wrote:
>> > The C64 is STILL light years ahead of anything Atari ever made.
>>
>> Show me a C64 with a 262,144 colour palette at 640x480, 16-bit audio
>> at 50kHz, and 14Mb of RAM, and I might just believe you.
>
>
>
> Hi Matthew!
>
>
>
> You mean 16MB, yes? :-) But how do you came to 16Bit 50KHz?
>
>
>

Nope he means 14Mb + 2 Mb for the ROM IIRC. That should be a Falcon 030 if  
memory serves right (I think that one is still being produced today by  
C-Media... C-Lab or something)

Phoebus

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:59:50 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:

> Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, but Irving 
> Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization.  So, 
> Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)

Depends. For a MIDI user, second best was the Amiga. :-)

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.01.13.54.19.874687@charter.net...
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:59:50 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:
>
>> Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, but Irving
>> Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization.  So,
>> Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>
> Depends. For a MIDI user, second best was the Amiga. :-)
>

For everyone else the Amiga was best.

Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.

"Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@ping.at> wrote in message 
news:438ef67d$1$27017$91cee783@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at...
> John Black wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Ha ha.  This is a better troll than the original post.  The C64 is
>> STILL light years ahead of anything Atari ever made.
>>
>> John Black
>
>
>
> Hmhmm.
>
> Only the Space Shuttle has been designed and developed on an ATARI.
> nop, that?s nothing, I know. So seen, is ATARI the most living Computer
> Brand!!!!!! And much better in sound than a C64, of course.
>

The original ST wasn't, it's sound was awful.
SID was better by far.

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:07:15 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> For everyone else the Amiga was best.

Odd then, that I'm -not- a MIDI user yet still chose the ST line.

> Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.

Sounds very comparable on an STe...

Look Clockmeister, I believe we've talked before. I've actually owned
Amiga machines in the past. They are nice. I like them. I just prefer my
Mega STe and modded Falcon more. Each machine has its advantages and
disadvantages, agreed?

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

(followups partially restored, as I'm only reading css)

Daniel Mandic wrote:

> Matthew Westcott wrote:
>>
>>Show me a C64 with a 262,144 colour palette at 640x480, 16-bit audio
>>at 50kHz, and 14Mb of RAM, and I might just believe you.
> 
> You mean 16MB, yes? :-) But how do you came to 16Bit 50KHz?

I've no idea, I'm just blindly copying specs from 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari_Falcon ...

"Lyrical Nanoha" <LyricalNanoha@dosius.net> wrote in message 
news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0512010436370.16145@static-141-149-129-16.buff.east.verizon.net...
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Clockmeister wrote:
>
>> Moving from the ST to the Amiga was like a revelation. The ST was the
>> weakest of all the Motorola 16 bit computers from that time.
>
> Having GEM as the GUI and a DOS clone as the OS didn't help much either. 
> It was basically a PC with a 68000-class CPU.

Damn you guys, I thought I'd finally gotten over leaving
Intuiton behind. *sob*

--
Geoff

Ronald J. Hall wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:58:33 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:
> 
>> 
>> "Matthew Westcott" wrote ...
>> 
>>> John Black wrote:
>>>> The C64 is STILL light years ahead of anything Atari ever made.
>>>
>>> Show me a C64 with a 262,144 colour palette at 640x480, 16-bit audio at
>>> 50kHz, and 14Mb of RAM, and I might just believe you.
>> 
>> Show me an 8-bit Atari with all of that and we might take you seriously.
> 
> But the man said "anything Atari ever made"... :-)
> 

I can't beat the ST specs but my 8-bit commodore next to me does a pretty
good job.

3.5 MHz
4096 colours pallete at 640x200
Double SID
Max of 8 Mbyte RAM

Show me a 8-bit ATARI system which comes close.....


CIP

www.commodore-info.com

http://home.wanadoo.nl/richard.lagendijk/Pagina/COMP-C64-DTV.htm

Hey CIP,  this page made me smile :-)

CIP wrote:


> Show me a 8-bit ATARI system which comes close.....
> 
> 
> CIP
> 
> www.commodore-info.com


Atari VCS!




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

Daniel Mandic wrote:

> CIP wrote:
> 
> 
>> Show me a 8-bit ATARI system which comes close.....
>> 
>> 
>> CIP
>> 
>> www.commodore-info.com
> 
> 
> Atari VCS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Daniel Mandic

Hi Daniel

You're right the ATARI closest to my C65 is indeed a VCS. It is sitting
about 1 meter from it. My 800XL is about 50 cm further away than the VCS :)


And the best doorstop is a Koala Pad....


CIP
 
www.commodore-info.com

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.01.14.51.51.685357@charter.net...
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:07:15 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>
>> For everyone else the Amiga was best.
>
> Odd then, that I'm -not- a MIDI user yet still chose the ST line.

You're mad :-)

>> Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.
>
> Sounds very comparable on an STe...

You must have odd ears ;-)

> Look Clockmeister, I believe we've talked before. I've actually owned
> Amiga machines in the past. They are nice. I like them. I just prefer my
> Mega STe and modded Falcon more. Each machine has its advantages and
> disadvantages, agreed?
>

Yeah sure, not like it matters anymore. Besides, it's OT in this group.

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:N_wjf.8175$ea6.654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:P9vjf.8101$ea6.1906@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST in 
>>>>>>many
>>>>>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of Tramiel you 
>>>>>>know.
>>>>>>:P
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the same 
>>>>>fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the world, the 
>>>>>Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
>>>>
>>>>Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better was the 
>>>>130XE.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga,
>>>>
>>>>And he did. In fact several.
>>>>
>>>>but Irving
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization. 
>>>>>So, Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Which was a better computer than the Amiga games console;-).
>>>
>>>
>>>Nonsense, the ST was weak.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Nonsense, the Amiga was weak.
>>
> 
> 
> Moving from the ST to the Amiga was like a revelation. The ST was the 
> weakest of all the Motorola 16 bit computers from that time.
> 

First time I used an Amiga I could not believe how slow and clunky it 
was. Shudder. It also creaks.

Mark

Daniel Mandic wrote:
> Mark Bedingfield wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>The Amiga was initially setup by Atari, don't forget.
>>
> 
> 
> I forget.
> 
> Jay Miner initiated the Antic-descendent (however he would have name
> it). Money was low, so a Joystick Company called AMIGA adopted
> (cooperated) the financial things..... ATARI could buy AMIGA and the
> A1000 but Commodore paid obviously more for the mighty AMIGA. Etc
> Etc-.....

IIRC The Amiga could not be delivered on time, so Atari dropped it.

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.12.01.13.54.19.874687@charter.net...
> 
>>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:59:50 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, but Irving
>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization.  So,
>>>Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>>
>>Depends. For a MIDI user, second best was the Amiga. :-)
>>
> 
> 
> For everyone else the Amiga was best.
> 
> Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.
> 

Apart from the fact it is Mono on and STFM it sounded OK. The STE easily 
sounded as good, if not better (50 Khz). And the Falcon..... Amiga 
wasn't in the same league.

Mark

Daniel Mandic wrote:
> Matthew Westcott wrote:
> 
> 
>>John Black wrote:
>>
>>>The C64 is STILL light years ahead of anything Atari ever made.
>>
>>Show me a C64 with a 262,144 colour palette at 640x480, 16-bit audio
>>at 50kHz, and 14Mb of RAM, and I might just believe you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Matthew!
> 
> 
> 
> You mean 16MB, yes? :-) But how do you came to 16Bit 50KHz?
> 

Atari Falcon030, last of the line;-)

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?st=1&c=125

Mark

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:qDLjf.8564$ea6.2941@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>> news:pan.2005.12.01.13.54.19.874687@charter.net...
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:59:50 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, but Irving
>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization. 
>>>>So,
>>>>Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>>>
>>>Depends. For a MIDI user, second best was the Amiga. :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> For everyone else the Amiga was best.
>>
>> Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.
>>
>
> Apart from the fact it is Mono on and STFM it sounded OK.

No it didn't, it was awful.

The STE easily
> sounded as good, if not better (50 Khz).

Nope.

And the Falcon..... Amiga
> wasn't in the same league.
>

Correct, it actually sold in numbers.

Next.

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:uzLjf.8556$ea6.5392@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:N_wjf.8175$ea6.654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>message news:P9vjf.8101$ea6.1906@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST in 
>>>>>>>many
>>>>>>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of Tramiel you 
>>>>>>>know.
>>>>>>>:P
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the same 
>>>>>>fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the world, the 
>>>>>>Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
>>>>>
>>>>>Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better was 
>>>>>the 130XE.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga,
>>>>>
>>>>>And he did. In fact several.
>>>>>
>>>>>but Irving
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization. 
>>>>>>So, Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Which was a better computer than the Amiga games console;-).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense, the ST was weak.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Nonsense, the Amiga was weak.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Moving from the ST to the Amiga was like a revelation. The ST was the 
>> weakest of all the Motorola 16 bit computers from that time.
>>
>
> First time I used an Amiga I could not believe how slow and clunky it was. 
> Shudder. It also creaks.
>

Slow and clunky is the GEM/TOS insult to computing coupled with very 
ordinary hardware.

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:qDLjf.8564$ea6.2941@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>news:pan.2005.12.01.13.54.19.874687@charter.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:59:50 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, but Irving
>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization. 
>>>>>So,
>>>>>Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Depends. For a MIDI user, second best was the Amiga. :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>For everyone else the Amiga was best.
>>>
>>>Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.
>>>
>>
>>Apart from the fact it is Mono on and STFM it sounded OK.
> 
> 
> No it didn't, it was awful.

Yes it did.
> 
> The STE easily
> 
>>sounded as good, if not better (50 Khz).
> 
> 
> Nope.

Yup.
> 
> And the Falcon..... Amiga
> 
>>wasn't in the same league.
>>
> 
> 
> Correct, it actually sold in numbers.

So VHS was better than Beta? CD was better than DAT? Spice Girls are 
better than the Eagles? Numbers do not a computer make. By that analogy 
the Amiga was a POS compared to a 286.

Next.

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:uzLjf.8556$ea6.5392@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:N_wjf.8175$ea6.654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>message news:P9vjf.8101$ea6.1906@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST in 
>>>>>>>>many
>>>>>>>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of Tramiel you 
>>>>>>>>know.
>>>>>>>>:P
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the same 
>>>>>>>fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the world, the 
>>>>>>>Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better was 
>>>>>>the 130XE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And he did. In fact several.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>but Irving
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization. 
>>>>>>>So, Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which was a better computer than the Amiga games console;-).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nonsense, the ST was weak.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense, the Amiga was weak.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Moving from the ST to the Amiga was like a revelation. The ST was the 
>>>weakest of all the Motorola 16 bit computers from that time.
>>>
>>
>>First time I used an Amiga I could not believe how slow and clunky it was. 
>>Shudder. It also creaks.
>>
> 
> 
> Slow and clunky is the GEM/TOS insult to computing coupled with very 
> ordinary hardware.
> 

Yet it was faster than an A500? How are your eyes after all that 
interlacing?

Mark

--=-imoJ1UbMUnncoZ+tnbw4
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 00:49 +0000, Maciej Witkowiak wrote:

> Six/Style wrote:
> > C64 IFLI = 256 possible colors in 160x200
> 
> That one includes 16 shades of black, AFAIR


Actually you're both wrong - the maximum number of unique colors (i.e. no
duplicates) in any interlaced display mode (in any computer, really), without
dithering, is calculated by:

max_colors = (C^2) / 2 + C

Where C is the number of colors available normally (16 on the C64, for example),
without dithering or interlacing.  This works out to 136 unique colors on a
machine with a base palette of 16 colors.  Of those 136, on the C64, most people
consider only about 60 of them to be useful (the rest flicker too much).


-- 
"Sometimes paranoia can be helpful.  Usually, it
isn't, and when you learn that, life improves."
Vanessa Dannenberg <vanessaNOdannenberg@SPAMgmail.com>
Remove the obvious from my email address to reply.

--=-imoJ1UbMUnncoZ+tnbw4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
  <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
  <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.6.2">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<PRE>
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 00:49 +0000, Maciej Witkowiak wrote:
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Six/Style wrote:</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">&gt; C64 IFLI = 256 possible colors in 160x200</FONT>

<FONT COLOR="#000000">That one includes 16 shades of black, AFAIR</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<PRE>

Actually you're both wrong - the maximum number of unique colors (i.e. no
duplicates) in any interlaced display mode (in any computer, really), without
dithering, is calculated by:

max_colors = (C^2) / 2 + C

Where C is the number of colors available normally (16 on the C64, for example),
without dithering or interlacing.&nbsp; This works out to 136 unique colors on a
machine with a base palette of 16 colors.&nbsp; Of those 136, on the C64, most people
consider only about 60 of them to be useful (the rest flicker too much).

</PRE>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">-- </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">&quot;Sometimes paranoia can be helpful.&nbsp; Usually, it</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">isn't, and when you learn that, life improves.&quot;</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Vanessa Dannenberg &lt;vanessaNOdannenberg@SPAMgmail.com&gt;</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Remove the obvious from my email address to reply.</FONT>
</PRE>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--=-imoJ1UbMUnncoZ+tnbw4--

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:aHMjf.8638$ea6.19@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:uzLjf.8556$ea6.5392@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>message news:N_wjf.8175$ea6.654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>message news:P9vjf.8101$ea6.1906@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST 
>>>>>>>>>in many
>>>>>>>>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of Tramiel 
>>>>>>>>>you know.
>>>>>>>>>:P
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the same 
>>>>>>>>fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the world, the 
>>>>>>>>Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better was 
>>>>>>>the 130XE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And he did. In fact several.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>but Irving
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization. 
>>>>>>>>So, Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST. 
>>>>>>>>;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which was a better computer than the Amiga games console;-).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nonsense, the ST was weak.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nonsense, the Amiga was weak.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Moving from the ST to the Amiga was like a revelation. The ST was the 
>>>>weakest of all the Motorola 16 bit computers from that time.
>>>>
>>>
>>>First time I used an Amiga I could not believe how slow and clunky it 
>>>was. Shudder. It also creaks.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Slow and clunky is the GEM/TOS insult to computing coupled with very 
>> ordinary hardware.
>>
>
> Yet it was faster than an A500?

It wasn't. Multitasking worked very well on the A500, the GEM/TOS hybrid was 
neither here nor there.

 How are your eyes after all that
> interlacing?
>

How did you find space for two monitors?

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:zALjf.8557$ea6.2601@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Daniel Mandic wrote:
>> Mark Bedingfield wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>The Amiga was initially setup by Atari, don't forget.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I forget.
>>
>> Jay Miner initiated the Antic-descendent (however he would have name
>> it). Money was low, so a Joystick Company called AMIGA adopted
>> (cooperated) the financial things..... ATARI could buy AMIGA and the
>> A1000 but Commodore paid obviously more for the mighty AMIGA. Etc
>> Etc-.....
>
> IIRC The Amiga could not be delivered on time, so Atari dropped it.
>

You recall incorrectly. Commodore offered more money and didn't bullshit 
around like Atari did so they got the Amiga.

��� Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:15:45 -0500,o(h) Clockmeister <no-one@nowhere.com>  
������:

>
> It wasn't. Multitasking worked very well on the A500, the GEM/TOS hybrid  
> was
> neither here nor there.

No wonder since, as I stated previously, Amiga DOS was written on a  
*SINCLAIR* QL :-P

>
>  How are your eyes after all that
>> interlacing?
>>
>

I get some visions of HAM mode though and my eyes hurt even more than with  
an ST.

Cheers,


Phoebus


-- 
����������� �� ������������ ��������� ������������� ��� Opera:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:mGMjf.8636$ea6.2974@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:qDLjf.8564$ea6.2941@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>news:pan.2005.12.01.13.54.19.874687@charter.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:59:50 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, but 
>>>>>>Irving
>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization. 
>>>>>>So,
>>>>>>Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Depends. For a MIDI user, second best was the Amiga. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>For everyone else the Amiga was best.
>>>>
>>>>Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Apart from the fact it is Mono on and STFM it sounded OK.
>>
>>
>> No it didn't, it was awful.
>
> Yes it did.
>>
>> The STE easily
>>
>>>sounded as good, if not better (50 Khz).
>>
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Yup.
>>
>> And the Falcon..... Amiga
>>
>>>wasn't in the same league.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Correct, it actually sold in numbers.
>
> So VHS was better than Beta? CD was better than DAT? Spice Girls are 
> better than the Eagles? Numbers do not a computer make. By that analogy 
> the Amiga was a POS compared to a 286.

Not at all since I never suggested that the Amiga was better because it sold 
in numbers, only that it did and the Falcon didn't.

> Next.

Careful, your bias is showing.

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:aHMjf.8638$ea6.19@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:uzLjf.8556$ea6.5392@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>message news:N_wjf.8175$ea6.654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>>message news:P9vjf.8101$ea6.1906@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST 
>>>>>>>>>>in many
>>>>>>>>>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of Tramiel 
>>>>>>>>>>you know.
>>>>>>>>>>:P
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the same 
>>>>>>>>>fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the world, the 
>>>>>>>>>Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better was 
>>>>>>>>the 130XE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And he did. In fact several.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>but Irving
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization. 
>>>>>>>>>So, Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST. 
>>>>>>>>>;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Which was a better computer than the Amiga games console;-).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nonsense, the ST was weak.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nonsense, the Amiga was weak.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Moving from the ST to the Amiga was like a revelation. The ST was the 
>>>>>weakest of all the Motorola 16 bit computers from that time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>First time I used an Amiga I could not believe how slow and clunky it 
>>>>was. Shudder. It also creaks.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Slow and clunky is the GEM/TOS insult to computing coupled with very 
>>>ordinary hardware.
>>>
>>
>>Yet it was faster than an A500?
> 
> 
> It wasn't. Multitasking worked very well on the A500, the GEM/TOS hybrid was 
> neither here nor there.

7.14Mhz Vs 8Mhz? Tos worked well for me, I am not sure what you were 
doing wrong. I found the Amiga piss farted around too much and took ages 
to boot up too.
BTW my Atari's Multitask just fine as well.

> 
>  How are your eyes after all that
> 
>>interlacing?
>>
> 
> 
> How did you find space for two monitors?

No trouble, hows the eyes?

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:mGMjf.8636$ea6.2974@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:qDLjf.8564$ea6.2941@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.01.13.54.19.874687@charter.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:59:50 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, but 
>>>>>>>Irving
>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization. 
>>>>>>>So,
>>>>>>>Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Depends. For a MIDI user, second best was the Amiga. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>For everyone else the Amiga was best.
>>>>>
>>>>>Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Apart from the fact it is Mono on and STFM it sounded OK.
>>>
>>>
>>>No it didn't, it was awful.
>>
>>Yes it did.
>>
>>>The STE easily
>>>
>>>
>>>>sounded as good, if not better (50 Khz).
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>>Yup.
>>
>>>And the Falcon..... Amiga
>>>
>>>
>>>>wasn't in the same league.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Correct, it actually sold in numbers.
>>
>>So VHS was better than Beta? CD was better than DAT? Spice Girls are 
>>better than the Eagles? Numbers do not a computer make. By that analogy 
>>the Amiga was a POS compared to a 286.
> 
> 
> Not at all since I never suggested that the Amiga was better because it sold 
> in numbers, only that it did and the Falcon didn't.

So what is your point? Or was it just an observation?

So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?

> 
> 
>>Next.
> 
> 
> Careful, your bias is showing.
> 

As is yours;-).

Mark

Mark Bedingfield wrote:

>>
>> Well, they do have harddrive solutions (I own three of them) but... 
>> somebody forgot to write a DOS to boot that would support something 
>> beyond 16MiB on a partition, not to mention that somebody forgot to 
>> write a DOS to boot that would allow normal usage of removable media 
>> like ZIP/LS/SyQuest etc. and of course I wouldn't call any of those 
>> solutions "quick and easy", especially when compared to the 64 based 
>> ones but of course: "ataris have better expansion possibilities" ...
> 
> 
> No one forgot, in 1978 there was no zip/ls/syquest avaliable.

Nor were the harddrive solutions for the 8bit Ataris?

> Who cares 
> if it is better or worse on either platform? Both had strengths and 
> weakness'. The debate is over, neither won.

OK :-) I almost can't belive me taking part in this debate but it's kind 
of strange fun ;-)

> 
>>
>>> I've used both, and having been in the position of wanting to use my 
>>> Atari and lacking a DOS disk
>>
>>
>>
>> Uh, oh... ;-) Have you tried booting from cassette? ;-) ... Erm, that 
>> would require a DOS cassette... erm so you can't just easily check 
>> what's on the diskette and load a binary from it? Hm... I think that's 
>> the price for "professional" feel of the bootable DOS ;-)
> 
> 
> Dos is Disk Operating System. Not cassette.

But it's still a software - I was joking that maybe he could boot the 
Disk Operating System from the cassette...


>>> , will take the C64 over it any day. (And don't even get me started 
>>> on that stupid SIO connector.)
>>
>> That actually is possibly not THAT stupid. At least it was faster than 
>> the crippled IEC SERIAL bus on the 64... :-(
> 
> Ain't that the truth. I could not believe the loading times on the C-64 
> when I first saw one.

Ain't that what I just wrote? I believed SIO to be actually, 
unfortunately ;-) better than the C64's SERIAL bus... at least in terms 
of speed.

silverdr wrote:
> Mark Bedingfield wrote:
> 
>>>
>>> Well, they do have harddrive solutions (I own three of them) but... 
>>> somebody forgot to write a DOS to boot that would support something 
>>> beyond 16MiB on a partition, not to mention that somebody forgot to 
>>> write a DOS to boot that would allow normal usage of removable media 
>>> like ZIP/LS/SyQuest etc. and of course I wouldn't call any of those 
>>> solutions "quick and easy", especially when compared to the 64 based 
>>> ones but of course: "ataris have better expansion possibilities" ...
>>
>>
>>
>> No one forgot, in 1978 there was no zip/ls/syquest avaliable.
> 
> 
> Nor were the harddrive solutions for the 8bit Ataris?

Not then, no. In fact I don't think Atari ever made a hard drive for the 
8-bit. Could be wrong tho.
> 
>> Who cares if it is better or worse on either platform? Both had 
>> strengths and weakness'. The debate is over, neither won.
> 
> 
> OK :-) I almost can't belive me taking part in this debate but it's kind 
> of strange fun ;-)

It's like it is 1988 all over again, lol. I wasn't going to bother, but 
it is fun. I was in a Atari/Commodore club, it used to go on all day. 
The best thing was proving the other camp wrong;-).
> 
>>
>>>
>>>> I've used both, and having been in the position of wanting to use my 
>>>> Atari and lacking a DOS disk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uh, oh... ;-) Have you tried booting from cassette? ;-) ... Erm, that 
>>> would require a DOS cassette... erm so you can't just easily check 
>>> what's on the diskette and load a binary from it? Hm... I think 
>>> that's the price for "professional" feel of the bootable DOS ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Dos is Disk Operating System. Not cassette.
> 
> 
> But it's still a software - I was joking that maybe he could boot the 
> Disk Operating System from the cassette...

It is most likely possible, too. Never tried tho.
> 
> 
>>>> , will take the C64 over it any day. (And don't even get me started 
>>>> on that stupid SIO connector.)
>>>
>>>
>>> That actually is possibly not THAT stupid. At least it was faster 
>>> than the crippled IEC SERIAL bus on the 64... :-(
>>
>>
>> Ain't that the truth. I could not believe the loading times on the 
>> C-64 when I first saw one.
> 
> 
> Ain't that what I just wrote? I believed SIO to be actually, 
> unfortunately ;-) better than the C64's SERIAL bus... at least in terms 
> of speed.

It was like torture, I have 3 C-64's in the shed, never had time to play 
with them though. Too many Atari's to choose from. Actually I have 2 
Falcon030's (one with CT2), a TT030, A MegaSTE, a STE, 6 STFM's, a 
520ST, 130XE, XEGS, 2 800XL's (one with 256k ram and Omnimon), a 600XL 
(64k), a Lynx, a portfolio, a Jaguar, 2 2600's, 3 C-64's, A500, A2000, 
CD32 (with SX1). Jez, I didn't realise I had collected so much, although 
the wife does. No wonder I have no time;-)

Mark

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:rqNjf.8685$ea6.6159@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:aHMjf.8638$ea6.19@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>message news:uzLjf.8556$ea6.5392@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>message news:N_wjf.8175$ea6.654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote 
>>>>>>>>in message news:P9vjf.8101$ea6.1906@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST 
>>>>>>>>>>>in many
>>>>>>>>>>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of Tramiel 
>>>>>>>>>>>you know.
>>>>>>>>>>>:P
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the 
>>>>>>>>>>same fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the 
>>>>>>>>>>world, the Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better 
>>>>>>>>>was the 130XE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And he did. In fact several.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>but Irving
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM 
>>>>>>>>>>organization. So, Jack had to settle for second best and build the 
>>>>>>>>>>Atari ST. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Which was a better computer than the Amiga games console;-).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nonsense, the ST was weak.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nonsense, the Amiga was weak.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Moving from the ST to the Amiga was like a revelation. The ST was the 
>>>>>>weakest of all the Motorola 16 bit computers from that time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>First time I used an Amiga I could not believe how slow and clunky it 
>>>>>was. Shudder. It also creaks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Slow and clunky is the GEM/TOS insult to computing coupled with very 
>>>>ordinary hardware.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yet it was faster than an A500?
>>
>>
>> It wasn't. Multitasking worked very well on the A500, the GEM/TOS hybrid 
>> was neither here nor there.
>
> 7.14Mhz Vs 8Mhz?

Irrelevant when the CPU couldn't offload some of the workload to custom 
chips.

Tos worked well for me, I am not sure what you were
> doing wrong. I found the Amiga piss farted around too much and took ages 
> to boot up too.

The price you pay for a revolutionary OS. Multitasking was sweet...
And those silly partition limitations on the ST... what a joke.

> BTW my Atari's Multitask just fine as well.
>

Not like an Amiga multitasks, and how splintered are the OS choices and 
compatibilities between them?

>>
>>  How are your eyes after all that
>>
>>>interlacing?
>>>
>>
>>
>> How did you find space for two monitors?
>
> No trouble, hows the eyes?
>

Fine. Ever heard of productivity mode... or a flicker fixer even? 

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:mGMjf.8636$ea6.2974@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>message news:qDLjf.8564$ea6.2941@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.01.13.54.19.874687@charter.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:59:50 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, but 
>>>>>>>>Irving
>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization. 
>>>>>>>>So,
>>>>>>>>Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Depends. For a MIDI user, second best was the Amiga. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For everyone else the Amiga was best.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Apart from the fact it is Mono on and STFM it sounded OK.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No it didn't, it was awful.
>>>
>>>Yes it did.
>>>
>>>>The STE easily
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>sounded as good, if not better (50 Khz).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nope.
>>>
>>>Yup.
>>>
>>>>And the Falcon..... Amiga
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>wasn't in the same league.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Correct, it actually sold in numbers.
>>>
>>>So VHS was better than Beta? CD was better than DAT? Spice Girls are 
>>>better than the Eagles? Numbers do not a computer make. By that analogy 
>>>the Amiga was a POS compared to a 286.
>>
>>
>> Not at all since I never suggested that the Amiga was better because it 
>> sold in numbers, only that it did and the Falcon didn't.
>
> So what is your point? Or was it just an observation?
>
> So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>

Possibly more common then Falcons. 
http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio

Quite a number of options there.


>>>Next.
>>
>>
>> Careful, your bias is showing.
>>
>
> As is yours;-).
>

:-P 

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:rqNjf.8685$ea6.6159@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:aHMjf.8638$ea6.19@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>message news:uzLjf.8556$ea6.5392@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>>message news:N_wjf.8175$ea6.654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote 
>>>>>>>>>in message news:P9vjf.8101$ea6.1906@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari ST 
>>>>>>>>>>>>in many
>>>>>>>>>>>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of Tramiel 
>>>>>>>>>>>>you know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>:P
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the 
>>>>>>>>>>>same fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the 
>>>>>>>>>>>world, the Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better 
>>>>>>>>>>was the 130XE.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And he did. In fact several.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>but Irving
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM 
>>>>>>>>>>>organization. So, Jack had to settle for second best and build the 
>>>>>>>>>>>Atari ST. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Which was a better computer than the Amiga games console;-).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nonsense, the ST was weak.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nonsense, the Amiga was weak.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Moving from the ST to the Amiga was like a revelation. The ST was the 
>>>>>>>weakest of all the Motorola 16 bit computers from that time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>First time I used an Amiga I could not believe how slow and clunky it 
>>>>>>was. Shudder. It also creaks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Slow and clunky is the GEM/TOS insult to computing coupled with very 
>>>>>ordinary hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yet it was faster than an A500?
>>>
>>>
>>>It wasn't. Multitasking worked very well on the A500, the GEM/TOS hybrid 
>>>was neither here nor there.
>>
>>7.14Mhz Vs 8Mhz?
> 
> 
> Irrelevant when the CPU couldn't offload some of the workload to custom 
> chips.
> 

You just said it was slower.

> Tos worked well for me, I am not sure what you were
> 
>>doing wrong. I found the Amiga piss farted around too much and took ages 
>>to boot up too.
> 
> 
> The price you pay for a revolutionary OS. Multitasking was sweet...
> And those silly partition limitations on the ST... what a joke.

A price I happily didn't pay. Like ram limitations on a Amiga 1000?

> 
> 
>>BTW my Atari's Multitask just fine as well.
>>
> 
> 
> Not like an Amiga multitasks, and how splintered are the OS choices and 
> compatibilities between them?

How is your knowledge of Magic, Mint, Multitos, Linux, Minix, SMS2, 
Geneva and NetBSD? And which one were you refering to? Magic, Mint, 
Multitos and Geneva are all relatively TOS/GEM compatible. How well do 
ALL WB 1 apps run under current AmigaOS?

> 
> 
>>> How are your eyes after all that
>>>
>>>
>>>>interlacing?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>How did you find space for two monitors?
>>
>>No trouble, hows the eyes?
>>
> 
> 
> Fine. Ever heard of productivity mode... or a flicker fixer even? 
> 

Did they come as standard on an A500 did they? I never needed one on my 
SM124.

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:mGMjf.8636$ea6.2974@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>message news:qDLjf.8564$ea6.2941@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.01.13.54.19.874687@charter.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:59:50 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, but 
>>>>>>>>>Irving
>>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM organization. 
>>>>>>>>>So,
>>>>>>>>>Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Depends. For a MIDI user, second best was the Amiga. :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For everyone else the Amiga was best.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Apart from the fact it is Mono on and STFM it sounded OK.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No it didn't, it was awful.
>>>>
>>>>Yes it did.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The STE easily
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>sounded as good, if not better (50 Khz).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope.
>>>>
>>>>Yup.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And the Falcon..... Amiga
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>wasn't in the same league.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Correct, it actually sold in numbers.
>>>>
>>>>So VHS was better than Beta? CD was better than DAT? Spice Girls are 
>>>>better than the Eagles? Numbers do not a computer make. By that analogy 
>>>>the Amiga was a POS compared to a 286.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not at all since I never suggested that the Amiga was better because it 
>>>sold in numbers, only that it did and the Falcon didn't.
>>
>>So what is your point? Or was it just an observation?
>>
>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>
> 
> 
> Possibly more common then Falcons. 
> http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
> 
> Quite a number of options there.

All factory standard were they?

http://www.czuba-tech.com/DEESSE/english/overview.htm

Hows about them apples?

Can a stock A1200 play MP3's? My stock Falcon can:-)
> 
> 
> 
>>>>Next.
>>>
>>>
>>>Careful, your bias is showing.
>>>
>>
>>As is yours;-).
>>
> 
> 
> :-P 
> 
> 
Nah, nah, nah, nah, neh.

ROTFLMAO.;-).

Mark

"Mark Bedingfield" wrote ...

> Sam Gillett wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the same
>> fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the world, the
>> Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
>
> Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better was the
> 130XE.

Nonsense!  The Commodore 128 was much better than ANY Atari 8-bit.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

Sam Gillett wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" wrote ...
> 
> 
>>Sam Gillett wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the same
>>>fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the world, the
>>>Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
>>
>>Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better was the
>>130XE.
> 
> 
> Nonsense!  The Commodore 128 was much better than ANY Atari 8-bit.

Oh c'mon, the 130XE was the best.

Mark

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:rZOjf.8734$ea6.3146@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:rqNjf.8685$ea6.6159@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>message news:aHMjf.8638$ea6.19@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>message news:uzLjf.8556$ea6.5392@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote 
>>>>>>>>in message news:N_wjf.8175$ea6.654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> 
>>>>>>>>>>wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>>>news:P9vjf.8101$ea6.1906@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST in many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tramiel you know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>:P
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>same fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>world, the Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better 
>>>>>>>>>>>was the 130XE.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And he did. In fact several.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>but Irving
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM 
>>>>>>>>>>>>organization. So, Jack had to settle for second best and build 
>>>>>>>>>>>>the Atari ST. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Which was a better computer than the Amiga games console;-).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Nonsense, the ST was weak.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nonsense, the Amiga was weak.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Moving from the ST to the Amiga was like a revelation. The ST was 
>>>>>>>>the weakest of all the Motorola 16 bit computers from that time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>First time I used an Amiga I could not believe how slow and clunky it 
>>>>>>>was. Shudder. It also creaks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Slow and clunky is the GEM/TOS insult to computing coupled with very 
>>>>>>ordinary hardware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yet it was faster than an A500?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It wasn't. Multitasking worked very well on the A500, the GEM/TOS hybrid 
>>>>was neither here nor there.
>>>
>>>7.14Mhz Vs 8Mhz?
>>
>>
>> Irrelevant when the CPU couldn't offload some of the workload to custom 
>> chips.
>>
>
> You just said it was slower.
>

Not in operation it isn't.

>> Tos worked well for me, I am not sure what you were
>>
>>>doing wrong. I found the Amiga piss farted around too much and took ages 
>>>to boot up too.
>>
>>
>> The price you pay for a revolutionary OS. Multitasking was sweet...
>> And those silly partition limitations on the ST... what a joke.
>
> A price I happily didn't pay. Like ram limitations on a Amiga 1000?

What RAM limitations? The RAM limitations of the computers were more to do 
with economical practicality at that time anyway.

>>
>>
>>>BTW my Atari's Multitask just fine as well.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not like an Amiga multitasks, and how splintered are the OS choices and 
>> compatibilities between them?
>
> How is your knowledge of Magic, Mint, Multitos, Linux, Minix, SMS2, Geneva 
> and NetBSD? And which one were you refering to? Magic, Mint, Multitos and 
> Geneva are all relatively TOS/GEM compatible.

You have just proved my point.

How well do
> ALL WB 1 apps run under current AmigaOS?
>

Irrelevant when both the OS and hardware has progressed well beyond the 
original spec in the case of the Amiga. And before you start on about the 
clones, the Hades was compatibility hell.

>>
>>>> How are your eyes after all that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>interlacing?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How did you find space for two monitors?
>>>
>>>No trouble, hows the eyes?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Fine. Ever heard of productivity mode... or a flicker fixer even?
>
> Did they come as standard on an A500 did they?

Any ECS machine with 2.1 could display productivity mode, and standard with 
A500+.

 I never needed one on my
> SM124.
>

Didn't need to. We didn't need to buy a (hideously expensive at the time) 
second monitor either. 

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:o4Pjf.8738$ea6.6796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>message news:mGMjf.8636$ea6.2974@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>message news:qDLjf.8564$ea6.2941@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.01.13.54.19.874687@charter.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:59:50 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, but 
>>>>>>>>>>Irving
>>>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM 
>>>>>>>>>>organization. So,
>>>>>>>>>>Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Depends. For a MIDI user, second best was the Amiga. :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>For everyone else the Amiga was best.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Apart from the fact it is Mono on and STFM it sounded OK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No it didn't, it was awful.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes it did.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The STE easily
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>sounded as good, if not better (50 Khz).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yup.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>And the Falcon..... Amiga
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>wasn't in the same league.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Correct, it actually sold in numbers.
>>>>>
>>>>>So VHS was better than Beta? CD was better than DAT? Spice Girls are 
>>>>>better than the Eagles? Numbers do not a computer make. By that analogy 
>>>>>the Amiga was a POS compared to a 286.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not at all since I never suggested that the Amiga was better because it 
>>>>sold in numbers, only that it did and the Falcon didn't.
>>>
>>>So what is your point? Or was it just an observation?
>>>
>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Possibly more common then Falcons. 
>> http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>
>> Quite a number of options there.
>
> All factory standard were they?
>
> http://www.czuba-tech.com/DEESSE/english/overview.htm
>
> Hows about them apples?

I don't use them, I prefer PC's.

> Can a stock A1200 play MP3's? My stock Falcon can:-)
>>

So can a stock A4000. Next...

>>
>>>>>Next.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Careful, your bias is showing.
>>>>
>>>
>>>As is yours;-).
>>>
>>
>>
>> :-P
> Nah, nah, nah, nah, neh.
>
> ROTFLMAO.;-).
>

We've been here before :-) lol 

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:wdOjf.8716$ea6.5568@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> silverdr wrote:
>> Mark Bedingfield wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, they do have harddrive solutions (I own three of them) but... 
>>>> somebody forgot to write a DOS to boot that would support something 
>>>> beyond 16MiB on a partition, not to mention that somebody forgot to 
>>>> write a DOS to boot that would allow normal usage of removable media 
>>>> like ZIP/LS/SyQuest etc. and of course I wouldn't call any of those 
>>>> solutions "quick and easy", especially when compared to the 64 based 
>>>> ones but of course: "ataris have better expansion possibilities" ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No one forgot, in 1978 there was no zip/ls/syquest avaliable.
>>
>>
>> Nor were the harddrive solutions for the 8bit Ataris?
>
> Not then, no. In fact I don't think Atari ever made a hard drive for the 
> 8-bit. Could be wrong tho.
>>
>>> Who cares if it is better or worse on either platform? Both had 
>>> strengths and weakness'. The debate is over, neither won.
>>
>>
>> OK :-) I almost can't belive me taking part in this debate but it's kind 
>> of strange fun ;-)
>
> It's like it is 1988 all over again, lol. I wasn't going to bother, but it 
> is fun. I was in a Atari/Commodore club, it used to go on all day. The 
> best thing was proving the other camp wrong;-).
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've used both, and having been in the position of wanting to use my 
>>>>> Atari and lacking a DOS disk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uh, oh... ;-) Have you tried booting from cassette? ;-) ... Erm, that 
>>>> would require a DOS cassette... erm so you can't just easily check 
>>>> what's on the diskette and load a binary from it? Hm... I think that's 
>>>> the price for "professional" feel of the bootable DOS ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dos is Disk Operating System. Not cassette.
>>
>>
>> But it's still a software - I was joking that maybe he could boot the 
>> Disk Operating System from the cassette...
>
> It is most likely possible, too. Never tried tho.
>>
>>
>>>>> , will take the C64 over it any day. (And don't even get me started on 
>>>>> that stupid SIO connector.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That actually is possibly not THAT stupid. At least it was faster than 
>>>> the crippled IEC SERIAL bus on the 64... :-(
>>>
>>>
>>> Ain't that the truth. I could not believe the loading times on the C-64 
>>> when I first saw one.
>>
>>
>> Ain't that what I just wrote? I believed SIO to be actually, 
>> unfortunately ;-) better than the C64's SERIAL bus... at least in terms 
>> of speed.
>

<snip>

> Too many Atari's to choose from. Actually I have 2 Falcon030's (one with 
> CT2), a TT030, A MegaSTE, a STE, 6 STFM's, a 520ST, 130XE, XEGS, 2 800XL's 
> (one with 256k ram and Omnimon), a 600XL (64k), a Lynx, a portfolio, a 
> Jaguar, 2 2600's,

So much landfill... :-) 

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:rZOjf.8734$ea6.3146@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:rqNjf.8685$ea6.6159@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>message news:aHMjf.8638$ea6.19@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>>message news:uzLjf.8556$ea6.5392@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote 
>>>>>>>>>in message news:N_wjf.8175$ea6.654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> 
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>>>>news:P9vjf.8101$ea6.1906@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The Atari 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST in many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tramiel you know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>same fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>world, the Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing better 
>>>>>>>>>>>>was the 130XE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>And he did. In fact several.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>but Irving
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>organization. So, Jack had to settle for second best and build 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the Atari ST. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Which was a better computer than the Amiga games console;-).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Nonsense, the ST was weak.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Nonsense, the Amiga was weak.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Moving from the ST to the Amiga was like a revelation. The ST was 
>>>>>>>>>the weakest of all the Motorola 16 bit computers from that time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>First time I used an Amiga I could not believe how slow and clunky it 
>>>>>>>>was. Shudder. It also creaks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Slow and clunky is the GEM/TOS insult to computing coupled with very 
>>>>>>>ordinary hardware.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yet it was faster than an A500?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It wasn't. Multitasking worked very well on the A500, the GEM/TOS hybrid 
>>>>>was neither here nor there.
>>>>
>>>>7.14Mhz Vs 8Mhz?
>>>
>>>
>>>Irrelevant when the CPU couldn't offload some of the workload to custom 
>>>chips.
>>>
>>
>>You just said it was slower.
>>
> 
> 
> Not in operation it isn't.

8mhz is faster than 7.14mhz.
> 
> 
>>>Tos worked well for me, I am not sure what you were
>>>
>>>
>>>>doing wrong. I found the Amiga piss farted around too much and took ages 
>>>>to boot up too.
>>>
>>>
>>>The price you pay for a revolutionary OS. Multitasking was sweet...
>>>And those silly partition limitations on the ST... what a joke.
>>
>>A price I happily didn't pay. Like ram limitations on a Amiga 1000?
> 
> 
> What RAM limitations? The RAM limitations of the computers were more to do 
> with economical practicality at that time anyway.

How much chip ram did the A1000 have? My STFM had 4 meg.
> 
> 
>>>
>>>>BTW my Atari's Multitask just fine as well.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Not like an Amiga multitasks, and how splintered are the OS choices and 
>>>compatibilities between them?
>>
>>How is your knowledge of Magic, Mint, Multitos, Linux, Minix, SMS2, Geneva 
>>and NetBSD? And which one were you refering to? Magic, Mint, Multitos and 
>>Geneva are all relatively TOS/GEM compatible.
> 
> 
> You have just proved my point.

Which is?

Irrelevant when both the OS and hardware has progressed well beyond the
original spec in the case of the Atari.

> 
> How well do
> 
>>ALL WB 1 apps run under current AmigaOS?
>>
> 
> 
> Irrelevant when both the OS and hardware has progressed well beyond the 
> original spec in the case of the Amiga. And before you start on about the 
> clones, the Hades was compatibility hell.

The Clab Falcon MK2 was the ONLY Atari licenced clone. It was 100% 
compatible with the Atari Falcon. All the other clones were developed to 
run Gem apps, not to play Starglider. For that you keep an STFM around. 
Much like you do on a modern Amiga, unless you emulate. On the Falcon we 
had Backwards, which was a ST emulator for the Falcon.
> 
> 
>>>>>How are your eyes after all that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>interlacing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How did you find space for two monitors?
>>>>
>>>>No trouble, hows the eyes?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Fine. Ever heard of productivity mode... or a flicker fixer even?
>>
>>Did they come as standard on an A500 did they?
> 
> 
> Any ECS machine with 2.1 could display productivity mode, and standard with 
> A500+.

What about A1000? That is the STFM era. 1985. 2.1 was 1992 was it not?

ALL 16bit and better Atari's could run with a VGA monitor. That is the 
ST(M/F/FM/E), MegaST/E, TT030 and Falcon030.
> 
>  I never needed one on my
> 
>>SM124.
>>
> 
> 
> Didn't need to. We didn't need to buy a (hideously expensive at the time) 
> second monitor either. 

Didn't need to what?

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:o4Pjf.8738$ea6.6796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>message news:mGMjf.8636$ea6.2974@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>>message news:qDLjf.8564$ea6.2941@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.01.13.54.19.874687@charter.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:59:50 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, but 
>>>>>>>>>>>Irving
>>>>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM 
>>>>>>>>>>>organization. So,
>>>>>>>>>>>Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST.    ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Depends. For a MIDI user, second best was the Amiga. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>For everyone else the Amiga was best.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Apart from the fact it is Mono on and STFM it sounded OK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No it didn't, it was awful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes it did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The STE easily
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>sounded as good, if not better (50 Khz).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And the Falcon..... Amiga
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>wasn't in the same league.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Correct, it actually sold in numbers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So VHS was better than Beta? CD was better than DAT? Spice Girls are 
>>>>>>better than the Eagles? Numbers do not a computer make. By that analogy 
>>>>>>the Amiga was a POS compared to a 286.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not at all since I never suggested that the Amiga was better because it 
>>>>>sold in numbers, only that it did and the Falcon didn't.
>>>>
>>>>So what is your point? Or was it just an observation?
>>>>
>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Possibly more common then Falcons. 
>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>
>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>
>>All factory standard were they?
>>
>>http://www.czuba-tech.com/DEESSE/english/overview.htm
>>
>>Hows about them apples?
> 
> 
> I don't use them, I prefer PC's.

LOL.

> 
> 
>>Can a stock A1200 play MP3's? My stock Falcon can:-)
>>
> 
> So can a stock A4000. Next...

In 16bits? 8 tracks of 56001 dsp driven 16 bit 50Khz audio. Mods never 
sounded so good, swoon.
> 
> 
>>>>>>Next.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Careful, your bias is showing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As is yours;-).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>:-P
>>
>>Nah, nah, nah, nah, neh.
>>
>>ROTFLMAO.;-).
>>
> 
> 
> We've been here before :-) lol 
> 

Strangely, yes. Chuckle.

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:wdOjf.8716$ea6.5568@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>silverdr wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Bedingfield wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Well, they do have harddrive solutions (I own three of them) but... 
>>>>>somebody forgot to write a DOS to boot that would support something 
>>>>>beyond 16MiB on a partition, not to mention that somebody forgot to 
>>>>>write a DOS to boot that would allow normal usage of removable media 
>>>>>like ZIP/LS/SyQuest etc. and of course I wouldn't call any of those 
>>>>>solutions "quick and easy", especially when compared to the 64 based 
>>>>>ones but of course: "ataris have better expansion possibilities" ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No one forgot, in 1978 there was no zip/ls/syquest avaliable.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nor were the harddrive solutions for the 8bit Ataris?
>>
>>Not then, no. In fact I don't think Atari ever made a hard drive for the 
>>8-bit. Could be wrong tho.
>>
>>>>Who cares if it is better or worse on either platform? Both had 
>>>>strengths and weakness'. The debate is over, neither won.
>>>
>>>
>>>OK :-) I almost can't belive me taking part in this debate but it's kind 
>>>of strange fun ;-)
>>
>>It's like it is 1988 all over again, lol. I wasn't going to bother, but it 
>>is fun. I was in a Atari/Commodore club, it used to go on all day. The 
>>best thing was proving the other camp wrong;-).
>>
>>>>>>I've used both, and having been in the position of wanting to use my 
>>>>>>Atari and lacking a DOS disk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Uh, oh... ;-) Have you tried booting from cassette? ;-) ... Erm, that 
>>>>>would require a DOS cassette... erm so you can't just easily check 
>>>>>what's on the diskette and load a binary from it? Hm... I think that's 
>>>>>the price for "professional" feel of the bootable DOS ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dos is Disk Operating System. Not cassette.
>>>
>>>
>>>But it's still a software - I was joking that maybe he could boot the 
>>>Disk Operating System from the cassette...
>>
>>It is most likely possible, too. Never tried tho.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>, will take the C64 over it any day. (And don't even get me started on 
>>>>>>that stupid SIO connector.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That actually is possibly not THAT stupid. At least it was faster than 
>>>>>the crippled IEC SERIAL bus on the 64... :-(
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ain't that the truth. I could not believe the loading times on the C-64 
>>>>when I first saw one.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ain't that what I just wrote? I believed SIO to be actually, 
>>>unfortunately ;-) better than the C64's SERIAL bus... at least in terms 
>>>of speed.
>>
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>Too many Atari's to choose from. Actually I have 2 Falcon030's (one with 
>>CT2), a TT030, A MegaSTE, a STE, 6 STFM's, a 520ST, 130XE, XEGS, 2 800XL's 
>>(one with 256k ram and Omnimon), a 600XL (64k), a Lynx, a portfolio, a 
>>Jaguar, 2 2600's,
> 
> 
> So much landfill... :-) 
> 
> 

Its all taken up with ET cartridges, sorry.

Mark

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:ndQjf.8779$ea6.5094@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:rZOjf.8734$ea6.3146@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>message news:rqNjf.8685$ea6.6159@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>message news:aHMjf.8638$ea6.19@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote 
>>>>>>>>in message news:uzLjf.8556$ea6.5392@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> 
>>>>>>>>>>wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>>>news:N_wjf.8175$ea6.654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>>>>>news:P9vjf.8101$ea6.1906@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ah, but John Black never specified that limitation.  The 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Atari ST in many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes from the hands of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tramiel you know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were both created by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the same fertile minds.    :-)    When Jack introduced it to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the world, the Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit computer of its 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you forget that the 800XL was the best? The only thing 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>better was the 130XE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he did. In fact several.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>but Irving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>organization. So, Jack had to settle for second best and build 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the Atari ST. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Which was a better computer than the Amiga games console;-).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Nonsense, the ST was weak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Nonsense, the Amiga was weak.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Moving from the ST to the Amiga was like a revelation. The ST was 
>>>>>>>>>>the weakest of all the Motorola 16 bit computers from that time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>First time I used an Amiga I could not believe how slow and clunky 
>>>>>>>>>it was. Shudder. It also creaks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Slow and clunky is the GEM/TOS insult to computing coupled with very 
>>>>>>>>ordinary hardware.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yet it was faster than an A500?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It wasn't. Multitasking worked very well on the A500, the GEM/TOS 
>>>>>>hybrid was neither here nor there.
>>>>>
>>>>>7.14Mhz Vs 8Mhz?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant when the CPU couldn't offload some of the workload to custom 
>>>>chips.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You just said it was slower.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not in operation it isn't.
>
> 8mhz is faster than 7.14mhz.
>>

In actual use the ST isn't faster because the CPU has to do virtually 
everything.

>>>>Tos worked well for me, I am not sure what you were
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>doing wrong. I found the Amiga piss farted around too much and took 
>>>>>ages to boot up too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The price you pay for a revolutionary OS. Multitasking was sweet...
>>>>And those silly partition limitations on the ST... what a joke.
>>>
>>>A price I happily didn't pay. Like ram limitations on a Amiga 1000?
>>
>>
>> What RAM limitations? The RAM limitations of the computers were more to 
>> do with economical practicality at that time anyway.
>
> How much chip ram did the A1000 have? My STFM had 4 meg.
>>

My STFM certainly did not. It had 1Mb and it was a shit to upgrade it beyond 
that..
The A1000 could handle 9Mb.

>>>>
>>>>>BTW my Atari's Multitask just fine as well.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not like an Amiga multitasks, and how splintered are the OS choices and 
>>>>compatibilities between them?
>>>
>>>How is your knowledge of Magic, Mint, Multitos, Linux, Minix, SMS2, 
>>>Geneva and NetBSD? And which one were you refering to? Magic, Mint, 
>>>Multitos and Geneva are all relatively TOS/GEM compatible.
>>
>>
>> You have just proved my point.
>
> Which is?

Oh c'mon, with that many choices it's obvious there was something 
desperately wrong with the core.

> Irrelevant when both the OS and hardware has progressed well beyond the
> original spec in the case of the Atari.
>
>>
>> How well do
>>
>>>ALL WB 1 apps run under current AmigaOS?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Irrelevant when both the OS and hardware has progressed well beyond the 
>> original spec in the case of the Amiga. And before you start on about the 
>> clones, the Hades was compatibility hell.
>
> The Clab Falcon MK2 was the ONLY Atari licenced clone. It was 100% 
> compatible with the Atari Falcon.

And what a roaring success it was... not.

All the other clones were developed to
> run Gem apps, not to play Starglider. For that you keep an STFM around. 
> Much like you do on a modern Amiga, unless you emulate. On the Falcon we 
> had Backwards, which was a ST emulator for the Falcon.
>>

Rekick allows you to run even the oldest software on any Amiga.

>>>>>>How are your eyes after all that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>interlacing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How did you find space for two monitors?
>>>>>
>>>>>No trouble, hows the eyes?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fine. Ever heard of productivity mode... or a flicker fixer even?
>>>
>>>Did they come as standard on an A500 did they?
>>
>>
>> Any ECS machine with 2.1 could display productivity mode, and standard 
>> with A500+.
>
> What about A1000? That is the STFM era. 1985. 2.1 was 1992 was it not?

Two very expensive monitors wasn't an option for most either, in fact that 
idea was rediculous. At least the A1000 had the option, flickery as one may 
have been.

> ALL 16bit and better Atari's could run with a VGA monitor. That is the 
> ST(M/F/FM/E), MegaST/E, TT030 and Falcon030.

Too bad if you wanted to play games. I had a VGA monitor on my A500 also, 
and it would have worked just as happily on my A1000.

>>  I never needed one on my
>>
>>>SM124.
>>>

I had one of those, 12" wasn't it. Nice and clear, but way too small.

>>
>> Didn't need to. We didn't need to buy a (hideously expensive at the time) 
>> second monitor either.
>
> Didn't need to what?
>

Plug another monitor in just to play games.

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:7gQjf.8781$ea6.6937@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:o4Pjf.8738$ea6.6796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>message news:mGMjf.8636$ea6.2974@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote 
>>>>>>>>in message news:qDLjf.8564$ea6.2941@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.01.13.54.19.874687@charter.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:59:50 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>but Irving
>>>>>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM 
>>>>>>>>>>>>organization. So,
>>>>>>>>>>>>Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Depends. For a MIDI user, second best was the Amiga. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>For everyone else the Amiga was best.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Apart from the fact it is Mono on and STFM it sounded OK.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No it didn't, it was awful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes it did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The STE easily
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>sounded as good, if not better (50 Khz).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And the Falcon..... Amiga
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>wasn't in the same league.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Correct, it actually sold in numbers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So VHS was better than Beta? CD was better than DAT? Spice Girls are 
>>>>>>>better than the Eagles? Numbers do not a computer make. By that 
>>>>>>>analogy the Amiga was a POS compared to a 286.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not at all since I never suggested that the Amiga was better because 
>>>>>>it sold in numbers, only that it did and the Falcon didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>So what is your point? Or was it just an observation?
>>>>>
>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons. 
>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>
>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>
>>>All factory standard were they?
>>>
>>>http://www.czuba-tech.com/DEESSE/english/overview.htm
>>>
>>>Hows about them apples?
>>
>>
>> I don't use them, I prefer PC's.
>
> LOL.
>
>>
>>
>>>Can a stock A1200 play MP3's? My stock Falcon can:-)
>>>
>>
>> So can a stock A4000. Next...
>
> In 16bits? 8 tracks of 56001 dsp driven 16 bit 50Khz audio. Mods never 
> sounded so good, swoon.

You were talking about Mp3's, now back to Mods? CPU power lacking a bit eh?

Mods sounded the best on what they were written for, Paula.

>>>>>>>Next.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Careful, your bias is showing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>As is yours;-).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>:-P
>>>
>>>Nah, nah, nah, nah, neh.
>>>
>>>ROTFLMAO.;-).
>>>
>>
>>
>> We've been here before :-) lol
>
> Strangely, yes. Chuckle.
>

Let's let it go, you can't win anyway :-P

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:2hQjf.8784$ea6.7821@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:wdOjf.8716$ea6.5568@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>Too many Atari's to choose from. Actually I have 2 Falcon030's (one with 
>>>CT2), a TT030, A MegaSTE, a STE, 6 STFM's, a 520ST, 130XE, XEGS, 2 
>>>800XL's (one with 256k ram and Omnimon), a 600XL (64k), a Lynx, a 
>>>portfolio, a Jaguar, 2 2600's,
>>
>>
>> So much landfill... :-)
>
> Its all taken up with ET cartridges, sorry.
>

Damn, the only one I don't have! :-) 

And let us not forget that "Blaine Adamson", whoever he is, is an
anagram of "A LESBIAN NOMAD" and "I ABANDON MALES"

A coincidence?  I think not.

--=-OuYV88eRXFq1e5Y0SJx1
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thursday, Dec. 1 at 7:41 PM, Vanessa Dannenberg wrote:

> max_colors = (C^2) / 2 + C


Replying to myself now - I was tired when I wrote that, so here's the correction
to that formula.  It should read:

max_colors = ( ( C^2 ) + C ) / 2

Hence:
             ( ( 16^2 ) +16 ) / 2
             ( 256 + 16) / 2
             272 / 2
max_colors = 136

Note the result is still 136. :-)

-- 
"Sometimes paranoia can be helpful.  Usually, it
isn't, and when you learn that, life improves."
Vanessa Dannenberg <vanessaNOdannenberg@SPAMgmail.com>
Remove the obvious from my email address to reply.

--=-OuYV88eRXFq1e5Y0SJx1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
  <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
  <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.6.2">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<PRE>
On Thursday, Dec. 1 at 7:41 PM, Vanessa Dannenberg wrote:
</PRE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">max_colors = (C^2) / 2 + C</FONT>
</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<PRE>

Replying to myself now - I was tired when I wrote that, so here's the correction
to that formula.&nbsp; It should read:

<FONT COLOR="#000000">max_colors = </FONT>( <FONT COLOR="#000000">(</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">C^2</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000000">) + C</FONT> ) / 2

Hence:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ( ( 16^2 ) +16 ) / 2
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ( 256 + 16) / 2
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 272 / 2
max_colors = 136

Note the result is still 136. :-)
</PRE>
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
<TR>
<TD>
<PRE>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">-- </FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">&quot;Sometimes paranoia can be helpful.&nbsp; Usually, it</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">isn't, and when you learn that, life improves.&quot;</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Vanessa Dannenberg &lt;vanessaNOdannenberg@SPAMgmail.com&gt;</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="#000000">Remove the obvious from my email address to reply.</FONT>
</PRE>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</BODY>
</HTML>

--=-OuYV88eRXFq1e5Y0SJx1--

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:59:57 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Clockmeister wrote:

>> So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>
> 
> Possibly more common then Falcons. 
> http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
> 
> Quite a number of options there.

I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it cost
to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...

> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in
> message news:o4Pjf.8738$ea6.6796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[*huge* snip]
>> Can a stock A1200 play MP3's? My stock Falcon can:-)

> So can a stock A4000. Next...

Are you sure? Something a little faster than an ARM250 - oh, wrong A4000...

[snip]
-- 
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| RISC OS,    | Northumberland | s zap,tartarus,org
| Linux       | Toon Army      | @
|   Kill all extremists!

Jesus saves... passes to Moses... shoots... scores!

"Darren Salt" <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4DD32E6EFB%news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid...
>I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...
>
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in
>> message news:o4Pjf.8738$ea6.6796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> [*huge* snip]
>>> Can a stock A1200 play MP3's? My stock Falcon can:-)
>
>> So can a stock A4000. Next...
>
> Are you sure? Something a little faster than an ARM250 - oh, wrong 
> A4000...
>

Yeah, we are talking about 32 bit machines, you're not in the same league.

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.02.14.06.08.298860@charter.net...
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:59:57 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in
>> message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Clockmeister wrote:
>
>>> So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>
>>
>> Possibly more common then Falcons.
>> http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>
>> Quite a number of options there.
>
> I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it cost
> to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>

What does that have to do with what was being discussed?

Where would you find a Falcon period?

I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...

> "Darren Salt" <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4DD32E6EFB%news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid...
>> I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...
>>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in
>>> message news:o4Pjf.8738$ea6.6796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> [*huge* snip]
>>>> Can a stock A1200 play MP3's? My stock Falcon can:-)
>>> So can a stock A4000. Next...

>> Are you sure? Something a little faster than an ARM250 - oh, wrong
>> A4000...

> Yeah, we are talking about 32 bit machines, you're not in the same league.

Are you talking about the address bus width or the data bus width? I ask
mainly because ISTR certain 68K-based machines being considered to be
16-bit...

(And this ARM-based machine is 32-bit either way. So ner.)

-- 
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| RISC OS,    | Northumberland | s zap,tartarus,org
| Linux       | Toon Army      | @                      Say NO to UK ID cards
|                                                       http://www.no2id.net/

m Note out of range, 0:1

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.12.02.14.06.08.298860@charter.net...
> 
>>On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:59:57 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in
>>>message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>
>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>
>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it cost
>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with what was being discussed?
> 
> Where would you find a Falcon period?
> 
2 in the room I am typing this in. I have never seen an Amiga sound 
card, seen plenty Falcon's tho;-)

One has a CT2, 80 meg of ram, 10 gig hard drive, zip drive, Yamaha cdrw, 
Panasonic CD and the other is fitted with a 6 gig hdd and 14 meg ram. 
Hows the chip ram on a standard A1200?
My CD32 with SX1 could not hope to compete with the Falcon.

Mark

Daniel Mandic wrote:
> Mark Bedingfield wrote:
> 
>  > 
> 
>>>>Can a stock A1200 play MP3's? My stock Falcon can:-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>So can a stock A4000. Next...
>>
>>In 16bits? 8 tracks of 56001 dsp driven 16 bit 50Khz audio. Mods
>>never sounded so good, swoon.
>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my Dear, for what purposes do you use your F030. MP3? Shit....
> 

It doesn't get a huge amount of use these days, but I love demo's, 
Mod's, MP3 and the like. Also for word processing (It drives a HP6L and 
a Epson Stylus Colour 640). More fun than a Peecee.
As far as why, because I can;-)

Mark

Daniel Mandic wrote:
> Mark Bedingfield wrote:
> 
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote
>>
>>in  message news:rZOjf.8734$ea6.3146@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au>
>>
>>wrote in message
>>news:rqNjf.8685$ea6.6159@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au>
>>
>>wrote in message news:aHMjf.8638$ea6.19@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au>
>>
>>wrote in message
>>news:uzLjf.8556$ea6.5392@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield"
>>
>><mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:N_wjf.8175$ea6.654@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield"
>>
>><mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in message
>>news:P9vjf.8101$ea6.1906@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Lyrical Nanoha" wrote ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ah, but John Black never specified that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>limitation.  The Atari ST in many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>respects does trash a C64, but it comes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>from the hands of Tramiel you know.  :P
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, the Commodore 64 and the Atari ST were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>both created by the same fertile minds.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:-)    When Jack introduced it to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>world, the Commodore 64 was the best 8-bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>computer of its time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Did you forget that the 800XL was the best?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The only thing better was the 130XE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>better than the Amiga,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And he did. In fact several.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but Irving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of the CBM organization. So, Jack had to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>settle for second best and build the Atari
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ST. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Which was a better computer than the Amiga
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>games console;-).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Nonsense, the ST was weak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Nonsense, the Amiga was weak.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Moving from the ST to the Amiga was like a
>>>>>>>>>>>revelation. The ST was the weakest of all the
>>>>>>>>>>>Motorola 16 bit computers from that time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>First time I used an Amiga I could not believe how
>>>>>>>>>>slow and clunky it was. Shudder. It also creaks.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Slow and clunky is the GEM/TOS insult to computing
>>>>>>>>>coupled with very ordinary hardware.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yet it was faster than an A500?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It wasn't. Multitasking worked very well on the A500, the
>>>>>>>GEM/TOS hybrid was neither here nor there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>7.14Mhz Vs 8Mhz?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Irrelevant when the CPU couldn't offload some of the workload
>>>>>to custom chips.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You just said it was slower.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Not in operation it isn't.
>>
>>8mhz is faster than 7.14mhz.
>>
>>>
>>>>>Tos worked well for me, I am not sure what you were
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>doing wrong. I found the Amiga piss farted around too much
>>>>>>and took ages to boot up too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The price you pay for a revolutionary OS. Multitasking was
>>>>>sweet...  And those silly partition limitations on the ST...
>>>>>what a joke.
>>>>
>>>>A price I happily didn't pay. Like ram limitations on a Amiga
>>>>1000?
>>>
>>>
>>>What RAM limitations? The RAM limitations of the computers were
>>>more to do  with economical practicality at that time anyway.
>>
>>How much chip ram did the A1000 have? My STFM had 4 meg.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>BTW my Atari's Multitask just fine as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not like an Amiga multitasks, and how splintered are the OS
>>>>>choices and compatibilities between them?
>>>>
>>>>How is your knowledge of Magic, Mint, Multitos, Linux, Minix,
>>>>SMS2, Geneva and NetBSD? And which one were you refering to?
>>>>Magic, Mint, Multitos and Geneva are all relatively TOS/GEM
>>>>compatible.
>>>
>>>
>>>You have just proved my point.
>>
>>Which is?
>>
>>Irrelevant when both the OS and hardware has progressed well beyond
>>the original spec in the case of the Atari.
>>
>>
>>>How well do
>>>
>>>
>>>>ALL WB 1 apps run under current AmigaOS?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Irrelevant when both the OS and hardware has progressed well beyond
>>>the  original spec in the case of the Amiga. And before you start
>>>on about the  clones, the Hades was compatibility hell.
>>
>>The Clab Falcon MK2 was the ONLY Atari licenced clone. It was 100%
>>compatible with the Atari Falcon. All the other clones were developed
>>to run Gem apps, not to play Starglider. For that you keep an STFM
>>around. Much like you do on a modern Amiga, unless you emulate. On
>>the Falcon we had Backwards, which was a ST emulator for the Falcon.
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>How are your eyes after all that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>interlacing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How did you find space for two monitors?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No trouble, hows the eyes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Fine. Ever heard of productivity mode... or a flicker fixer
>>>>>even?
>>>>
>>>>Did they come as standard on an A500 did they?
>>>
>>>
>>>Any ECS machine with 2.1 could display productivity mode, and
>>>standard with  A500+.
>>
>>What about A1000? That is the STFM era. 1985. 2.1 was 1992 was it not?
>>
>>ALL 16bit and better Atari's could run with a VGA monitor. That is
>>the ST(M/F/FM/E), MegaST/E, TT030 and Falcon030.
>>
>>>I never needed one on my
>>>
>>>
>>>>SM124.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Didn't need to. We didn't need to buy a (hideously expensive at the
>>>time)  second monitor either.
>>
>>Didn't need to what?
>>
>>Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That flame between AMIGA and ST/TT is absolutely unnecessary. ST is a
> Audio Expert and AMIGA is a Video Expert. Both can do their strenghts
> w/o upgrading the Hardware.

For sure.
> 
> Laughing about the flickermodes.... hey man, do you �know what you are
> talking about. Well, you could made your videoinlays with 640x200 in 4
> ;-) colors. I�d take a standard A500 with 756x572 interlaced, full
> overscan... there you would need already a TT and the Overscan VME-Card
> (already a slot used 0:1), though you will only have 16 clors and too
> less lines. 0:2, 0:3.

Or use a bog standard Falcon030;-). The war has been won years ago, 
Atari and Amiga lost:-( Ah well.

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:

<out of control snip>

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Slow and clunky is the GEM/TOS insult to computing coupled with very 
>>>>>>>>>ordinary hardware.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yet it was faster than an A500?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It wasn't. Multitasking worked very well on the A500, the GEM/TOS 
>>>>>>>hybrid was neither here nor there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>7.14Mhz Vs 8Mhz?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Irrelevant when the CPU couldn't offload some of the workload to custom 
>>>>>chips.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You just said it was slower.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Not in operation it isn't.
>>
>>8mhz is faster than 7.14mhz.
>>
> 
> In actual use the ST isn't faster because the CPU has to do virtually 
> everything.

It was 8Mhz. It was faster.
> 
> 
>>>>>Tos worked well for me, I am not sure what you were
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>doing wrong. I found the Amiga piss farted around too much and took 
>>>>>>ages to boot up too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The price you pay for a revolutionary OS. Multitasking was sweet...
>>>>>And those silly partition limitations on the ST... what a joke.
>>>>
>>>>A price I happily didn't pay. Like ram limitations on a Amiga 1000?
>>>
>>>
>>>What RAM limitations? The RAM limitations of the computers were more to 
>>>do with economical practicality at that time anyway.
>>
>>How much chip ram did the A1000 have? My STFM had 4 meg.
>>
> 
> My STFM certainly did not. It had 1Mb and it was a shit to upgrade it beyond 
> that..

I have upgraded a few ST's. The STE has simm slots built in. The STFM's 
could use a marpet type upgrade that takes 15 minutes to fit, if you 
know what you are doing. I have even done a few chip upgrades as well as 
hot wiring in Simms directly. NONE of them were difficult.

> The A1000 could handle 9Mb. 

Chip Ram?

> 
> 
>>>>>>BTW my Atari's Multitask just fine as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Not like an Amiga multitasks, and how splintered are the OS choices and 
>>>>>compatibilities between them?
>>>>
>>>>How is your knowledge of Magic, Mint, Multitos, Linux, Minix, SMS2, 
>>>>Geneva and NetBSD? And which one were you refering to? Magic, Mint, 
>>>>Multitos and Geneva are all relatively TOS/GEM compatible.
>>>
>>>
>>>You have just proved my point.
>>
>>Which is?
> 
> 
> Oh c'mon, with that many choices it's obvious there was something 
> desperately wrong with the core.

What is wrong with choice? The Vast majority are just evolutions of the 
same OS.
> 
> 
>>Irrelevant when both the OS and hardware has progressed well beyond the
>>original spec in the case of the Atari.
>>
>>
>>>How well do
>>>
>>>
>>>>ALL WB 1 apps run under current AmigaOS?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Irrelevant when both the OS and hardware has progressed well beyond the 
>>>original spec in the case of the Amiga. And before you start on about the 
>>>clones, the Hades was compatibility hell.
>>
>>The Clab Falcon MK2 was the ONLY Atari licenced clone. It was 100% 
>>compatible with the Atari Falcon.
> 
> 
> And what a roaring success it was... not.
> 
> All the other clones were developed to
> 
>>run Gem apps, not to play Starglider. For that you keep an STFM around. 
>>Much like you do on a modern Amiga, unless you emulate. On the Falcon we 
>>had Backwards, which was a ST emulator for the Falcon.
>>
> 
> Rekick allows you to run even the oldest software on any Amiga.

And Backwards on an Falcon does the same thing.
> 
> 
>>>>>>>How are your eyes after all that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>interlacing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How did you find space for two monitors?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No trouble, hows the eyes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Fine. Ever heard of productivity mode... or a flicker fixer even?
>>>>
>>>>Did they come as standard on an A500 did they?
>>>
>>>
>>>Any ECS machine with 2.1 could display productivity mode, and standard 
>>>with A500+.
>>
>>What about A1000? That is the STFM era. 1985. 2.1 was 1992 was it not?
> 
> 
> Two very expensive monitors wasn't an option for most either, in fact that 
> idea was rediculous. At least the A1000 had the option, flickery as one may 
> have been.

Yup and you could run the Monulator on the ST or Sebra. But no-one used 
them for serious use.
> 
> 
>>ALL 16bit and better Atari's could run with a VGA monitor. That is the 
>>ST(M/F/FM/E), MegaST/E, TT030 and Falcon030.
> 
> 
> Too bad if you wanted to play games. I had a VGA monitor on my A500 also, 
> and it would have worked just as happily on my A1000.

And I have used LCD's on my ST, so what? Incidently with an LCD you can 
get ALL resolutions.

> 
> 
>>> I never needed one on my
>>>
>>>
>>>>SM124.
>>>>
> 
> 
> I had one of those, 12" wasn't it. Nice and clear, but way too small.

Only for those that have size issues;-)
> 
> 
>>>Didn't need to. We didn't need to buy a (hideously expensive at the time) 
>>>second monitor either.
>>
>>Didn't need to what?
>>
> 
> 
> Plug another monitor in just to play games.
> 
> 
Or use a TV. The STFM had a built in modulator, why did the Amiga omit 
it when the majority were used for games playing? Soooo many A500's I 
saw with the A520 fitted, what a mess, not to mention the external brick.

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:7gQjf.8781$ea6.6937@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:o4Pjf.8738$ea6.6796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>>message news:mGMjf.8636$ea6.2974@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote 
>>>>>>>>>in message news:qDLjf.8564$ea6.2941@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.01.13.54.19.874687@charter.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:59:50 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>but Irving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>organization. So,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Depends. For a MIDI user, second best was the Amiga. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>For everyone else the Amiga was best.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Apart from the fact it is Mono on and STFM it sounded OK.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No it didn't, it was awful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes it did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The STE easily
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>sounded as good, if not better (50 Khz).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yup.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And the Falcon..... Amiga
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>wasn't in the same league.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Correct, it actually sold in numbers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So VHS was better than Beta? CD was better than DAT? Spice Girls are 
>>>>>>>>better than the Eagles? Numbers do not a computer make. By that 
>>>>>>>>analogy the Amiga was a POS compared to a 286.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not at all since I never suggested that the Amiga was better because 
>>>>>>>it sold in numbers, only that it did and the Falcon didn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what is your point? Or was it just an observation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons. 
>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>
>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>
>>>>All factory standard were they?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.czuba-tech.com/DEESSE/english/overview.htm
>>>>
>>>>Hows about them apples?
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't use them, I prefer PC's.
>>
>>LOL.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Can a stock A1200 play MP3's? My stock Falcon can:-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>So can a stock A4000. Next...
>>
>>In 16bits? 8 tracks of 56001 dsp driven 16 bit 50Khz audio. Mods never 
>>sounded so good, swoon.
> 
> 
> You were talking about Mp3's, now back to Mods? CPU power lacking a bit eh?
> 
> Mods sounded the best on what they were written for, Paula.
> 
> 
>>>>>>>>Next.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Careful, your bias is showing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As is yours;-).
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>:-P
>>>>
>>>>Nah, nah, nah, nah, neh.
>>>>
>>>>ROTFLMAO.;-).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>We've been here before :-) lol
>>
>>Strangely, yes. Chuckle.
>>
> 
> 
> Let's let it go, you can't win anyway :-P
> 
> 
> 
Funny that is what Obi Wan Kenobi said.

You are in Perth aren't you? If you are ever in Melbourne, Pop in and I 
will let you have a listen to a couple of S3M's on a Falcon, through the 
Altec Lansing speakers I use in here. Heaven.

Mark

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 08:43:13 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> 
> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.12.02.14.06.08.298860@charter.net...
>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:59:57 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in
>>> message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>> So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>> http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>
>>> Quite a number of options there.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it cost
>> to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>
> 
> What does that have to do with what was being discussed?

Because if I have to go out and pay $$$ to add something to an Amiga just
to bring it *up* to the level of my Falcon...well, I'll just stick with my
Falcon. :-)

> Where would you find a Falcon period?

Right now? About 2 feet away... :-)

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:12:41 +1100, Mark Bedingfield wrote:

> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>> news:pan.2005.12.02.14.06.08.298860@charter.net...
>> 
>>>On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:59:57 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in
>>>>message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>
>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>
>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it cost
>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> What does that have to do with what was being discussed?
>> 
>> Where would you find a Falcon period?
>> 
> 2 in the room I am typing this in. I have never seen an Amiga sound 
> card, seen plenty Falcon's tho;-)
> 
> One has a CT2, 80 meg of ram, 10 gig hard drive, zip drive, Yamaha cdrw, 
> Panasonic CD and the other is fitted with a 6 gig hdd and 14 meg ram. 
> Hows the chip ram on a standard A1200?
> My CD32 with SX1 could not hope to compete with the Falcon.
> 
> Mark

Ditto here. I've got a CT60 powered Falcon (95mhz '060), with 256 megs of
SDRAM, 14 megs ST RAM, 80 gig Maxtor IDE HD, PlexWriter 12/4/32 SCSI CDRW,
450 watt ATX P/S, wrapped up in a Wizztronics Falcon rack case, running
the MINT OS/Thing desktop.

I've owned (in order), an A1000 (I still like the layout of this machine a
lot, especially the keyboard well), an A2000, and an A1200. None of these
Amigas could match my stock Falcon, let alone in its current state.

Just for the record, I really do like Amigas... If I could find a good
deal on an A1000 in good shape, I'd probably pick it up for old times
sake. I just think my Atari comps are a notch above them.

I have a lot of respect for both computer lines and their (important)
place in computing history.

C'mon Clockie, can't we just acknowledge that both have strengths and
weaknessess and let be? :-)

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Ronald J. Hall wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:12:41 +1100, Mark Bedingfield wrote:
> 
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>news:pan.2005.12.02.14.06.08.298860@charter.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:59:57 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in
>>>>>message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>
>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>
>>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it cost
>>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>What does that have to do with what was being discussed?
>>>
>>>Where would you find a Falcon period?
>>>
>>
>>2 in the room I am typing this in. I have never seen an Amiga sound 
>>card, seen plenty Falcon's tho;-)
>>
>>One has a CT2, 80 meg of ram, 10 gig hard drive, zip drive, Yamaha cdrw, 
>>Panasonic CD and the other is fitted with a 6 gig hdd and 14 meg ram. 
>>Hows the chip ram on a standard A1200?
>>My CD32 with SX1 could not hope to compete with the Falcon.
>>
>>Mark
> 
> 
> Ditto here. I've got a CT60 powered Falcon (95mhz '060), with 256 megs of
> SDRAM, 14 megs ST RAM, 80 gig Maxtor IDE HD, PlexWriter 12/4/32 SCSI CDRW,
> 450 watt ATX P/S, wrapped up in a Wizztronics Falcon rack case, running
> the MINT OS/Thing desktop.

Wipes drool off keyboard;-)
> 
> I've owned (in order), an A1000 (I still like the layout of this machine a
> lot, especially the keyboard well), an A2000, and an A1200. None of these
> Amigas could match my stock Falcon, let alone in its current state.
> 
> Just for the record, I really do like Amigas... If I could find a good
> deal on an A1000 in good shape, I'd probably pick it up for old times
> sake. I just think my Atari comps are a notch above them.

I had a A1000 for a while, swapped it for a A500 then got a A2000. Got 
given a CD32 for fixing a few Amiga's for a friend. I love it. Have a 
350 meg HDD and 8 meg in my SX1 ;-) I could watch demos on the Amiga and 
Atari all day (before I had kids - better get the little on up I suppose).
> 
> I have a lot of respect for both computer lines and their (important)
> place in computing history.

Damn straight. Amiga and Atari were out of the same stable. Whether 
anyone wants to admit it or not. If it wasn't for Atari the Amiga would 
not have seen the light of day and if it wasn't for Commodore the ST 
would not have seen it either.
> 
> C'mon Clockie, can't we just acknowledge that both have strengths and
> weaknessess and let be? :-)
> 
I can;-).

mark

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:25:46 +1100, Mark Bedingfield wrote:

>> Ditto here. I've got a CT60 powered Falcon (95mhz '060), with 256 megs of
>> SDRAM, 14 megs ST RAM, 80 gig Maxtor IDE HD, PlexWriter 12/4/32 SCSI CDRW,
>> 450 watt ATX P/S, wrapped up in a Wizztronics Falcon rack case, running
>> the MINT OS/Thing desktop.
> 
> Wipes drool off keyboard;-)

Its an awesome machine. Sometimes I just sit in amazement when I turn it
on and watch it bootup. Even with MINT, it boots up blazingly fast.
Honestly, I can't follow the onscreen text!

>> I've owned (in order), an A1000 (I still like the layout of this machine a
>> lot, especially the keyboard well), an A2000, and an A1200. None of these
>> Amigas could match my stock Falcon, let alone in its current state.
>> 
>> Just for the record, I really do like Amigas... If I could find a good
>> deal on an A1000 in good shape, I'd probably pick it up for old times
>> sake. I just think my Atari comps are a notch above them.
> 
> I had a A1000 for a while, swapped it for a A500 then got a A2000. Got 
> given a CD32 for fixing a few Amiga's for a friend. I love it. Have a 
> 350 meg HDD and 8 meg in my SX1 ;-) I could watch demos on the Amiga and 
> Atari all day (before I had kids - better get the little on up I suppose).

I hear ya. Love those Euro-style demos. Like you, I'm mesmerized by them.
I could sit and watch Sonoluminesence, Hydroxyd, etc, etc, etc,...all day
long.

>> I have a lot of respect for both computer lines and their (important)
>> place in computing history.
> 
> Damn straight. Amiga and Atari were out of the same stable. Whether 
> anyone wants to admit it or not. If it wasn't for Atari the Amiga would 
> not have seen the light of day and if it wasn't for Commodore the ST 
> would not have seen it either.
>> 
>> C'mon Clockie, can't we just acknowledge that both have strengths and
>> weaknessess and let be? :-)
>> 
> I can;-).
> 
> mark

 :-)

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Darren Salt <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> did eloquently scribble:
> Are you talking about the address bus width or the data bus width? I ask
> mainly because ISTR certain 68K-based machines being considered to be
> 16-bit...

Most in fact.
Up to about the... 68040 was it that was true 32 bit, all the previous ones
were 16?
-- 
______________________________________________________________________________
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste!         |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)|  I can SMELL!!!  KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and    |
|            in            |  get out the puncture repair kit!"              |
|     Computer Science     |     Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf              |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mark Bedingfield" <atari030@nomorespampleaseoptusnet.com.au> wrote in 
message news:439111f9$0$17703$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:7gQjf.8781$ea6.6937@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>message news:o4Pjf.8738$ea6.6796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote 
>>>>>>>>in message news:mGMjf.8636$ea6.2974@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> 
>>>>>>>>>>wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>>>news:qDLjf.8564$ea6.2941@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.01.13.54.19.874687@charter.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:59:50 +0000, Sam Gillett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jack wanted to build a 16-bit computer better than the Amiga, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but Irving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gould would not let him, and booted him out of the CBM 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>organization. So,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Jack had to settle for second best and build the Atari ST. ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Depends. For a MIDI user, second best was the Amiga. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>For everyone else the Amiga was best.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Listen to an Amiga MOD on an ST for a laugh, it's so pathetic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Apart from the fact it is Mono on and STFM it sounded OK.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No it didn't, it was awful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes it did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The STE easily
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>sounded as good, if not better (50 Khz).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Nope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yup.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And the Falcon..... Amiga
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>wasn't in the same league.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Correct, it actually sold in numbers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So VHS was better than Beta? CD was better than DAT? Spice Girls 
>>>>>>>>>are better than the Eagles? Numbers do not a computer make. By that 
>>>>>>>>>analogy the Amiga was a POS compared to a 286.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not at all since I never suggested that the Amiga was better because 
>>>>>>>>it sold in numbers, only that it did and the Falcon didn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So what is your point? Or was it just an observation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons. 
>>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>>
>>>>>All factory standard were they?
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.czuba-tech.com/DEESSE/english/overview.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>Hows about them apples?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't use them, I prefer PC's.
>>>
>>>LOL.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Can a stock A1200 play MP3's? My stock Falcon can:-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So can a stock A4000. Next...
>>>
>>>In 16bits? 8 tracks of 56001 dsp driven 16 bit 50Khz audio. Mods never 
>>>sounded so good, swoon.
>>
>>
>> You were talking about Mp3's, now back to Mods? CPU power lacking a bit 
>> eh?
>>
>> Mods sounded the best on what they were written for, Paula.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>Next.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Careful, your bias is showing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As is yours;-).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>:-P
>>>>>
>>>>>Nah, nah, nah, nah, neh.
>>>>>
>>>>>ROTFLMAO.;-).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>We've been here before :-) lol
>>>
>>>Strangely, yes. Chuckle.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Let's let it go, you can't win anyway :-P
>>
>>
>>
> Funny that is what Obi Wan Kenobi said.
>
> You are in Perth aren't you? If you are ever in Melbourne, Pop in and I 
> will let you have a listen to a couple of S3M's on a Falcon, through the 
> Altec Lansing speakers I use in here. Heaven.
>

Yeah OK that is a deal. :-)

<spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:n71863-00e.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
> Darren Salt <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> did eloquently 
> scribble:
>> Are you talking about the address bus width or the data bus width? I ask
>> mainly because ISTR certain 68K-based machines being considered to be
>> 16-bit...
>
> Most in fact.
> Up to about the... 68040 was it that was true 32 bit, all the previous 
> ones
> were 16?

Nope.

32bit OS from the word go. 

"Darren Salt" <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4DD33B0029%news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid...
>I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...
>
>> "Darren Salt" <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4DD32E6EFB%news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid...
>>> I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...
>>>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in
>>>> message news:o4Pjf.8738$ea6.6796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> [*huge* snip]
>>>>> Can a stock A1200 play MP3's? My stock Falcon can:-)
>>>> So can a stock A4000. Next...
>
>>> Are you sure? Something a little faster than an ARM250 - oh, wrong
>>> A4000...
>
>> Yeah, we are talking about 32 bit machines, you're not in the same 
>> league.
>
> Are you talking about the address bus width or the data bus width? I ask
> mainly because ISTR certain 68K-based machines being considered to be
> 16-bit...

32 bit OS from day 1.

> (And this ARM-based machine is 32-bit either way. So ner.)

Unlike the Acorn 16 bit and co-operative multitasking. No contest, Amiga 
wins hands down.
(especially since ARM machines were so rare outside of the UK).

Great for education, like the Microbee lol.

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.03.04.09.06.195533@charter.net...
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 14:12:41 +1100, Mark Bedingfield wrote:
>
>> Clockmeister wrote:
>>> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2005.12.02.14.06.08.298860@charter.net...
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:59:57 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in
>>>>>message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>
>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>
>>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it cost
>>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What does that have to do with what was being discussed?
>>>
>>> Where would you find a Falcon period?
>>>
>> 2 in the room I am typing this in. I have never seen an Amiga sound
>> card, seen plenty Falcon's tho;-)
>>
>> One has a CT2, 80 meg of ram, 10 gig hard drive, zip drive, Yamaha cdrw,
>> Panasonic CD and the other is fitted with a 6 gig hdd and 14 meg ram.
>> Hows the chip ram on a standard A1200?
>> My CD32 with SX1 could not hope to compete with the Falcon.
>>
>> Mark
>
> Ditto here. I've got a CT60 powered Falcon (95mhz '060), with 256 megs of
> SDRAM, 14 megs ST RAM, 80 gig Maxtor IDE HD, PlexWriter 12/4/32 SCSI CDRW,
> 450 watt ATX P/S, wrapped up in a Wizztronics Falcon rack case, running
> the MINT OS/Thing desktop.
>
> I've owned (in order), an A1000 (I still like the layout of this machine a
> lot, especially the keyboard well), an A2000, and an A1200. None of these
> Amigas could match my stock Falcon, let alone in its current state.
>
> Just for the record, I really do like Amigas... If I could find a good
> deal on an A1000 in good shape, I'd probably pick it up for old times
> sake. I just think my Atari comps are a notch above them.
>
> I have a lot of respect for both computer lines and their (important)
> place in computing history.
>
> C'mon Clockie, can't we just acknowledge that both have strengths and
> weaknessess and let be? :-)

Sure, I never have disagreed with that but the claim that ST's are better 
then any Amiga is nonsense.

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.03.04.51.16.126240@charter.net...
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:25:46 +1100, Mark Bedingfield wrote:
>
>>> Ditto here. I've got a CT60 powered Falcon (95mhz '060), with 256 megs 
>>> of
>>> SDRAM, 14 megs ST RAM, 80 gig Maxtor IDE HD, PlexWriter 12/4/32 SCSI 
>>> CDRW,
>>> 450 watt ATX P/S, wrapped up in a Wizztronics Falcon rack case, running
>>> the MINT OS/Thing desktop.
>>
>> Wipes drool off keyboard;-)
>
> Its an awesome machine. Sometimes I just sit in amazement when I turn it
> on and watch it bootup. Even with MINT, it boots up blazingly fast.
> Honestly, I can't follow the onscreen text!
>
>>> I've owned (in order), an A1000 (I still like the layout of this machine 
>>> a
>>> lot, especially the keyboard well), an A2000, and an A1200. None of 
>>> these
>>> Amigas could match my stock Falcon, let alone in its current state.
>>>
>>> Just for the record, I really do like Amigas... If I could find a good
>>> deal on an A1000 in good shape, I'd probably pick it up for old times
>>> sake. I just think my Atari comps are a notch above them.
>>
>> I had a A1000 for a while, swapped it for a A500 then got a A2000. Got
>> given a CD32 for fixing a few Amiga's for a friend. I love it. Have a
>> 350 meg HDD and 8 meg in my SX1 ;-) I could watch demos on the Amiga and
>> Atari all day (before I had kids - better get the little on up I 
>> suppose).
>
> I hear ya. Love those Euro-style demos. Like you, I'm mesmerized by them.
> I could sit and watch Sonoluminesence, Hydroxyd, etc, etc, etc,...all day
> long.
>
>>> I have a lot of respect for both computer lines and their (important)
>>> place in computing history.
>>
>> Damn straight. Amiga and Atari were out of the same stable. Whether
>> anyone wants to admit it or not. If it wasn't for Atari the Amiga would
>> not have seen the light of day and if it wasn't for Commodore the ST
>> would not have seen it either.
>>>
>>> C'mon Clockie, can't we just acknowledge that both have strengths and
>>> weaknessess and let be? :-)
>>>
>> I can;-).
>>
>> mark
>

Euro style demos on Amiga = heaven.

Ok Atari too but they weren't as impressive you have to admit.

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.03.04.00.25.186585@charter.net...
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 08:43:13 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2005.12.02.14.06.08.298860@charter.net...
>>> On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:59:57 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in
>>>> message news:IsNjf.8689$ea6.1243@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>> Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>> So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>> http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>
>>>> Quite a number of options there.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it cost
>>> to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>
>>
>> What does that have to do with what was being discussed?
>
> Because if I have to go out and pay $$$ to add something to an Amiga just
> to bring it *up* to the level of my Falcon...

....and beyond. Amiga has that option, you don't.

well, I'll just stick with my
> Falcon. :-)

Good for you, it's a nice machine in it's standard configuration, no 
question. I prefer my PC nowadays.

>> Where would you find a Falcon period?
>
> Right now? About 2 feet away... :-)
>

I know of one in Perth... 

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:42:36 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

>> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message
>> Because if I have to go out and pay $$$ to add something to an Amiga just
>> to bring it *up* to the level of my Falcon...
> 
> ...and beyond. Amiga has that option, you don't.

Wrong. There are options for Atari's as well.

> well, I'll just stick with my
>> Falcon. :-)
> 
> Good for you, it's a nice machine in it's standard configuration, no 
> question. I prefer my PC nowadays.

Yes, very nice in its standard configuration. Of course, mine is way
beyond "stock" now:

95mhz '060 CPU
256 megs SDRAM
14 megs ST RAM
80 gig HD
Plextor 12/4/32 CDRW
Wizztronics Rack case

The question is Clockie, do you prefer your nowadays PC over your Amigas?
There is no doubt that my AMD powered Linux box with a 19" monitor, 120
gid HD, 512 megs RAM, etc, etc out-specs my Falcon (and your Amiga), but
which do we **enjoy* using more? :-)

>>> Where would you find a Falcon period?
>>
>> Right now? About 2 feet away... :-)
>>
> 
> I know of one in Perth...

I know of many here...

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:17:27 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>> C'mon Clockie, can't we just acknowledge that both have strengths and
>> weaknessess and let be? :-)
> 
> Sure, I never have disagreed with that but the claim that ST's are better 
> then any Amiga is nonsense.

I still disagree with you here. Why? Because use of a computer, is very
individualistic. "Better" doesn't necessarily have to mean hard specs that
are better or less from one computer model to the next. Give you an
example, setup my main AMD computer with Windows. XP, 98SE, it don't
matter. Then set it up with Mandriva Linux. Which is more enjoyable? For
me, beyond any hope of arguement, its Linux. I think Windows (any version)
and MS suck vacuum hard. Its the exact same hardware, but the machine is
absolutley *totally* different under these 2 OSs. One for me is enjoyable,
the other is a real PITA.

Same with the Amiga and Atari. Sure, on some individual models, the Amiga
has some better hard specs. Sure, on some individual models, the Atari
line has some better hard specs. There is nothing wrong with Intuition and
Workbench, I just feel infinitely more comfortable with TOS. So, as I
said, its very individualistic. Thats why I feel when someone says,
computer X is better than computer Y, and someone else says thats
nonsense, I can't help but feel that the issue is being overly simplified.
I could accept it if you said, "the Amiga is better for me". As I'm
saying, Atari is better for me... :-)

Everyones mileage may vary, of course.

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.03.16.31.19.221377@charter.net...
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:17:27 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>
>> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message
>>> C'mon Clockie, can't we just acknowledge that both have strengths and
>>> weaknessess and let be? :-)
>>
>> Sure, I never have disagreed with that but the claim that ST's are better
>> then any Amiga is nonsense.
>
> I still disagree with you here. Why? Because use of a computer, is very
> individualistic. "Better" doesn't necessarily have to mean hard specs that
> are better or less from one computer model to the next.

The Amiga was simply a more capable computer. Sure, the ST was better at 
*one* thing out of the box, but that was it.
Read the hardware specs, from a technical point of view the Amiga is simply 
much more impressive.

Give you an
> example, setup my main AMD computer with Windows. XP, 98SE, it don't
> matter. Then set it up with Mandriva Linux. Which is more enjoyable? For
> me, beyond any hope of arguement, its Linux. I think Windows (any version)
> and MS suck vacuum hard. Its the exact same hardware, but the machine is
> absolutley *totally* different under these 2 OSs. One for me is enjoyable,
> the other is a real PITA.
>

OS choice, yeah OK I've tried Linux and Windows of various ilks and now use 
XP.

> Same with the Amiga and Atari. Sure, on some individual models, the Amiga
> has some better hard specs. Sure, on some individual models, the Atari
> line has some better hard specs. There is nothing wrong with Intuition and
> Workbench, I just feel infinitely more comfortable with TOS. So, as I
> said, its very individualistic. Thats why I feel when someone says,
> computer X is better than computer Y, and someone else says thats
> nonsense, I can't help but feel that the issue is being overly simplified.
> I could accept it if you said, "the Amiga is better for me". As I'm
> saying, Atari is better for me... :-)
>
> Everyones mileage may vary, of course.

Sure, it's subjective and that is a fair enough but for me using TOS is like 
going back in time to the dark ages.
Remember, I had both an ST and an Amiga at the same time (ST first) and I 
simply cannot see the benefit of owning an ST unless you are into MIDI.
The ST simply lacked that jaw dropping WOW factor the Amiga had.

To each their own.

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.03.16.17.11.568084@charter.net...
> On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:42:36 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>
>>> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message
>>> Because if I have to go out and pay $$$ to add something to an Amiga 
>>> just
>>> to bring it *up* to the level of my Falcon...
>>
>> ...and beyond. Amiga has that option, you don't.
>
> Wrong. There are options for Atari's as well.
>
>> well, I'll just stick with my
>>> Falcon. :-)
>>
>> Good for you, it's a nice machine in it's standard configuration, no
>> question. I prefer my PC nowadays.
>
> Yes, very nice in its standard configuration. Of course, mine is way
> beyond "stock" now:
>
> 95mhz '060 CPU

Is that overclocked?

> 256 megs SDRAM
> 14 megs ST RAM
> 80 gig HD
> Plextor 12/4/32 CDRW
> Wizztronics Rack case
>
> The question is Clockie, do you prefer your nowadays PC over your Amigas?

Absolutely. Games like BF2 rock, the application choices are wide and varied 
plus XP is good. I hardly use alternatives at all anymore.

> There is no doubt that my AMD powered Linux box with a 19" monitor, 120
> gid HD, 512 megs RAM, etc, etc out-specs my Falcon (and your Amiga), but
> which do we **enjoy* using more? :-)

To be honest, I enjoy my PC. I still wish the multitasking was as fast and 
smooth and efficient on my PC as it was on my Amiga, but of all the OS's 
I've tried none come close.
Ah well, I can live with it.

>>>> Where would you find a Falcon period?
>>>
>>> Right now? About 2 feet away... :-)
>>>
>>
>> I know of one in Perth...
>
> I know of many here...

Imagine if C= and Atari had kept going and actually got their shit 
together... where we would be now.

Probably doing this ;-) 

I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...

> "Darren Salt" <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4DD33B0029%news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid...
>> I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...
>>> "Darren Salt" <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:4DD32E6EFB%news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid...
>>>> I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...
>>>>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in
>>>>> message news:o4Pjf.8738$ea6.6796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> [*huge* snip]
>>>>>> Can a stock A1200 play MP3's? My stock Falcon can:-)
>>>>> So can a stock A4000. Next...
>>>> Are you sure? Something a little faster than an ARM250 - oh, wrong
>>>> A4000...
>>> Yeah, we are talking about 32 bit machines, you're not in the same
>>> league.
>> Are you talking about the address bus width or the data bus width? I ask
>> mainly because ISTR certain 68K-based machines being considered to be
>> 16-bit...

> 32 bit OS from day 1.

>> (And this ARM-based machine is 32-bit either way. So ner.)

> Unlike the Acorn 16 bit and co-operative multitasking.

Like I said, 32-bit. Are you thinking of the Thumb extension (which some,
ARM7 and later, may have)?

> No contest, Amiga wins hands down. (especially since ARM machines were so
> rare outside of the UK).

ARM is everywhere now. Your router is probably ARM-based. Your mobile phone
is likely to contain an ARM chip. Your DVB card in your computer may also
contain an ARM (mine certainly does). You get the idea :-)

And yes, RISC OS machines are still being manufactured, though Acorn itself
is six years gone...

-- 
| Darren Salt | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington,
| RISC OS,    | s zap,tartarus,org            | Northumberland
| Linux       | @                             | Toon Army
|   How many recently-released games fit in 16K?

Anything not nailed down is a cat's toy.

Hi Bill, we are talking about use as a doorstopper, not as a games
machine.

I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...

> <spike1@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:n71863-00e.ln1@ridcully.fsnet.co.uk...
>> Darren Salt <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> did eloquently
>> scribble:
>>> Are you talking about the address bus width or the data bus width? I ask
>>> mainly because ISTR certain 68K-based machines being considered to be
>>> 16-bit...
>> Most in fact. Up to about the... 68040 was it that was true 32 bit, all
>> the previous ones were 16?

> Nope.

> 32bit OS from the word go.

OS != processor...

-- 
| Darren Salt | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | nr. Ashington,
| RISC OS,    | s zap,tartarus,org            | Northumberland
| Linux       | @                             | Toon Army
|   We've got Souness, we don't want him

PC voice recognition software: "Format C: return". "Yes, return".

"Darren Salt" <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4DD39E99C9%news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid...
>I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...
>
>> "Darren Salt" <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4DD33B0029%news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid...
>>> I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...
>>>> "Darren Salt" <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:4DD32E6EFB%news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid...
>>>>> I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...
>>>>>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote 
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> message news:o4Pjf.8738$ea6.6796@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>> [*huge* snip]
>>>>>>> Can a stock A1200 play MP3's? My stock Falcon can:-)
>>>>>> So can a stock A4000. Next...
>>>>> Are you sure? Something a little faster than an ARM250 - oh, wrong
>>>>> A4000...
>>>> Yeah, we are talking about 32 bit machines, you're not in the same
>>>> league.
>>> Are you talking about the address bus width or the data bus width? I ask
>>> mainly because ISTR certain 68K-based machines being considered to be
>>> 16-bit...
>
>> 32 bit OS from day 1.
>
>>> (And this ARM-based machine is 32-bit either way. So ner.)

The 68000 even runs 32 bit code but has an external 16 bit bus. Technically, 
it's 32 bit at the core.

>
>> Unlike the Acorn 16 bit and co-operative multitasking.
>
> Like I said, 32-bit. Are you thinking of the Thumb extension (which some,
> ARM7 and later, may have)?

I was talking about earlier machines specifically since later machines are 
nowhere to be found.

>> No contest, Amiga wins hands down. (especially since ARM machines were so
>> rare outside of the UK).
>
> ARM is everywhere now. Your router is probably ARM-based. Your mobile 
> phone
> is likely to contain an ARM chip. Your DVB card in your computer may also
> contain an ARM (mine certainly does). You get the idea :-)

Yeah, Motorola chips are everywhere too but the discussion was about home 
computers.

> And yes, RISC OS machines are still being manufactured, though Acorn 
> itself
> is six years gone...
>

Six years already...wow. Time does fly.

I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...

> "Darren Salt" <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4DD39E99C9%news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid...
>> I demand that Clockmeister may or may not have written...
[snip; A4000 vs. A4000]
>>> Unlike the Acorn 16 bit and co-operative multitasking.
>> Like I said, 32-bit. Are you thinking of the Thumb extension (which some,
>> ARM7 and later, may have)?

> I was talking about earlier machines specifically since later machines are
> nowhere to be found.

32-bit still applies (although the pre-Risc PC machines have a 26-bit addres
bus). And as for finding later machines, well, various dealers still have
them (turn up at a show and you'll get to see some) and, as I've mentioned,
there's new hardware...

ObGroups: Z80Em, VICE.

>>> No contest, Amiga wins hands down. (especially since ARM machines were so
>>> rare outside of the UK).
>> ARM is everywhere now. Your router is probably ARM-based. [etc.]

> Yeah, Motorola chips are everywhere too but the discussion was about home
> computers.

"ARM machines" does happen to cover these things :-)

[snip]
-- 
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| RISC OS,    | Northumberland | s zap,tartarus,org
| Linux       | Toon Army      | @
|   Kill all extremists!

It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances.

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Ronald J. Hall wrote:

> I enjoy my PC too - but I wouldn't if it was MS owned.

You mean MS pwn3d?

-uso.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 03:48:26 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> Is that overclocked?

Yes, its one of the "good" revisions, running standard at 66mhz but easy
to overclock. Several Atarians have reported 100mhz+ !

> Absolutely. Games like BF2 rock, the application choices are wide and varied 
> plus XP is good. I hardly use alternatives at all anymore.

Ugh. Hate MS products. :-(

I like Linux though.

> To be honest, I enjoy my PC. I still wish the multitasking was as fast and 
> smooth and efficient on my PC as it was on my Amiga, but of all the OS's 
> I've tried none come close.
> Ah well, I can live with it.

I enjoy my PC too - but I wouldn't if it was MS owned.

> Imagine if C= and Atari had kept going and actually got their shit 
> together... where we would be now.
> 
> Probably doing this ;-)

and enjoying the hell out of it! :-)

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.03.23.39.51.415305@charter.net...
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 03:48:26 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>
>> Is that overclocked?
>
> Yes, its one of the "good" revisions, running standard at 66mhz but easy
> to overclock. Several Atarians have reported 100mhz+ !
>
>> Absolutely. Games like BF2 rock, the application choices are wide and 
>> varied
>> plus XP is good. I hardly use alternatives at all anymore.
>
> Ugh. Hate MS products. :-(
> I like Linux though.

Been there and done that. I'm over it, Linux is overrated at best and a 
nightmare at worst.
I just want my OS to work, run what I want to run and I don't want to spend 
time rooting around just to get something to work.

>
>> To be honest, I enjoy my PC. I still wish the multitasking was as fast 
>> and
>> smooth and efficient on my PC as it was on my Amiga, but of all the OS's
>> I've tried none come close.
>> Ah well, I can live with it.
>
> I enjoy my PC too - but I wouldn't if it was MS owned.
>
>> Imagine if C= and Atari had kept going and actually got their shit
>> together... where we would be now.
>>
>> Probably doing this ;-)
>
> and enjoying the hell out of it! :-)
>

Agreed :-)

Mark Bedingfield wrote:

[...]

>>> doing wrong. I found the Amiga piss farted around too much and took 
>>> ages to boot up too.

Like the 8bit Atari?


>> The price you pay for a revolutionary OS. Multitasking was sweet...
>> And those silly partition limitations on the ST... what a joke.
> 
> 
> A price I happily didn't pay. Like ram limitations on a Amiga 1000?

???

> 
> How is your knowledge of Magic, Mint, Multitos, Linux, Minix, SMS2, 
> Geneva and NetBSD? And which one were you refering to? Magic, Mint, 
> Multitos and Geneva are all relatively TOS/GEM compatible. How well do 
> ALL WB 1 apps run under current AmigaOS?

Very well.

>>>> How are your eyes after all that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> interlacing?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How did you find space for two monitors?
>>>
>>>
>>> No trouble, hows the eyes?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Fine. Ever heard of productivity mode... or a flicker fixer even?
> 
> 
> Did they come as standard on an A500 did they? I never needed one on my 
> SM124.

Oh, I never needed one on my A500 and 1024x800 A2024 monitor neither. 
And how well BTW your ST worked in a video editing environment _without_ 
the interlace modes?

Mark Bedingfield wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Slow and clunky is the GEM/TOS insult to computing coupled 
>>>>>>>>>> with very ordinary hardware.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yet it was faster than an A500?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It wasn't. Multitasking worked very well on the A500, the 
>>>>>>>> GEM/TOS hybrid was neither here nor there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7.14Mhz Vs 8Mhz?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Irrelevant when the CPU couldn't offload some of the workload to 
>>>>>> custom chips.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You just said it was slower.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not in operation it isn't.
>>>
>>>
>>> 8mhz is faster than 7.14mhz.
>>>
>>
>> In actual use the ST isn't faster because the CPU has to do virtually 
>> everything.
> 
> 
> It was 8Mhz. It was faster.

It had faster CPU, which is only one component of the machine.

>>>>>> Tos worked well for me, I am not sure what you were
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> doing wrong. I found the Amiga piss farted around too much and 
>>>>>>> took ages to boot up too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The price you pay for a revolutionary OS. Multitasking was sweet...
>>>>>> And those silly partition limitations on the ST... what a joke.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A price I happily didn't pay. Like ram limitations on a Amiga 1000?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What RAM limitations? The RAM limitations of the computers were more 
>>>> to do with economical practicality at that time anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>> How much chip ram did the A1000 have? My STFM had 4 meg.

Chip RAM? And what you used it for?

>>>
>>
>> My STFM certainly did not. It had 1Mb and it was a shit to upgrade it 
>> beyond that..
> 
> 
> I have upgraded a few ST's. The STE has simm slots built in. The STFM's 
> could use a marpet type upgrade that takes 15 minutes to fit, if you 
> know what you are doing. I have even done a few chip upgrades as well as 
> hot wiring in Simms directly. NONE of them were difficult.
> 
>> The A1000 could handle 9Mb. 

MiB...


> 
> 
> Chip Ram?
> 

Total RAM.

Ronald J. Hall wrote:

>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>
>>
>>Possibly more common then Falcons. 
>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>
>>Quite a number of options there.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it cost
> to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
> 

Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?

silverdr wrote:
> Ronald J. Hall wrote:
> 
>>>> So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Possibly more common then Falcons. 
>>> http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>
>>> Quite a number of options there.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it cost
>> to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>
> 
> Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?

I got my spare one for $50. My main one for $200. Australian that is.

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.12.03.04.51.16.126240@charter.net...
> 
>>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:25:46 +1100, Mark Bedingfield wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Ditto here. I've got a CT60 powered Falcon (95mhz '060), with 256 megs 
>>>>of
>>>>SDRAM, 14 megs ST RAM, 80 gig Maxtor IDE HD, PlexWriter 12/4/32 SCSI 
>>>>CDRW,
>>>>450 watt ATX P/S, wrapped up in a Wizztronics Falcon rack case, running
>>>>the MINT OS/Thing desktop.
>>>
>>>Wipes drool off keyboard;-)
>>
>>Its an awesome machine. Sometimes I just sit in amazement when I turn it
>>on and watch it bootup. Even with MINT, it boots up blazingly fast.
>>Honestly, I can't follow the onscreen text!
>>
>>
>>>>I've owned (in order), an A1000 (I still like the layout of this machine 
>>>>a
>>>>lot, especially the keyboard well), an A2000, and an A1200. None of 
>>>>these
>>>>Amigas could match my stock Falcon, let alone in its current state.
>>>>
>>>>Just for the record, I really do like Amigas... If I could find a good
>>>>deal on an A1000 in good shape, I'd probably pick it up for old times
>>>>sake. I just think my Atari comps are a notch above them.
>>>
>>>I had a A1000 for a while, swapped it for a A500 then got a A2000. Got
>>>given a CD32 for fixing a few Amiga's for a friend. I love it. Have a
>>>350 meg HDD and 8 meg in my SX1 ;-) I could watch demos on the Amiga and
>>>Atari all day (before I had kids - better get the little on up I 
>>>suppose).
>>
>>I hear ya. Love those Euro-style demos. Like you, I'm mesmerized by them.
>>I could sit and watch Sonoluminesence, Hydroxyd, etc, etc, etc,...all day
>>long.
>>
>>
>>>>I have a lot of respect for both computer lines and their (important)
>>>>place in computing history.
>>>
>>>Damn straight. Amiga and Atari were out of the same stable. Whether
>>>anyone wants to admit it or not. If it wasn't for Atari the Amiga would
>>>not have seen the light of day and if it wasn't for Commodore the ST
>>>would not have seen it either.
>>>
>>>>C'mon Clockie, can't we just acknowledge that both have strengths and
>>>>weaknessess and let be? :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>I can;-).
>>>
>>>mark
>>
> 
> Euro style demos on Amiga = heaven.
> 
> Ok Atari too but they weren't as impressive you have to admit.
> 
> 

I take it you have never seen an STE, TT or Falcon Demo? They have no 
trouble keeping up with an A500 or A1200.

Mark

silverdr wrote:
> Mark Bedingfield wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> doing wrong. I found the Amiga piss farted around too much and took 
>>>> ages to boot up too.
> 
> 
> Like the 8bit Atari?

Faster than a C64 tho.
> 
> 
>>> The price you pay for a revolutionary OS. Multitasking was sweet...
>>> And those silly partition limitations on the ST... what a joke.
>>
>>
>>
>> A price I happily didn't pay. Like ram limitations on a Amiga 1000?
> 
> 
> ???
> 
>>
>> How is your knowledge of Magic, Mint, Multitos, Linux, Minix, SMS2, 
>> Geneva and NetBSD? And which one were you refering to? Magic, Mint, 
>> Multitos and Geneva are all relatively TOS/GEM compatible. How well do 
>> ALL WB 1 apps run under current AmigaOS?
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
>>>>> How are your eyes after all that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> interlacing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How did you find space for two monitors?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No trouble, hows the eyes?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fine. Ever heard of productivity mode... or a flicker fixer even?
>>
>>
>>
>> Did they come as standard on an A500 did they? I never needed one on 
>> my SM124.
> 
> 
> Oh, I never needed one on my A500 and 1024x800 A2024 monitor neither. 
> And how well BTW your ST worked in a video editing environment _without_ 
> the interlace modes?

I did fit a overscan circuit which consisted of 2 ic's and a driver. It 
worked well. I never got into video editing. I did do some on a friends 
Falcon, it was able to do 16bit. And 1024x768 on a VGA monitor.

Mark.

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:08 +0100, silverdr wrote:

> Ronald J. Hall wrote:
> 
>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Possibly more common then Falcons. 
>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>
>>>Quite a number of options there.
>> 
>> 
>> I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it cost
>> to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>> 
> 
> Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?

Less than the cost of an Amiga + a sound card. :-)

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

"Sintech" wrote ...

> Hi Bill, we are talking about use as a doorstopper, not as a games
> machine.

Whoops!  This thread did get badly sidetracked didn't it?

As a doorstop, the Spectrum wins hands down... or rubber keyboard down... as
the case may be.

How did the X-Box get into this?  It isn't even an 8-bitter.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

Sam Gillett wrote:
> "Sintech" wrote ...
> 
> 
>>Hi Bill, we are talking about use as a doorstopper, not as a games
>>machine.
> 
> 
> Whoops!  This thread did get badly sidetracked didn't it?
> 
> As a doorstop, the Spectrum wins hands down... or rubber keyboard down... as
> the case may be.
> 
> How did the X-Box get into this?  It isn't even an 8-bitter.

It has a 8bit heritage;-)

Mark

"Mark Bedingfield" <atari030@nomorespampleaseoptusnet.com.au> wrote in 
message news:439255e8$0$9288$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>> news:pan.2005.12.03.04.51.16.126240@charter.net...
>>
>>>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:25:46 +1100, Mark Bedingfield wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Ditto here. I've got a CT60 powered Falcon (95mhz '060), with 256 megs 
>>>>>of
>>>>>SDRAM, 14 megs ST RAM, 80 gig Maxtor IDE HD, PlexWriter 12/4/32 SCSI 
>>>>>CDRW,
>>>>>450 watt ATX P/S, wrapped up in a Wizztronics Falcon rack case, running
>>>>>the MINT OS/Thing desktop.
>>>>
>>>>Wipes drool off keyboard;-)
>>>
>>>Its an awesome machine. Sometimes I just sit in amazement when I turn it
>>>on and watch it bootup. Even with MINT, it boots up blazingly fast.
>>>Honestly, I can't follow the onscreen text!
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I've owned (in order), an A1000 (I still like the layout of this 
>>>>>machine a
>>>>>lot, especially the keyboard well), an A2000, and an A1200. None of 
>>>>>these
>>>>>Amigas could match my stock Falcon, let alone in its current state.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just for the record, I really do like Amigas... If I could find a good
>>>>>deal on an A1000 in good shape, I'd probably pick it up for old times
>>>>>sake. I just think my Atari comps are a notch above them.
>>>>
>>>>I had a A1000 for a while, swapped it for a A500 then got a A2000. Got
>>>>given a CD32 for fixing a few Amiga's for a friend. I love it. Have a
>>>>350 meg HDD and 8 meg in my SX1 ;-) I could watch demos on the Amiga and
>>>>Atari all day (before I had kids - better get the little on up I 
>>>>suppose).
>>>
>>>I hear ya. Love those Euro-style demos. Like you, I'm mesmerized by them.
>>>I could sit and watch Sonoluminesence, Hydroxyd, etc, etc, etc,...all day
>>>long.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I have a lot of respect for both computer lines and their (important)
>>>>>place in computing history.
>>>>
>>>>Damn straight. Amiga and Atari were out of the same stable. Whether
>>>>anyone wants to admit it or not. If it wasn't for Atari the Amiga would
>>>>not have seen the light of day and if it wasn't for Commodore the ST
>>>>would not have seen it either.
>>>>
>>>>>C'mon Clockie, can't we just acknowledge that both have strengths and
>>>>>weaknessess and let be? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I can;-).
>>>>
>>>>mark
>>>
>>
>> Euro style demos on Amiga = heaven.
>>
>> Ok Atari too but they weren't as impressive you have to admit.
>>
>>
>
> I take it you have never seen an STE, TT or Falcon Demo? They have no 
> trouble keeping up with an A500 or A1200.
>

Plenty of demo sceners would disagree with you there.

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.04.04.22.20.799037@charter.net...
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:08 +0100, silverdr wrote:
>
>> Ronald J. Hall wrote:
>>
>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>
>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it cost
>>> to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>
>>
>> Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?
>
> Less than the cost of an Amiga + a sound card. :-)

Much harder to find though. 

"Mark Bedingfield" wrote ...

> Sam Gillett wrote:
>> "Sintech" wrote ...
>>
>>>Hi Bill, we are talking about use as a doorstopper, not as a games
>>>machine.
>>
>> Whoops!  This thread did get badly sidetracked didn't it?
>>
>> As a doorstop, the Spectrum wins hands down... or rubber keyboard down...
>> as
>> the case may be.
>>
>> How did the X-Box get into this?  It isn't even an 8-bitter.
>
> It has a 8bit heritage;-)

Point taken.  To expand on that point, I suppose that all of today's
computers have an 8-bit heritage.
-- 
Best regards,

Sam Gillett

Change is inevitable,
except from vending machines!

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.12.04.04.22.20.799037@charter.net...
> 
>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:08 +0100, silverdr wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ronald J. Hall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>
>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it cost
>>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?
>>
>>Less than the cost of an Amiga + a sound card. :-)
> 
> 
> Much harder to find though. 
> 
> 
A quick ebay search finds 3.

Whilst a search fo Amiga soundcard or Amiga sound card draws nil.

About 10 Amiga 1200's on ebay, none with sound cards.

Mark

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:37Lkf.11193$ea6.2337@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>> news:pan.2005.12.04.04.22.20.799037@charter.net...
>>
>>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:08 +0100, silverdr wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ronald J. Hall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it 
>>>>>cost
>>>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?
>>>
>>>Less than the cost of an Amiga + a sound card. :-)
>>
>>
>> Much harder to find though.
> A quick ebay search finds 3.

> Whilst a search fo Amiga soundcard or Amiga sound card draws nil.
>
> About 10 Amiga 1200's on ebay, none with sound cards.
>

The soundcards are all in use ;-)

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:37:13 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> 
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:37Lkf.11193$ea6.2337@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Clockmeister wrote:
>>> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>> news:pan.2005.12.04.04.22.20.799037@charter.net...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:08 +0100, silverdr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ronald J. Hall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it 
>>>>>>cost
>>>>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?
>>>>
>>>>Less than the cost of an Amiga + a sound card. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Much harder to find though.
>> A quick ebay search finds 3.
> 
>> Whilst a search fo Amiga soundcard or Amiga sound card draws nil.
>>
>> About 10 Amiga 1200's on ebay, none with sound cards.
>>
> 
> The soundcards are all in use ;-)

But that wasn't the point was it? Next. :-)

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:37Lkf.11193$ea6.2337@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>news:pan.2005.12.04.04.22.20.799037@charter.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:08 +0100, silverdr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ronald J. Hall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it 
>>>>>>cost
>>>>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?
>>>>
>>>>Less than the cost of an Amiga + a sound card. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>Much harder to find though.
>>
>>A quick ebay search finds 3.
> 
> 
>>Whilst a search fo Amiga soundcard or Amiga sound card draws nil.
>>
>>About 10 Amiga 1200's on ebay, none with sound cards.
>>
> 
> 
> The soundcards are all in use ;-)
> 

People are obviously selling their A1200's in droves tho;-)

Mark

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:dYMkf.11264$ea6.10920@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:37Lkf.11193$ea6.2337@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>news:pan.2005.12.04.04.22.20.799037@charter.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:08 +0100, silverdr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ronald J. Hall wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it 
>>>>>>>cost
>>>>>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?
>>>>>
>>>>>Less than the cost of an Amiga + a sound card. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Much harder to find though.
>>>
>>>A quick ebay search finds 3.
>>
>>
>>>Whilst a search fo Amiga soundcard or Amiga sound card draws nil.
>>>
>>>About 10 Amiga 1200's on ebay, none with sound cards.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The soundcards are all in use ;-)
>>
>
> People are obviously selling their A1200's in droves tho;-)

There is plenty of them out there.

I've still got mine though it's been boxed up for a while now since we are 
renovating.

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.05.01.29.40.189608@charter.net...
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:37:13 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>
>>
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in
>> message news:37Lkf.11193$ea6.2337@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Clockmeister wrote:
>>>> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:pan.2005.12.04.04.22.20.799037@charter.net...
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:08 +0100, silverdr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ronald J. Hall wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it
>>>>>>>cost
>>>>>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?
>>>>>
>>>>>Less than the cost of an Amiga + a sound card. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Much harder to find though.
>>> A quick ebay search finds 3.
>>
>>> Whilst a search fo Amiga soundcard or Amiga sound card draws nil.
>>>
>>> About 10 Amiga 1200's on ebay, none with sound cards.
>>>
>>
>> The soundcards are all in use ;-)
>
> But that wasn't the point was it? Next. :-)

There are plenty of A1200's out there, so ofcourse more will be on sale then 
Falcon's which are pretty rare by comparison.

If I came across a Falcon I would snap it up.

Sam Gillett wrote:
> How did the X-Box get into this?  It isn't even an 8-bitter.

Given the reported failure rate, some persons have concluded that a door 
stop is an excellent use for an X-Box 360.

��� Sun, 04 Dec 2005 21:51:35 -0500,o(h) Curtis F Kaylor  
<curtis@example.com> ������:

> Sam Gillett wrote:
>> How did the X-Box get into this?  It isn't even an 8-bitter.
>
> Given the reported failure rate, some persons have concluded that a door  
> stop is an excellent use for an X-Box 360.

Yea a $499 one :-P


-- 
����������� �� ������������ ��������� ������������� ��� Opera:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:dYMkf.11264$ea6.10920@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:37Lkf.11193$ea6.2337@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.04.04.22.20.799037@charter.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:08 +0100, silverdr wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ronald J. Hall wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it 
>>>>>>>>cost
>>>>>>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Less than the cost of an Amiga + a sound card. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Much harder to find though.
>>>>
>>>>A quick ebay search finds 3.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Whilst a search fo Amiga soundcard or Amiga sound card draws nil.
>>>>
>>>>About 10 Amiga 1200's on ebay, none with sound cards.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The soundcards are all in use ;-)
>>>
>>
>>People are obviously selling their A1200's in droves tho;-)
> 
> 
> There is plenty of them out there.
> 
> I've still got mine though it's been boxed up for a while now since we are 
> renovating.
> 
> 

I would be quite happy to trade my A2000 and A500 for an A600. Only 
downside is you can't play F1GP on a A600 IIRC. Doesn't matter though, 
it was faster on an STFM.

Mark

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 10:46:25 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> If I came across a Falcon I would snap it up.

3 on Ebay, last time I checked. :-)

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:r7Pkf.11343$ea6.10769@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:dYMkf.11264$ea6.10920@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>message news:37Lkf.11193$ea6.2337@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.04.04.22.20.799037@charter.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:08 +0100, silverdr wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ronald J. Hall wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>>>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it 
>>>>>>>>>cost
>>>>>>>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Less than the cost of an Amiga + a sound card. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Much harder to find though.
>>>>>
>>>>>A quick ebay search finds 3.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Whilst a search fo Amiga soundcard or Amiga sound card draws nil.
>>>>>
>>>>>About 10 Amiga 1200's on ebay, none with sound cards.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The soundcards are all in use ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>People are obviously selling their A1200's in droves tho;-)
>>
>>
>> There is plenty of them out there.
>>
>> I've still got mine though it's been boxed up for a while now since we 
>> are renovating.
>>
>>
>
> I would be quite happy to trade my A2000 and A500 for an A600. Only 
> downside is you can't play F1GP on a A600 IIRC. Doesn't matter though, it 
> was faster on an STFM.
>

Much faster on an A1200 or the A2000 I had at the time. It was a good game. 
I enjoyed playing Wings, and Dune II as well, brilliant with the Supraturbo 
28 accelerator I had, 28Mhz 68000 overclocked to 40Mhz A2000 :-)

I personally don't see the point of owning an A600 when A1200's are much 
better, more common and it has plethora of expansion options available for 
it.

..

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:r7Pkf.11343$ea6.10769@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:dYMkf.11264$ea6.10920@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>message news:37Lkf.11193$ea6.2337@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.04.04.22.20.799037@charter.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:08 +0100, silverdr wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ronald J. Hall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>>>>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does it 
>>>>>>>>>>cost
>>>>>>>>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Less than the cost of an Amiga + a sound card. :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Much harder to find though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A quick ebay search finds 3.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Whilst a search fo Amiga soundcard or Amiga sound card draws nil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>About 10 Amiga 1200's on ebay, none with sound cards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The soundcards are all in use ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>People are obviously selling their A1200's in droves tho;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>There is plenty of them out there.
>>>
>>>I've still got mine though it's been boxed up for a while now since we 
>>>are renovating.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I would be quite happy to trade my A2000 and A500 for an A600. Only 
>>downside is you can't play F1GP on a A600 IIRC. Doesn't matter though, it 
>>was faster on an STFM.
>>
> 
> 
> Much faster on an A1200 or the A2000 I had at the time. It was a good game. 
> I enjoyed playing Wings, and Dune II as well, brilliant with the Supraturbo 
> 28 accelerator I had, 28Mhz 68000 overclocked to 40Mhz A2000 :-)

Hmm you she see it on a 50Mhz Atari Falcon (CT2), runs like a cut cat. 
Vroom too.
> 
> I personally don't see the point of owning an A600 when A1200's are much 
> better, more common and it has plethora of expansion options available for 
> it.
> 
Convenience and size. My CD32/SX1 is bloody huge.

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <atari030@nomorespampleaseoptusnet.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:439255e8$0$9288$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>news:pan.2005.12.03.04.51.16.126240@charter.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:25:46 +1100, Mark Bedingfield wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Ditto here. I've got a CT60 powered Falcon (95mhz '060), with 256 megs 
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>SDRAM, 14 megs ST RAM, 80 gig Maxtor IDE HD, PlexWriter 12/4/32 SCSI 
>>>>>>CDRW,
>>>>>>450 watt ATX P/S, wrapped up in a Wizztronics Falcon rack case, running
>>>>>>the MINT OS/Thing desktop.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wipes drool off keyboard;-)
>>>>
>>>>Its an awesome machine. Sometimes I just sit in amazement when I turn it
>>>>on and watch it bootup. Even with MINT, it boots up blazingly fast.
>>>>Honestly, I can't follow the onscreen text!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I've owned (in order), an A1000 (I still like the layout of this 
>>>>>>machine a
>>>>>>lot, especially the keyboard well), an A2000, and an A1200. None of 
>>>>>>these
>>>>>>Amigas could match my stock Falcon, let alone in its current state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just for the record, I really do like Amigas... If I could find a good
>>>>>>deal on an A1000 in good shape, I'd probably pick it up for old times
>>>>>>sake. I just think my Atari comps are a notch above them.
>>>>>
>>>>>I had a A1000 for a while, swapped it for a A500 then got a A2000. Got
>>>>>given a CD32 for fixing a few Amiga's for a friend. I love it. Have a
>>>>>350 meg HDD and 8 meg in my SX1 ;-) I could watch demos on the Amiga and
>>>>>Atari all day (before I had kids - better get the little on up I 
>>>>>suppose).
>>>>
>>>>I hear ya. Love those Euro-style demos. Like you, I'm mesmerized by them.
>>>>I could sit and watch Sonoluminesence, Hydroxyd, etc, etc, etc,...all day
>>>>long.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I have a lot of respect for both computer lines and their (important)
>>>>>>place in computing history.
>>>>>
>>>>>Damn straight. Amiga and Atari were out of the same stable. Whether
>>>>>anyone wants to admit it or not. If it wasn't for Atari the Amiga would
>>>>>not have seen the light of day and if it wasn't for Commodore the ST
>>>>>would not have seen it either.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>C'mon Clockie, can't we just acknowledge that both have strengths and
>>>>>>weaknessess and let be? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I can;-).
>>>>>
>>>>>mark
>>>>
>>>Euro style demos on Amiga = heaven.
>>>
>>>Ok Atari too but they weren't as impressive you have to admit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I take it you have never seen an STE, TT or Falcon Demo? They have no 
>>trouble keeping up with an A500 or A1200.
>>
> 
> 
> Plenty of demo sceners would disagree with you there.
> 
> 
You've gotta be shitting me? How can a crappy machine with only a 68020 
keep up with a 68030 and a 56001? Its like comparing a Holden Camira to 
GTR Godzilla Skyline. As far as the STE goes I have seen several demo's 
that easily rival the A500, both machines are very close in terms of raw 
horsepower, but comparing a Falcon030 to an A1200? Especially after 
carrying on about custom chips. The DSP in the Falcon alone is good for 
around 16mips. And being that it is fully programmable, it can be used 
for just about anything (giving a total of 20 mips for the Falcon 
WITHOUT a 68882). Bizarre. Although, if you concede that the A1200 DOES 
keep up with a Falcon (chuckle;-), then you have to concede that a STFM 
CAN keep up with a A500, or a Speccy CAN keep up with a C64. Get a hold 
of the Froggies over the fence demo, or the Sam Fox demo....... 
thousands to choose from.

http://www.dhs.nu/
http://www.atari.st/ (click on Amiga;-)

Might sit down and play a few demos on the MegaSTE, thanks;-).

Mark

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:6LRkf.11656$ea6.773@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:r7Pkf.11343$ea6.10769@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>message news:dYMkf.11264$ea6.10920@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>message news:37Lkf.11193$ea6.2337@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.04.04.22.20.799037@charter.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:08 +0100, silverdr wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ronald J. Hall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does 
>>>>>>>>>>>it cost
>>>>>>>>>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Less than the cost of an Amiga + a sound card. :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Much harder to find though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A quick ebay search finds 3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Whilst a search fo Amiga soundcard or Amiga sound card draws nil.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>About 10 Amiga 1200's on ebay, none with sound cards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The soundcards are all in use ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>People are obviously selling their A1200's in droves tho;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There is plenty of them out there.
>>>>
>>>>I've still got mine though it's been boxed up for a while now since we 
>>>>are renovating.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I would be quite happy to trade my A2000 and A500 for an A600. Only 
>>>downside is you can't play F1GP on a A600 IIRC. Doesn't matter though, it 
>>>was faster on an STFM.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Much faster on an A1200 or the A2000 I had at the time. It was a good 
>> game. I enjoyed playing Wings, and Dune II as well, brilliant with the 
>> Supraturbo 28 accelerator I had, 28Mhz 68000 overclocked to 40Mhz A2000 
>> :-)
>
> Hmm you she see it on a 50Mhz Atari Falcon (CT2), runs like a cut cat. 
> Vroom too.

Too fast I imagine, there is a hack to slow it down on systems that are too 
fast for the game, for Amiga anyway.

>> I personally don't see the point of owning an A600 when A1200's are much 
>> better, more common and it has plethora of expansion options available 
>> for it.
>>
> Convenience and size. My CD32/SX1 is bloody huge.
>

A1200 is pretty compact.

>>>>> "s" == spike1  <spike1@freenet.co.uk> writes:

s> Up to about the... 68040 was it that was true 32 bit, all the
s> previous ones were 16?

The 68000 is a hybrid 32/16-bit architecture - the instruction set and
registers are 32-bit, but the data bus is 16-bit, and the 32-bit
instructions are broken up into 16-bit operations internally. The
68020 and up are fully 32-bit (data bus and registers).

-- 
    ___          .     .  .         .       . +  .         .      o   
  _|___|_   +   .  +     .     +         .  Per Olofsson, arkadspelare
    o-o    .      .     .   o         +          MagerValp@cling.gu.se
     -       +            +    .     http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/

>>>>> "MB" == Mark Bedingfield <atari030@nomorespampleaseoptusnet.com.au> writes:

PLEASE trim when quoting (and that goes to the rest of you overzealous
quoters too).

MB> You've gotta be shitting me? How can a crappy machine with only a
MB> 68020 keep up with a 68030 and a 56001?

Well, both machines have several architectural problems. The A1200 has
a 14 MHz 68020 on a 32-bit bus, but is bottlenecked in chip ram by the
custom chips (in fast ram it runs at full speed). The Falcon has a 16
MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus, and as the 020 and 030 are about equal,
IIRC the A1200 is even a little bit faster. The 56001 is nice though,
and a general purpose coprocessor, as opposed to the Amiga's specia-
lized blitter and copper. Either way, the machines are definitely in
the same ballpark.

MB> Get a hold of the Froggies over the fence demo, or the Sam Fox
MB> demo....... thousands to choose from.

MB> http://www.dhs.nu/
MB> http://www.atari.st/ (click on Amiga;-)

New demos are always fun. What are the top 3 unaccelerated Falcon
demos? 060 stuff doesn't interest me, it just looks like crappy PC
demos...

-- 
    ___          .     .  .         .       . +  .         .      o   
  _|___|_   +   .  +     .     +         .  Per Olofsson, arkadspelare
    o-o    .      .     .   o         +          MagerValp@cling.gu.se
     -       +            +    .     http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:14:37 +0100, MagerValp wrote:

> Well, both machines have several architectural problems. The A1200 has
> a 14 MHz 68020 on a 32-bit bus, but is bottlenecked in chip ram by the
> custom chips (in fast ram it runs at full speed). The Falcon has a 16
> MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus, and as the 020 and 030 are about equal,
> IIRC the A1200 is even a little bit faster. The 56001 is nice though,
> and a general purpose coprocessor, as opposed to the Amiga's specia-
> lized blitter and copper. Either way, the machines are definitely in
> the same ballpark.

Hmm, not arguing here, honest curiosity, but I thought the Falcon was 32
bit internally? Also, it does have a blitter chip as well. 

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.05.18.40.51.891965@charter.net...
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:14:37 +0100, MagerValp wrote:
>
>> Well, both machines have several architectural problems. The A1200 has
>> a 14 MHz 68020 on a 32-bit bus, but is bottlenecked in chip ram by the
>> custom chips (in fast ram it runs at full speed). The Falcon has a 16
>> MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus, and as the 020 and 030 are about equal,
>> IIRC the A1200 is even a little bit faster. The 56001 is nice though,
>> and a general purpose coprocessor, as opposed to the Amiga's specia-
>> lized blitter and copper. Either way, the machines are definitely in
>> the same ballpark.
>
> Hmm, not arguing here, honest curiosity, but I thought the Falcon was 32
> bit internally?

Yes, but it is bottlenecked by the external bus.

 Also, it does have a blitter chip as well.
>
> -- 
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> _/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
> _/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> 

"MagerValp" <MagerValp@cling.gu.se> wrote in message 
news:p14mzjfv2b6.fsf@panini.cling.gu.se...
>>>>>> "MB" == Mark Bedingfield <atari030@nomorespampleaseoptusnet.com.au> 
>>>>>> writes:
>
> PLEASE trim when quoting (and that goes to the rest of you overzealous
> quoters too).
>
> MB> You've gotta be shitting me? How can a crappy machine with only a
> MB> 68020 keep up with a 68030 and a 56001?
>
> Well, both machines have several architectural problems. The A1200 has
> a 14 MHz 68020 on a 32-bit bus, but is bottlenecked in chip ram by the
> custom chips (in fast ram it runs at full speed). The Falcon has a 16
> MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus, and as the 020 and 030 are about equal,
> IIRC the A1200 is even a little bit faster. The 56001 is nice though,
> and a general purpose coprocessor, as opposed to the Amiga's specia-
> lized blitter and copper. Either way, the machines are definitely in
> the same ballpark.

Comments Mark?

> MB> Get a hold of the Froggies over the fence demo, or the Sam Fox
> MB> demo....... thousands to choose from.
>
> MB> http://www.dhs.nu/
> MB> http://www.atari.st/ (click on Amiga;-)
>
> New demos are always fun. What are the top 3 unaccelerated Falcon
> demos? 060 stuff doesn't interest me, it just looks like crappy PC
> demos...

Agreed, they aren't inspiring at all. Still amazed by what the C64 can be 
made to do some 20 odd years after it's introduction.

>>>>> "RJH" == Ronald J Hall <dark_lord@charter.net> writes:

RJH> Hmm, not arguing here, honest curiosity, but I thought the Falcon
RJH> was 32 bit internally?

It sits on a 16-bit memory bus. It's still a 68030 CPU with full
32-bit registers and ALU, but the memory speed is halved.

RJH> Also, it does have a blitter chip as well.

Yes, but apparently it's quite slow. The first google hit for "Falcon
blitter" gives you:

  "Unfortunately, the Falcon Blitter is rather useless since the 68030
  is, when doing a simple 1:1 copy, about a factor of 4 to 5 faster
  than the Blitter in the Falcon is, even though the Falcon Blitter is
  running at 16 MHz. On the Falcon, the Blitter can become useful if
  you plan to heavily use Halftone-pattern, bitwise-shifts and logical
  operations. Otherwise, use the CPU instead."

-- 
    ___          .     .  .         .       . +  .         .      o   
  _|___|_   +   .  +     .     +         .  Per Olofsson, arkadspelare
    o-o    .      .     .   o         +          MagerValp@cling.gu.se
     -       +            +    .     http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:6LRkf.11656$ea6.773@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:r7Pkf.11343$ea6.10769@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>message news:dYMkf.11264$ea6.10920@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>>message news:37Lkf.11193$ea6.2337@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.04.04.22.20.799037@charter.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:08 +0100, silverdr wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Ronald J. Hall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much does 
>>>>>>>>>>>>it cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Less than the cost of an Amiga + a sound card. :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Much harder to find though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A quick ebay search finds 3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Whilst a search fo Amiga soundcard or Amiga sound card draws nil.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>About 10 Amiga 1200's on ebay, none with sound cards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The soundcards are all in use ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>People are obviously selling their A1200's in droves tho;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There is plenty of them out there.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've still got mine though it's been boxed up for a while now since we 
>>>>>are renovating.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I would be quite happy to trade my A2000 and A500 for an A600. Only 
>>>>downside is you can't play F1GP on a A600 IIRC. Doesn't matter though, it 
>>>>was faster on an STFM.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Much faster on an A1200 or the A2000 I had at the time. It was a good 
>>>game. I enjoyed playing Wings, and Dune II as well, brilliant with the 
>>>Supraturbo 28 accelerator I had, 28Mhz 68000 overclocked to 40Mhz A2000 
>>>:-)
>>
>>Hmm you she see it on a 50Mhz Atari Falcon (CT2), runs like a cut cat. 
>>Vroom too.
> 
> 
> Too fast I imagine, there is a hack to slow it down on systems that are too 
> fast for the game, for Amiga anyway.

Timing was better on the Atari, no hack neccesary. Major frame rate 
improvement tho.
> 
> 
>>>I personally don't see the point of owning an A600 when A1200's are much 
>>>better, more common and it has plethora of expansion options available 
>>>for it.
>>>
>>
>>Convenience and size. My CD32/SX1 is bloody huge.
>>
> 
> 
> A1200 is pretty compact.

A6000 is smaller, and I already have a CD32.

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.12.05.18.40.51.891965@charter.net...
> 
>>On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:14:37 +0100, MagerValp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well, both machines have several architectural problems. The A1200 has
>>>a 14 MHz 68020 on a 32-bit bus, but is bottlenecked in chip ram by the
>>>custom chips (in fast ram it runs at full speed). The Falcon has a 16
>>>MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus, and as the 020 and 030 are about equal,
>>>IIRC the A1200 is even a little bit faster. The 56001 is nice though,
>>>and a general purpose coprocessor, as opposed to the Amiga's specia-
>>>lized blitter and copper. Either way, the machines are definitely in
>>>the same ballpark.
>>
>>Hmm, not arguing here, honest curiosity, but I thought the Falcon was 32
>>bit internally?
> 
> 
> Yes, but it is bottlenecked by the external bus.
> 
>  Also, it does have a blitter chip as well.
> 

Yup, my CT2 is actually 32 bit tho, one of the improvements by Rudolph 
Czuba. Interestingly enough, not alot of progs use the blitter, because 
the 68030 gets no real benefit. Also it cannot be overclocked, but 
because it is a part of the Videl chip, it cannot be removed. I run a 
little app on boot up that switches it off completely. Otherwise the 
screen garbles if it is enabled. Also, using NVDI or FVDI is a software 
blitter than is actually FASTER in operation than the hardware one.

How many mips is the A1200? 1.6? Not even close to the Falcon on its 
worst day, crippled or otherwise. A 68030+65001@16Mhz combo is always 
going to out do a 68020@14Mhz, especially after dropping a 68882 into 
the equation;-). Does the A1200 have a copro?

Again if you concede that the A1200 can be made to appear faster than a 
Falcon then the same can be said for the STFM v A500. And believe me I 
have seen 4096 colours (I think even 19,200 IIRC), overscan and smooth 
scrolling even on a stock STFM, every bit as good as an A500. One demo I 
saw was having a crack at how badly Shadow of the Beast was coded 
(ported) to the ST. It had all the elements of what Psygnosis should 
have done. The bitmap brothers could do it.

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:
> "MagerValp" <MagerValp@cling.gu.se> wrote in message 
> news:p14mzjfv2b6.fsf@panini.cling.gu.se...
> 
>>>>>>>"MB" == Mark Bedingfield <atari030@nomorespampleaseoptusnet.com.au> 
>>>>>>>writes:
>>
>>PLEASE trim when quoting (and that goes to the rest of you overzealous
>>quoters too).
>>
>>MB> You've gotta be shitting me? How can a crappy machine with only a
>>MB> 68020 keep up with a 68030 and a 56001?
>>
>>Well, both machines have several architectural problems. The A1200 has
>>a 14 MHz 68020 on a 32-bit bus, but is bottlenecked in chip ram by the
>>custom chips (in fast ram it runs at full speed). The Falcon has a 16
>>MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus, and as the 020 and 030 are about equal,
>>IIRC the A1200 is even a little bit faster. The 56001 is nice though,
>>and a general purpose coprocessor, as opposed to the Amiga's specia-
>>lized blitter and copper. Either way, the machines are definitely in
>>the same ballpark.
> 
> 
> Comments Mark?

See other post.
> 
> 
>>MB> Get a hold of the Froggies over the fence demo, or the Sam Fox
>>MB> demo....... thousands to choose from.
>>
>>MB> http://www.dhs.nu/
>>MB> http://www.atari.st/ (click on Amiga;-)
>>
>>New demos are always fun. What are the top 3 unaccelerated Falcon
>>demos? 060 stuff doesn't interest me, it just looks like crappy PC
>>demos...
> 
> 
> Agreed, they aren't inspiring at all. Still amazed by what the C64 can be 
> made to do some 20 odd years after it's introduction.

Never bothered with PC demo's, plenty on the Falcon/TT/ST tho. The 800XL 
is the same, and even the STFM is having MORE boundaries broken as time 
goes on. You would think the demo coders would move on, but it isn't the 
case.
Maybe we need to organise a Computer fest in Australia, Clocks? Pizza, 
Beer and Atari's;-). And maybe a few Amiga's?

Mark

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:3C3lf.12120$ea6.4496@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "MagerValp" <MagerValp@cling.gu.se> wrote in message 
>> news:p14mzjfv2b6.fsf@panini.cling.gu.se...
>>
>>>>>>>>"MB" == Mark Bedingfield <atari030@nomorespampleaseoptusnet.com.au> 
>>>>>>>>writes:
>>>
>>>PLEASE trim when quoting (and that goes to the rest of you overzealous
>>>quoters too).
>>>
>>>MB> You've gotta be shitting me? How can a crappy machine with only a
>>>MB> 68020 keep up with a 68030 and a 56001?
>>>
>>>Well, both machines have several architectural problems. The A1200 has
>>>a 14 MHz 68020 on a 32-bit bus, but is bottlenecked in chip ram by the
>>>custom chips (in fast ram it runs at full speed). The Falcon has a 16
>>>MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus, and as the 020 and 030 are about equal,
>>>IIRC the A1200 is even a little bit faster. The 56001 is nice though,
>>>and a general purpose coprocessor, as opposed to the Amiga's specia-
>>>lized blitter and copper. Either way, the machines are definitely in
>>>the same ballpark.
>>
>>
>> Comments Mark?
>
> See other post.
>>
>>
>>>MB> Get a hold of the Froggies over the fence demo, or the Sam Fox
>>>MB> demo....... thousands to choose from.
>>>
>>>MB> http://www.dhs.nu/
>>>MB> http://www.atari.st/ (click on Amiga;-)
>>>
>>>New demos are always fun. What are the top 3 unaccelerated Falcon
>>>demos? 060 stuff doesn't interest me, it just looks like crappy PC
>>>demos...
>>
>>
>> Agreed, they aren't inspiring at all. Still amazed by what the C64 can be 
>> made to do some 20 odd years after it's introduction.
>
> Never bothered with PC demo's, plenty on the Falcon/TT/ST tho. The 800XL 
> is the same, and even the STFM is having MORE boundaries broken as time 
> goes on. You would think the demo coders would move on, but it isn't the 
> case.

Quite a number are still coding ECS demos though AGA offers a lot more 
scope.

> Maybe we need to organise a Computer fest in Australia, Clocks? Pizza, 
> Beer and Atari's;-). And maybe a few Amiga's?

You'll end up red-faced ;-)

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:jg3lf.12107$ea6.11950@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:6LRkf.11656$ea6.773@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>message news:r7Pkf.11343$ea6.10769@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>>>message news:dYMkf.11264$ea6.10920@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote 
>>>>>>>>in message news:37Lkf.11193$ea6.2337@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.04.04.22.20.799037@charter.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 02:23:08 +0100, silverdr wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Ronald J. Hall wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So how is the 16bit DSP driven sound on the A1200 anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Possibly more common then Falcons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://amiga.resource.cx/exp/search.pl?dir=audio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Quite a number of options there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I'm sorry, I couldn't find prices for those cards. How much 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>does it cost
>>>>>>>>>>>>>to make an Amiga comparable, audio wise, to a stock Falcon? :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Oh, and what's the price of the Falcons?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Less than the cost of an Amiga + a sound card. :-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Much harder to find though.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A quick ebay search finds 3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Whilst a search fo Amiga soundcard or Amiga sound card draws nil.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>About 10 Amiga 1200's on ebay, none with sound cards.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The soundcards are all in use ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>People are obviously selling their A1200's in droves tho;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is plenty of them out there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've still got mine though it's been boxed up for a while now since we 
>>>>>>are renovating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I would be quite happy to trade my A2000 and A500 for an A600. Only 
>>>>>downside is you can't play F1GP on a A600 IIRC. Doesn't matter though, 
>>>>>it was faster on an STFM.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Much faster on an A1200 or the A2000 I had at the time. It was a good 
>>>>game. I enjoyed playing Wings, and Dune II as well, brilliant with the 
>>>>Supraturbo 28 accelerator I had, 28Mhz 68000 overclocked to 40Mhz A2000 
>>>>:-)
>>>
>>>Hmm you she see it on a 50Mhz Atari Falcon (CT2), runs like a cut cat. 
>>>Vroom too.
>>
>>
>> Too fast I imagine, there is a hack to slow it down on systems that are 
>> too fast for the game, for Amiga anyway.
>
> Timing was better on the Atari, no hack neccesary. Major frame rate 
> improvement tho.

It has nothing to do with the timing of the computers but the way it was 
coded. I doubt the Atari version was any different.

>>>>I personally don't see the point of owning an A600 when A1200's are much 
>>>>better, more common and it has plethora of expansion options available 
>>>>for it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Convenience and size. My CD32/SX1 is bloody huge.
>>>
>>
>>
>> A1200 is pretty compact.
>
> A6000 is smaller, and I already have a CD32.
>

A600's suck, really. 

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:3C3lf.12120$ea6.4496@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"MagerValp" <MagerValp@cling.gu.se> wrote in message 
>>>news:p14mzjfv2b6.fsf@panini.cling.gu.se...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>"MB" == Mark Bedingfield <atari030@nomorespampleaseoptusnet.com.au> 
>>>>>>>>>writes:
>>>>
>>>>PLEASE trim when quoting (and that goes to the rest of you overzealous
>>>>quoters too).
>>>>
>>>>MB> You've gotta be shitting me? How can a crappy machine with only a
>>>>MB> 68020 keep up with a 68030 and a 56001?
>>>>
>>>>Well, both machines have several architectural problems. The A1200 has
>>>>a 14 MHz 68020 on a 32-bit bus, but is bottlenecked in chip ram by the
>>>>custom chips (in fast ram it runs at full speed). The Falcon has a 16
>>>>MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus, and as the 020 and 030 are about equal,
>>>>IIRC the A1200 is even a little bit faster. The 56001 is nice though,
>>>>and a general purpose coprocessor, as opposed to the Amiga's specia-
>>>>lized blitter and copper. Either way, the machines are definitely in
>>>>the same ballpark.
>>>
>>>
>>>Comments Mark?
>>
>>See other post.
>>
>>>
>>>>MB> Get a hold of the Froggies over the fence demo, or the Sam Fox
>>>>MB> demo....... thousands to choose from.
>>>>
>>>>MB> http://www.dhs.nu/
>>>>MB> http://www.atari.st/ (click on Amiga;-)
>>>>
>>>>New demos are always fun. What are the top 3 unaccelerated Falcon
>>>>demos? 060 stuff doesn't interest me, it just looks like crappy PC
>>>>demos...
>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed, they aren't inspiring at all. Still amazed by what the C64 can be 
>>>made to do some 20 odd years after it's introduction.
>>
>>Never bothered with PC demo's, plenty on the Falcon/TT/ST tho. The 800XL 
>>is the same, and even the STFM is having MORE boundaries broken as time 
>>goes on. You would think the demo coders would move on, but it isn't the 
>>case.
> 
> 
> Quite a number are still coding ECS demos though AGA offers a lot more 
> scope.

Same in the Atari camp. Plenty still coding on a ST.
> 
> 
>>Maybe we need to organise a Computer fest in Australia, Clocks? Pizza, 
>>Beer and Atari's;-). And maybe a few Amiga's?
> 
> 
> You'll end up red-faced ;-)
> 
With laughter;-)

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:

<snip for convenience>

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would be quite happy to trade my A2000 and A500 for an A600. Only 
>>>>>>downside is you can't play F1GP on a A600 IIRC. Doesn't matter though, 
>>>>>>it was faster on an STFM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Much faster on an A1200 or the A2000 I had at the time. It was a good 
>>>>>game. I enjoyed playing Wings, and Dune II as well, brilliant with the 
>>>>>Supraturbo 28 accelerator I had, 28Mhz 68000 overclocked to 40Mhz A2000 
>>>>>:-)
>>>>
>>>>Hmm you she see it on a 50Mhz Atari Falcon (CT2), runs like a cut cat. 
>>>>Vroom too.
>>>
>>>
>>>Too fast I imagine, there is a hack to slow it down on systems that are 
>>>too fast for the game, for Amiga anyway.
>>
>>Timing was better on the Atari, no hack neccesary. Major frame rate 
>>improvement tho.
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with the timing of the computers but the way it was 
> coded. I doubt the Atari version was any different.

It must have been different, because I simply loaded the game on my 
Falcon and bingo. Only Backwards was neccesary for OS patching, not 
hardware patching.
> 
> 
>>>>>I personally don't see the point of owning an A600 when A1200's are much 
>>>>>better, more common and it has plethora of expansion options available 
>>>>>for it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Convenience and size. My CD32/SX1 is bloody huge.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>A1200 is pretty compact.
>>
>>A6000 is smaller, and I already have a CD32.
>>
> 
> 
> A600's suck, really. 
> 

But they are no different to an A500, bar the keyboard? Wasn't stunt car 
racer an issue too (WB2)? We used to run an Atari Vs an Amiga using null 
modem, great fun. Atari had the minor frame rate advantage.

Mark

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:qc5lf.12295$ea6.8466@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:3C3lf.12120$ea6.4496@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"MagerValp" <MagerValp@cling.gu.se> wrote in message 
>>>>news:p14mzjfv2b6.fsf@panini.cling.gu.se...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"MB" == Mark Bedingfield 
>>>>>>>>>><atari030@nomorespampleaseoptusnet.com.au> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>PLEASE trim when quoting (and that goes to the rest of you overzealous
>>>>>quoters too).
>>>>>
>>>>>MB> You've gotta be shitting me? How can a crappy machine with only a
>>>>>MB> 68020 keep up with a 68030 and a 56001?
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, both machines have several architectural problems. The A1200 has
>>>>>a 14 MHz 68020 on a 32-bit bus, but is bottlenecked in chip ram by the
>>>>>custom chips (in fast ram it runs at full speed). The Falcon has a 16
>>>>>MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus, and as the 020 and 030 are about equal,
>>>>>IIRC the A1200 is even a little bit faster. The 56001 is nice though,
>>>>>and a general purpose coprocessor, as opposed to the Amiga's specia-
>>>>>lized blitter and copper. Either way, the machines are definitely in
>>>>>the same ballpark.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Comments Mark?
>>>
>>>See other post.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>MB> Get a hold of the Froggies over the fence demo, or the Sam Fox
>>>>>MB> demo....... thousands to choose from.
>>>>>
>>>>>MB> http://www.dhs.nu/
>>>>>MB> http://www.atari.st/ (click on Amiga;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>New demos are always fun. What are the top 3 unaccelerated Falcon
>>>>>demos? 060 stuff doesn't interest me, it just looks like crappy PC
>>>>>demos...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Agreed, they aren't inspiring at all. Still amazed by what the C64 can 
>>>>be made to do some 20 odd years after it's introduction.
>>>
>>>Never bothered with PC demo's, plenty on the Falcon/TT/ST tho. The 800XL 
>>>is the same, and even the STFM is having MORE boundaries broken as time 
>>>goes on. You would think the demo coders would move on, but it isn't the 
>>>case.
>>
>>
>> Quite a number are still coding ECS demos though AGA offers a lot more 
>> scope.
>
> Same in the Atari camp. Plenty still coding on a ST.
>>
>>
>>>Maybe we need to organise a Computer fest in Australia, Clocks? Pizza, 
>>>Beer and Atari's;-). And maybe a few Amiga's?
>>
>>
>> You'll end up red-faced ;-)
>>
> With laughter;-)
>

From the many beers consumed after you end up with pizza on your face;-)

Mark Bedingfield wrote:

> Clockmeister wrote:
> 
> <snip for convenience>
> 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I would be quite happy to trade my A2000 and A500 for an
> > > > > > > A600. Only downside is you can't play F1GP on a A600
> > > > > > > IIRC. Doesn't matter though, it was faster on an STFM.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Much faster on an A1200 or the A2000 I had at the time. It
> > > > > > was a good game. I enjoyed playing Wings, and Dune II as
> > > > > > well, brilliant with the Supraturbo 28 accelerator I had,
> > > > > > 28Mhz 68000 overclocked to 40Mhz A2000 :-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hmm you she see it on a 50Mhz Atari Falcon (CT2), runs like a
> > > > > cut cat. Vroom too.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Too fast I imagine, there is a hack to slow it down on systems
> > > > that are too fast for the game, for Amiga anyway.
> > > 
> > > Timing was better on the Atari, no hack neccesary. Major frame
> > > rate improvement tho.
> > 
> > 
> > It has nothing to do with the timing of the computers but the way
> > it was  coded. I doubt the Atari version was any different.
> 
> It must have been different, because I simply loaded the game on my
> Falcon and bingo. Only Backwards was neccesary for OS patching, not
> hardware patching.
> > 
> > 
> > > > > > I personally don't see the point of owning an A600 when
> > > > > > A1200's are much better, more common and it has plethora of
> > > > > > expansion options available for it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Convenience and size. My CD32/SX1 is bloody huge.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > A1200 is pretty compact.
> > > 
> > > A6000 is smaller, and I already have a CD32.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > A600's suck, really.  
> 
> But they are no different to an A500, bar the keyboard? Wasn't stunt
> car racer an issue too (WB2)? We used to run an Atari Vs an Amiga
> using null modem, great fun. Atari had the minor frame rate advantage.
> 
> Mark



What do you always want with your AMIGA and ST Falcon? Have you not
read the Thread!?


That�s boring stuff. What do I care about 600, 1200 Falcon and
derivates. If you want to write about new hardware, you could at least
mention X-Box360, or so.





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:qc5lf.12295$ea6.8466@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:3C3lf.12120$ea6.4496@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"MagerValp" <MagerValp@cling.gu.se> wrote in message 
>>>>>news:p14mzjfv2b6.fsf@panini.cling.gu.se...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"MB" == Mark Bedingfield 
>>>>>>>>>>><atari030@nomorespampleaseoptusnet.com.au> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PLEASE trim when quoting (and that goes to the rest of you overzealous
>>>>>>quoters too).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>MB> You've gotta be shitting me? How can a crappy machine with only a
>>>>>>MB> 68020 keep up with a 68030 and a 56001?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, both machines have several architectural problems. The A1200 has
>>>>>>a 14 MHz 68020 on a 32-bit bus, but is bottlenecked in chip ram by the
>>>>>>custom chips (in fast ram it runs at full speed). The Falcon has a 16
>>>>>>MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus, and as the 020 and 030 are about equal,
>>>>>>IIRC the A1200 is even a little bit faster. The 56001 is nice though,
>>>>>>and a general purpose coprocessor, as opposed to the Amiga's specia-
>>>>>>lized blitter and copper. Either way, the machines are definitely in
>>>>>>the same ballpark.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Comments Mark?
>>>>
>>>>See other post.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>MB> Get a hold of the Froggies over the fence demo, or the Sam Fox
>>>>>>MB> demo....... thousands to choose from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>MB> http://www.dhs.nu/
>>>>>>MB> http://www.atari.st/ (click on Amiga;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>New demos are always fun. What are the top 3 unaccelerated Falcon
>>>>>>demos? 060 stuff doesn't interest me, it just looks like crappy PC
>>>>>>demos...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Agreed, they aren't inspiring at all. Still amazed by what the C64 can 
>>>>>be made to do some 20 odd years after it's introduction.
>>>>
>>>>Never bothered with PC demo's, plenty on the Falcon/TT/ST tho. The 800XL 
>>>>is the same, and even the STFM is having MORE boundaries broken as time 
>>>>goes on. You would think the demo coders would move on, but it isn't the 
>>>>case.
>>>
>>>
>>>Quite a number are still coding ECS demos though AGA offers a lot more 
>>>scope.
>>
>>Same in the Atari camp. Plenty still coding on a ST.
>>
>>>
>>>>Maybe we need to organise a Computer fest in Australia, Clocks? Pizza, 
>>>>Beer and Atari's;-). And maybe a few Amiga's?
>>>
>>>
>>>You'll end up red-faced ;-)
>>>
>>
>>With laughter;-)
>>
> 
> 
> From the many beers consumed after you end up with pizza on your face;-)
> 
And whats wrong with that? I like both Pizza and Beer.

Mark

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:Lg5lf.12300$ea6.4674@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>
> <snip for convenience>
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I would be quite happy to trade my A2000 and A500 for an A600. Only 
>>>>>>>downside is you can't play F1GP on a A600 IIRC. Doesn't matter 
>>>>>>>though, it was faster on an STFM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Much faster on an A1200 or the A2000 I had at the time. It was a good 
>>>>>>game. I enjoyed playing Wings, and Dune II as well, brilliant with the 
>>>>>>Supraturbo 28 accelerator I had, 28Mhz 68000 overclocked to 40Mhz 
>>>>>>A2000 :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmm you she see it on a 50Mhz Atari Falcon (CT2), runs like a cut cat. 
>>>>>Vroom too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Too fast I imagine, there is a hack to slow it down on systems that are 
>>>>too fast for the game, for Amiga anyway.
>>>
>>>Timing was better on the Atari, no hack neccesary. Major frame rate 
>>>improvement tho.
>>
>>
>> It has nothing to do with the timing of the computers but the way it was 
>> coded. I doubt the Atari version was any different.
>
> It must have been different, because I simply loaded the game on my Falcon 
> and bingo. Only Backwards was neccesary for OS patching, not hardware 
> patching.

No OS patchiing required on the Amiga either, and the A1200 must just be 
faster.

>>
>>>>>>I personally don't see the point of owning an A600 when A1200's are 
>>>>>>much better, more common and it has plethora of expansion options 
>>>>>>available for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Convenience and size. My CD32/SX1 is bloody huge.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A1200 is pretty compact.
>>>
>>>A6000 is smaller, and I already have a CD32.
>>>
>>
>>
>> A600's suck, really.
>
> But they are no different to an A500, bar the keyboard?

You have to get the right revision ROM or the onboard IDE isn't supported 
(granted most have the right ROM),  PCMCIA is crippled with certain RAM 
expansions.

 Wasn't stunt car
> racer an issue too (WB2)?

Nah, none of my Amigas ever had a problem with it.

We used to run an Atari Vs an Amiga using null
> modem, great fun. Atari had the minor frame rate advantage.

Did it, I never spotted it when doing the same. Plenty of Amiga specific 
titles were dumbed down to make them work on ST ;-)

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:ZB5lf.12322$ea6.11463@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:qc5lf.12295$ea6.8466@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>>message news:3C3lf.12120$ea6.4496@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"MagerValp" <MagerValp@cling.gu.se> wrote in message 
>>>>>>news:p14mzjfv2b6.fsf@panini.cling.gu.se...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"MB" == Mark Bedingfield 
>>>>>>>>>>>><atari030@nomorespampleaseoptusnet.com.au> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PLEASE trim when quoting (and that goes to the rest of you 
>>>>>>>overzealous
>>>>>>>quoters too).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>MB> You've gotta be shitting me? How can a crappy machine with only a
>>>>>>>MB> 68020 keep up with a 68030 and a 56001?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, both machines have several architectural problems. The A1200 
>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>a 14 MHz 68020 on a 32-bit bus, but is bottlenecked in chip ram by 
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>custom chips (in fast ram it runs at full speed). The Falcon has a 16
>>>>>>>MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus, and as the 020 and 030 are about equal,
>>>>>>>IIRC the A1200 is even a little bit faster. The 56001 is nice though,
>>>>>>>and a general purpose coprocessor, as opposed to the Amiga's specia-
>>>>>>>lized blitter and copper. Either way, the machines are definitely in
>>>>>>>the same ballpark.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Comments Mark?
>>>>>
>>>>>See other post.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>MB> Get a hold of the Froggies over the fence demo, or the Sam Fox
>>>>>>>MB> demo....... thousands to choose from.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>MB> http://www.dhs.nu/
>>>>>>>MB> http://www.atari.st/ (click on Amiga;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>New demos are always fun. What are the top 3 unaccelerated Falcon
>>>>>>>demos? 060 stuff doesn't interest me, it just looks like crappy PC
>>>>>>>demos...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Agreed, they aren't inspiring at all. Still amazed by what the C64 can 
>>>>>>be made to do some 20 odd years after it's introduction.
>>>>>
>>>>>Never bothered with PC demo's, plenty on the Falcon/TT/ST tho. The 
>>>>>800XL is the same, and even the STFM is having MORE boundaries broken 
>>>>>as time goes on. You would think the demo coders would move on, but it 
>>>>>isn't the case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Quite a number are still coding ECS demos though AGA offers a lot more 
>>>>scope.
>>>
>>>Same in the Atari camp. Plenty still coding on a ST.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Maybe we need to organise a Computer fest in Australia, Clocks? Pizza, 
>>>>>Beer and Atari's;-). And maybe a few Amiga's?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You'll end up red-faced ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>With laughter;-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> From the many beers consumed after you end up with pizza on your face;-)
>>
> And whats wrong with that? I like both Pizza and Beer.
>

Even when the Pizza replaces the egg?

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:Lg5lf.12300$ea6.4674@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>><snip for convenience>
>>
>>>>>>>>I would be quite happy to trade my A2000 and A500 for an A600. Only 
>>>>>>>>downside is you can't play F1GP on a A600 IIRC. Doesn't matter 
>>>>>>>>though, it was faster on an STFM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Much faster on an A1200 or the A2000 I had at the time. It was a good 
>>>>>>>game. I enjoyed playing Wings, and Dune II as well, brilliant with the 
>>>>>>>Supraturbo 28 accelerator I had, 28Mhz 68000 overclocked to 40Mhz 
>>>>>>>A2000 :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hmm you she see it on a 50Mhz Atari Falcon (CT2), runs like a cut cat. 
>>>>>>Vroom too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Too fast I imagine, there is a hack to slow it down on systems that are 
>>>>>too fast for the game, for Amiga anyway.
>>>>
>>>>Timing was better on the Atari, no hack neccesary. Major frame rate 
>>>>improvement tho.
>>>
>>>
>>>It has nothing to do with the timing of the computers but the way it was 
>>>coded. I doubt the Atari version was any different.
>>
>>It must have been different, because I simply loaded the game on my Falcon 
>>and bingo. Only Backwards was neccesary for OS patching, not hardware 
>>patching.
> 
> 
> No OS patchiing required on the Amiga either, and the A1200 must just be 
> faster.

ROTFLMAO. So what was the patch you used for? Shitty timing code?

> 
> 
>>>>>>>I personally don't see the point of owning an A600 when A1200's are 
>>>>>>>much better, more common and it has plethora of expansion options 
>>>>>>>available for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Convenience and size. My CD32/SX1 is bloody huge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>A1200 is pretty compact.
>>>>
>>>>A6000 is smaller, and I already have a CD32.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>A600's suck, really.
>>
>>But they are no different to an A500, bar the keyboard?
> 
> 
> You have to get the right revision ROM or the onboard IDE isn't supported 
> (granted most have the right ROM),  PCMCIA is crippled with certain RAM 
> expansions.

Sounds a bit silly.
> 
>  Wasn't stunt car
> 
>>racer an issue too (WB2)?
> 
> 
> Nah, none of my Amigas ever had a problem with it.
> 
> We used to run an Atari Vs an Amiga using null
> 
>>modem, great fun. Atari had the minor frame rate advantage.
> 
> 
> Did it, I never spotted it when doing the same. Plenty of Amiga specific 
> titles were dumbed down to make them work on ST ;-)
> 
And vice versa.

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:ZB5lf.12322$ea6.11463@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
<trimmed snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"MB" == Mark Bedingfield 
>>>>>>>>>>>>><atari030@nomorespampleaseoptusnet.com.au> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>PLEASE trim when quoting (and that goes to the rest of you 
>>>>>>>>overzealous
>>>>>>>>quoters too).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>MB> You've gotta be shitting me? How can a crappy machine with only a
>>>>>>>>MB> 68020 keep up with a 68030 and a 56001?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well, both machines have several architectural problems. The A1200 
>>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>>a 14 MHz 68020 on a 32-bit bus, but is bottlenecked in chip ram by 
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>custom chips (in fast ram it runs at full speed). The Falcon has a 16
>>>>>>>>MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus, and as the 020 and 030 are about equal,
>>>>>>>>IIRC the A1200 is even a little bit faster. The 56001 is nice though,
>>>>>>>>and a general purpose coprocessor, as opposed to the Amiga's specia-
>>>>>>>>lized blitter and copper. Either way, the machines are definitely in
>>>>>>>>the same ballpark.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Comments Mark?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>See other post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>MB> Get a hold of the Froggies over the fence demo, or the Sam Fox
>>>>>>>>MB> demo....... thousands to choose from.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>MB> http://www.dhs.nu/
>>>>>>>>MB> http://www.atari.st/ (click on Amiga;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>New demos are always fun. What are the top 3 unaccelerated Falcon
>>>>>>>>demos? 060 stuff doesn't interest me, it just looks like crappy PC
>>>>>>>>demos...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Agreed, they aren't inspiring at all. Still amazed by what the C64 can 
>>>>>>>be made to do some 20 odd years after it's introduction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Never bothered with PC demo's, plenty on the Falcon/TT/ST tho. The 
>>>>>>800XL is the same, and even the STFM is having MORE boundaries broken 
>>>>>>as time goes on. You would think the demo coders would move on, but it 
>>>>>>isn't the case.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Quite a number are still coding ECS demos though AGA offers a lot more 
>>>>>scope.
>>>>
>>>>Same in the Atari camp. Plenty still coding on a ST.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe we need to organise a Computer fest in Australia, Clocks? Pizza, 
>>>>>>Beer and Atari's;-). And maybe a few Amiga's?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You'll end up red-faced ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>With laughter;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From the many beers consumed after you end up with pizza on your face;-)
>>>
>>
>>And whats wrong with that? I like both Pizza and Beer.
>>
> 
> 
> Even when the Pizza replaces the egg?
> 
> 
I thought it was Aussies that liked egg on Pizza? Besides the reality is 
there are plenty of demos as good as each other on both machines. It 
would be like comparing Coke to Pepsi. I prefer pepsi.
I have seen awesome demos on BOTH machines. In the end Atari programmers 
are as good as Amiga ones.

Did you answer these?

How many mips is the A1200? 1.6? Not even close to the Falcon on its 
worst day, crippled or otherwise. A 68030+65001@16Mhz combo is always 
going to out do a 68020@14Mhz, especially after dropping a 68882 into 
the equation;-). Does the A1200 have a copro?

Again if you concede that the A1200 can be made to appear faster than a 
Falcon then the same can be said for the STFM v A500. And believe me I 
have seen 4096 colours (I think even 19,200 IIRC), overscan and smooth 
scrolling even on a stock STFM, every bit as good as an A500. One demo I 
saw was having a crack at how badly Shadow of the Beast was coded 
(ported) to the ST. It had all the elements of what Psygnosis should 
have done. The bitmap brothers could do it, why couldn't psygnosis.

Incedently they sorted their shit out a little better after that, 
because of the crappy reviews. The Amiga was useful because it showed up 
their programming, or lack thereof.

Mark

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:2a6lf.12342$ea6.2762@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:ZB5lf.12322$ea6.11463@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
> <trimmed snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"MB" == Mark Bedingfield 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><atari030@nomorespampleaseoptusnet.com.au> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>PLEASE trim when quoting (and that goes to the rest of you 
>>>>>>>>>overzealous
>>>>>>>>>quoters too).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>MB> You've gotta be shitting me? How can a crappy machine with only 
>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>MB> 68020 keep up with a 68030 and a 56001?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well, both machines have several architectural problems. The A1200 
>>>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>>>a 14 MHz 68020 on a 32-bit bus, but is bottlenecked in chip ram by 
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>custom chips (in fast ram it runs at full speed). The Falcon has a 
>>>>>>>>>16
>>>>>>>>>MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus, and as the 020 and 030 are about equal,
>>>>>>>>>IIRC the A1200 is even a little bit faster. The 56001 is nice 
>>>>>>>>>though,
>>>>>>>>>and a general purpose coprocessor, as opposed to the Amiga's 
>>>>>>>>>specia-
>>>>>>>>>lized blitter and copper. Either way, the machines are definitely 
>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>the same ballpark.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Comments Mark?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>See other post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>MB> Get a hold of the Froggies over the fence demo, or the Sam Fox
>>>>>>>>>MB> demo....... thousands to choose from.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>MB> http://www.dhs.nu/
>>>>>>>>>MB> http://www.atari.st/ (click on Amiga;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>New demos are always fun. What are the top 3 unaccelerated Falcon
>>>>>>>>>demos? 060 stuff doesn't interest me, it just looks like crappy PC
>>>>>>>>>demos...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Agreed, they aren't inspiring at all. Still amazed by what the C64 
>>>>>>>>can be made to do some 20 odd years after it's introduction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Never bothered with PC demo's, plenty on the Falcon/TT/ST tho. The 
>>>>>>>800XL is the same, and even the STFM is having MORE boundaries broken 
>>>>>>>as time goes on. You would think the demo coders would move on, but 
>>>>>>>it isn't the case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Quite a number are still coding ECS demos though AGA offers a lot more 
>>>>>>scope.
>>>>>
>>>>>Same in the Atari camp. Plenty still coding on a ST.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Maybe we need to organise a Computer fest in Australia, Clocks? 
>>>>>>>Pizza, Beer and Atari's;-). And maybe a few Amiga's?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You'll end up red-faced ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>With laughter;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>From the many beers consumed after you end up with pizza on your face;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>And whats wrong with that? I like both Pizza and Beer.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Even when the Pizza replaces the egg?
>>
>>
> I thought it was Aussies that liked egg on Pizza? Besides the reality is 
> there are plenty of demos as good as each other on both machines. It would 
> be like comparing Coke to Pepsi. I prefer pepsi.
> I have seen awesome demos on BOTH machines. In the end Atari programmers 
> are as good as Amiga ones.
>
> Did you answer these?
>
> How many mips is the A1200? 1.6? Not even close to the Falcon on its worst 
> day, crippled or otherwise. A 68030+65001@16Mhz combo is always going to 
> out do a 68020@14Mhz, especially after dropping a 68882 into the 
> equation;-). Does the A1200 have a copro?

An '030 Amiga will kick your arse performance wise since it isn't crippled 
by a 16 bit bus, and an '020 isn't significantly slower then an '030 at the 
same clock speed. Like someone else said, the bottleneck in the system 
architecture means actual system performance isn't as significantly better 
then an A1200 (as you might not expect just looking at numbers)

The A1200 doesn't have a copro as standard but in any case that doesn't 
increase system performance significantly, only certain apps that use the 
copro.

> Again if you concede that the A1200 can be made to appear faster than a 
> Falcon then the same can be said for the STFM v A500.

It's not a question of appearance so much as the system architecture.

And believe me I
> have seen 4096 colours (I think even 19,200 IIRC), overscan and smooth 
> scrolling even on a stock STFM, every bit as good as an A500.

Well I haven't, State of the art, Nine fingers, Jesus on E's... name your 
favourites so I can compare some demos.

One demo I
> saw was having a crack at how badly Shadow of the Beast was coded (ported) 
> to the ST. It had all the elements of what Psygnosis should have done. The 
> bitmap brothers could do it, why couldn't psygnosis.

Xenon II is much better on a A500 then on an STFM.

> Incedently they sorted their shit out a little better after that, because 
> of the crappy reviews. The Amiga was useful because it showed up their 
> programming, or lack thereof.

You would like to believe that but I'm not convinced. Lets agree to disagree 
;-)

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:j26lf.12338$ea6.11321@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:Lg5lf.12300$ea6.4674@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>><snip for convenience>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>I would be quite happy to trade my A2000 and A500 for an A600. Only 
>>>>>>>>>downside is you can't play F1GP on a A600 IIRC. Doesn't matter 
>>>>>>>>>though, it was faster on an STFM.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Much faster on an A1200 or the A2000 I had at the time. It was a 
>>>>>>>>good game. I enjoyed playing Wings, and Dune II as well, brilliant 
>>>>>>>>with the Supraturbo 28 accelerator I had, 28Mhz 68000 overclocked to 
>>>>>>>>40Mhz A2000 :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hmm you she see it on a 50Mhz Atari Falcon (CT2), runs like a cut 
>>>>>>>cat. Vroom too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Too fast I imagine, there is a hack to slow it down on systems that 
>>>>>>are too fast for the game, for Amiga anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>Timing was better on the Atari, no hack neccesary. Major frame rate 
>>>>>improvement tho.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It has nothing to do with the timing of the computers but the way it was 
>>>>coded. I doubt the Atari version was any different.
>>>
>>>It must have been different, because I simply loaded the game on my 
>>>Falcon and bingo. Only Backwards was neccesary for OS patching, not 
>>>hardware patching.
>>
>>
>> No OS patchiing required on the Amiga either, and the A1200 must just be 
>> faster.
>
> ROTFLMAO. So what was the patch you used for? Shitty timing code?

F1GP-Ed fixes this...

"If you run the game at high frame rates (20+ ???), then go into race mode,
and sometimes in other modes, the car will spin to its left around its
axis. This is probably due to some calculations (the game makes)
overflowing, as it was not intended to be run at high frame rates."

From the Amiga F1GP website.

>>
>>
>>>>>>>>I personally don't see the point of owning an A600 when A1200's are 
>>>>>>>>much better, more common and it has plethora of expansion options 
>>>>>>>>available for it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Convenience and size. My CD32/SX1 is bloody huge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A1200 is pretty compact.
>>>>>
>>>>>A6000 is smaller, and I already have a CD32.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>A600's suck, really.
>>>
>>>But they are no different to an A500, bar the keyboard?
>>
>>
>> You have to get the right revision ROM or the onboard IDE isn't supported 
>> (granted most have the right ROM),  PCMCIA is crippled with certain RAM 
>> expansions.
>
> Sounds a bit silly.
>>
>>  Wasn't stunt car
>>
>>>racer an issue too (WB2)?
>>
>>
>> Nah, none of my Amigas ever had a problem with it.
>>
>> We used to run an Atari Vs an Amiga using null
>>
>>>modem, great fun. Atari had the minor frame rate advantage.
>>
>>
>> Did it, I never spotted it when doing the same. Plenty of Amiga specific 
>> titles were dumbed down to make them work on ST ;-)
>>
> And vice versa.

Nope, they were straight ports.

There is nothing an ST can do that an A500 isn't capable of.

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:2a6lf.12342$ea6.2762@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:ZB5lf.12322$ea6.11463@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>
>><trimmed snip>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"MB" == Mark Bedingfield 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><atari030@nomorespampleaseoptusnet.com.au> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>PLEASE trim when quoting (and that goes to the rest of you 
>>>>>>>>>>overzealous
>>>>>>>>>>quoters too).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>MB> You've gotta be shitting me? How can a crappy machine with only 
>>>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>>>MB> 68020 keep up with a 68030 and a 56001?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Well, both machines have several architectural problems. The A1200 
>>>>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>>>>a 14 MHz 68020 on a 32-bit bus, but is bottlenecked in chip ram by 
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>custom chips (in fast ram it runs at full speed). The Falcon has a 
>>>>>>>>>>16
>>>>>>>>>>MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus, and as the 020 and 030 are about equal,
>>>>>>>>>>IIRC the A1200 is even a little bit faster. The 56001 is nice 
>>>>>>>>>>though,
>>>>>>>>>>and a general purpose coprocessor, as opposed to the Amiga's 
>>>>>>>>>>specia-
>>>>>>>>>>lized blitter and copper. Either way, the machines are definitely 
>>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>>the same ballpark.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Comments Mark?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>See other post.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>MB> Get a hold of the Froggies over the fence demo, or the Sam Fox
>>>>>>>>>>MB> demo....... thousands to choose from.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>MB> http://www.dhs.nu/
>>>>>>>>>>MB> http://www.atari.st/ (click on Amiga;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>New demos are always fun. What are the top 3 unaccelerated Falcon
>>>>>>>>>>demos? 060 stuff doesn't interest me, it just looks like crappy PC
>>>>>>>>>>demos...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Agreed, they aren't inspiring at all. Still amazed by what the C64 
>>>>>>>>>can be made to do some 20 odd years after it's introduction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Never bothered with PC demo's, plenty on the Falcon/TT/ST tho. The 
>>>>>>>>800XL is the same, and even the STFM is having MORE boundaries broken 
>>>>>>>>as time goes on. You would think the demo coders would move on, but 
>>>>>>>>it isn't the case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Quite a number are still coding ECS demos though AGA offers a lot more 
>>>>>>>scope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Same in the Atari camp. Plenty still coding on a ST.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Maybe we need to organise a Computer fest in Australia, Clocks? 
>>>>>>>>Pizza, Beer and Atari's;-). And maybe a few Amiga's?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You'll end up red-faced ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>With laughter;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>From the many beers consumed after you end up with pizza on your face;-)
>>>>
>>>>And whats wrong with that? I like both Pizza and Beer.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Even when the Pizza replaces the egg?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I thought it was Aussies that liked egg on Pizza? Besides the reality is 
>>there are plenty of demos as good as each other on both machines. It would 
>>be like comparing Coke to Pepsi. I prefer pepsi.
>>I have seen awesome demos on BOTH machines. In the end Atari programmers 
>>are as good as Amiga ones.
>>
>>Did you answer these?
>>
>>How many mips is the A1200? 1.6? Not even close to the Falcon on its worst 
>>day, crippled or otherwise. A 68030+65001@16Mhz combo is always going to 
>>out do a 68020@14Mhz, especially after dropping a 68882 into the 
>>equation;-). Does the A1200 have a copro?
> 
> 
> An '030 Amiga will kick your arse performance wise since it isn't crippled 
> by a 16 bit bus, and an '020 isn't significantly slower then an '030 at the 
> same clock speed. Like someone else said, the bottleneck in the system 
> architecture means actual system performance isn't as significantly better 
> then an A1200 (as you might not expect just looking at numbers)

And a Atari TT030 will wipe the floor with an A1200 too. But an A1200 is 
no competition in terms of horsepower compared to the holy trinity of 
68030+68882+65001. How many mips is the A1200 capable of? The DSP on the 
Falcon alone is worth 16. That is about 10 times the A1200. Correct?
> 
> The A1200 doesn't have a copro as standard but in any case that doesn't 
> increase system performance significantly, only certain apps that use the 
> copro.

You should see the Falcon demos that do, very nice. A 68882 is much more 
potent than even an 030 at maths, and significantly better than an 020.
> 
> 
>>Again if you concede that the A1200 can be made to appear faster than a 
>>Falcon then the same can be said for the STFM v A500.
> 
> 
> It's not a question of appearance so much as the system architecture.

And an A1200 is not as fast as a Falcon.
> 
> And believe me I
> 
>>have seen 4096 colours (I think even 19,200 IIRC), overscan and smooth 
>>scrolling even on a stock STFM, every bit as good as an A500.
> 
> 
> Well I haven't, State of the art, Nine fingers, Jesus on E's... name your 
> favourites so I can compare some demos.

So because you haven't seen it, it does not exist? Well sorry it/they 
do. Froggies over the fence has nice 4096 colour piccies on a STFM and 
have a google for the overscan demo.
> 
> One demo I
> 
>>saw was having a crack at how badly Shadow of the Beast was coded (ported) 
>>to the ST. It had all the elements of what Psygnosis should have done. The 
>>bitmap brothers could do it, why couldn't psygnosis.
> 
> 
> Xenon II is much better on a A500 then on an STFM.

True not ALL Bitmap brothers stuff is as good as the Amiga. The Chaos 
Engine is sweet on an Atari. And there are games on the Atari better 
than the Amiga.
> 
> 
>>Incedently they sorted their shit out a little better after that, because 
>>of the crappy reviews. The Amiga was useful because it showed up their 
>>programming, or lack thereof.
> 
> 
> You would like to believe that but I'm not convinced. Lets agree to disagree 
> ;-)
> 

Nah.

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:j26lf.12338$ea6.11321@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:Lg5lf.12300$ea6.4674@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip for convenience>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I would be quite happy to trade my A2000 and A500 for an A600. Only 
>>>>>>>>>>downside is you can't play F1GP on a A600 IIRC. Doesn't matter 
>>>>>>>>>>though, it was faster on an STFM.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Much faster on an A1200 or the A2000 I had at the time. It was a 
>>>>>>>>>good game. I enjoyed playing Wings, and Dune II as well, brilliant 
>>>>>>>>>with the Supraturbo 28 accelerator I had, 28Mhz 68000 overclocked to 
>>>>>>>>>40Mhz A2000 :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hmm you she see it on a 50Mhz Atari Falcon (CT2), runs like a cut 
>>>>>>>>cat. Vroom too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Too fast I imagine, there is a hack to slow it down on systems that 
>>>>>>>are too fast for the game, for Amiga anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Timing was better on the Atari, no hack neccesary. Major frame rate 
>>>>>>improvement tho.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It has nothing to do with the timing of the computers but the way it was 
>>>>>coded. I doubt the Atari version was any different.
>>>>
>>>>It must have been different, because I simply loaded the game on my 
>>>>Falcon and bingo. Only Backwards was neccesary for OS patching, not 
>>>>hardware patching.
>>>
>>>
>>>No OS patchiing required on the Amiga either, and the A1200 must just be 
>>>faster.
>>
>>ROTFLMAO. So what was the patch you used for? Shitty timing code?
> 
> 
> F1GP-Ed fixes this...
> 
> "If you run the game at high frame rates (20+ ???), then go into race mode,
> and sometimes in other modes, the car will spin to its left around its
> axis. This is probably due to some calculations (the game makes)
> overflowing, as it was not intended to be run at high frame rates."
> 
> From the Amiga F1GP website.
> 
> 
>>>
>>>>>>>>>I personally don't see the point of owning an A600 when A1200's are 
>>>>>>>>>much better, more common and it has plethora of expansion options 
>>>>>>>>>available for it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Convenience and size. My CD32/SX1 is bloody huge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A1200 is pretty compact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A6000 is smaller, and I already have a CD32.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>A600's suck, really.
>>>>
>>>>But they are no different to an A500, bar the keyboard?
>>>
>>>
>>>You have to get the right revision ROM or the onboard IDE isn't supported 
>>>(granted most have the right ROM),  PCMCIA is crippled with certain RAM 
>>>expansions.
>>
>>Sounds a bit silly.
>>
>>> Wasn't stunt car
>>>
>>>
>>>>racer an issue too (WB2)?
>>>
>>>
>>>Nah, none of my Amigas ever had a problem with it.
>>>
>>>We used to run an Atari Vs an Amiga using null
>>>
>>>
>>>>modem, great fun. Atari had the minor frame rate advantage.
>>>
>>>
>>>Did it, I never spotted it when doing the same. Plenty of Amiga specific 
>>>titles were dumbed down to make them work on ST ;-)
>>>
>>
>>And vice versa.
> 
> 
> Nope, they were straight ports.

Those were the games that failed. Crappy programmers that didn't 
optimise the software for the hardware. Awesome Amiga programmers, 
crappy Atari programmers.
> 
> There is nothing an ST can do that an A500 isn't capable of.
> 

The only thing I have not seen an STFM not do that the A500 could is 
stereo. There is a tweety board that allows stereo mind you. And Atari 
corrected the issue with the STE, as well as hardware scrolling they 
added DMA sound and increased the palette. There is nothing an A500 can 
do a STE cannot.

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:

> There is nothing an ST can do that an A500 isn't capable of.




You are also boring with your ST AMIGA Falcon brabble....



Make it at least more sportful and write something true.

The A500 is nothing compared to a plain ST. If it is only one thing the
ATARI can do better, then I would say it is enough. So long you need
exactly that one!





Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

>>>>> "MB" == Mark Bedingfield <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> writes:

MB> How many mips is the A1200? 1.6? Not even close to the Falcon on
MB> its worst day, crippled or otherwise. A 68030+65001@16Mhz combo is
MB> always going to out do a 68020@14Mhz, especially after dropping a
MB> 68882 into the equation;-).

Of course, I wasn't arguing that. I said that the 14 MHz 68020 in the
A1200 is roughly as fast as the 16 MHz 68030 in the Falcon. Their
custom chips have different strengths, and which is faster depends on
what you're trying to do. If you're memory bound (blitting a bunch of
moving objects), the A1200's memory bus is 63% faster than the
Falcon's. If you're doing lots of calculations (say 3D graphics), the
56001 and 68882 are a huge benefit.

MB> Does the A1200 have a copro?

A 68881 or 68882 is supported, but not included in the base model.
However, if you consider the launch date and price, you should
probably be comparing the Falcon to the A4000/030, which had a 030/25
with 68882 as standard.

-- 
    ___          .     .  .         .       . +  .         .      o   
  _|___|_   +   .  +     .     +         .  Per Olofsson, arkadspelare
    o-o    .      .     .   o         +          MagerValp@cling.gu.se
     -       +            +    .     http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:36:36 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:

> There is nothing an ST can do that an A500 isn't capable of.

MIDI...from a stock machine.

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:23:01 +0100, MagerValp wrote:

> A 68881 or 68882 is supported, but not included in the base model.
> However, if you consider the launch date and price, you should
> probably be comparing the Falcon to the A4000/030, which had a 030/25
> with 68882 as standard.

<puzzled look on face> I don't see how you get that. I mean, when I saw an
A4000 for the first time it was *expensive*.

My first Falcon in '92 was $799.00 - I did add a HD and some other stuff
but it still was well under a $1000 here in the US.

-- 
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives!"_/
_/ The DarkForce BBS Sysop-DarkLord Telnet bbs.darkforce.org_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> writes:

> when I saw an A4000 for the first time it was *expensive*.
> 
> My first Falcon in '92 was $799.00 - I did add a HD and some other
> stuff but it still was well under a $1000 here in the US.

Maybe Atari had a special intro price in the US? When the Falcon 030
was introduced in Sweden during early spring 1993, the recommended
price including a 64 MB hard disk was around 16000 SEK ($2100). As
MagerValp indicated, you could find a similar Amiga 4000/030 for
a few thousand SEK less. A MIDI interface was only a few hundred
crowns, so you almost could afford one more funky item of upgrade
before you reached the list/sale price of a Falcon.

Of course, the 4000 would not have a DSP, which IMHO might be the
only hardware thing which makes the Falcon superior for its cost.

-- 
Anders Carlsson

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.06.13.40.37.108969@charter.net...
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:23:01 +0100, MagerValp wrote:
>
>> A 68881 or 68882 is supported, but not included in the base model.
>> However, if you consider the launch date and price, you should
>> probably be comparing the Falcon to the A4000/030, which had a 030/25
>> with 68882 as standard.
>
> <puzzled look on face> I don't see how you get that. I mean, when I saw an
> A4000 for the first time it was *expensive*.

The A4000 was a big box easily expandable machine, ofcourse it cost more.

> My first Falcon in '92 was $799.00 - I did add a HD and some other stuff
> but it still was well under a $1000 here in the US.

You get what you pay for.

"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
news:pan.2005.12.06.13.34.02.636931@charter.net...
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:36:36 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>
>> There is nothing an ST can do that an A500 isn't capable of.
>
> MIDI...from a stock machine.
>


MIDI is absolutely useless without additional hardware... and subsequent 
cost.

$29.95 bought you an Amiga MIDI interface should you need it, and support 
was built into the serial port.

>>>>> "RJH" == Ronald J Hall <dark_lord@charter.net> writes:

RJH> <puzzled look on face> I don't see how you get that. I mean, when
RJH> I saw an A4000 for the first time it was *expensive*.

That was probably the A4000/040, which costed a lot more than the 030
model.

RJH> My first Falcon in '92 was $799.00 - I did add a HD and some
RJH> other stuff but it still was well under a $1000 here in the US.

I honestly don't remember the prices anymore, but unless I'm mistaken
the A1200 was about half the price of the Falcon back then. I paid
somewhere around $500 for my A1200 in 1993.

-- 
    ___          .     .  .         .       . +  .         .      o   
  _|___|_   +   .  +     .     +         .  Per Olofsson, arkadspelare
    o-o    .      .     .   o         +          MagerValp@cling.gu.se
     -       +            +    .     http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/

MagerValp wrote:
>>>>>>"MB" == Mark Bedingfield <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> writes:
> 
> 
> MB> How many mips is the A1200? 1.6? Not even close to the Falcon on
> MB> its worst day, crippled or otherwise. A 68030+65001@16Mhz combo is
> MB> always going to out do a 68020@14Mhz, especially after dropping a
> MB> 68882 into the equation;-).
> 
> Of course, I wasn't arguing that. I said that the 14 MHz 68020 in the
> A1200 is roughly as fast as the 16 MHz 68030 in the Falcon. Their
> custom chips have different strengths, and which is faster depends on
> what you're trying to do. If you're memory bound (blitting a bunch of
> moving objects), the A1200's memory bus is 63% faster than the
> Falcon's. If you're doing lots of calculations (say 3D graphics), the
> 56001 and 68882 are a huge benefit.
> 
> MB> Does the A1200 have a copro?
> 
> A 68881 or 68882 is supported, but not included in the base model.
> However, if you consider the launch date and price, you should
> probably be comparing the Falcon to the A4000/030, which had a 030/25
> with 68882 as standard.
> 

Unfortunately as standard there was only an empty socket in this 
machine. One had to put the 68882 into it on its own, but... the 
A4000/030 came out to the market later than the A4000/040 and was a 
crippled/stripped to the bones version of the A4000, good for all those 
who were heading for an accelerator card anyway. The 68EC030 card looked 
like it's been put inside just to show that it can actually boot and is 
not DOA ;-)

Clockmeister wrote:

> $29.95 bought you an Amiga MIDI interface should you need it, and
> support was built into the serial port.


That was the theoretical limit of the Amiga COM ;-)... so thy call it
MIDI, though it makes troubles w/o Turbocards. Maybe 19200... Yes, but
38400 needs at least a 14MHz 030 or 020. The same goes with 31250....
not possible with a plain ST AMIGA. A TT AMIGA can do more... also
57600. For 115200 you need a Serial Card.

That support is just a Fake.
If you use the PAR you could take more out and in.



Kind Regards,

Daniel Mandic

silverdr wrote:
> MagerValp wrote:
> 
>>>>>>> "MB" == Mark Bedingfield 
>>>>>>> <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> MB> How many mips is the A1200? 1.6? Not even close to the Falcon on
>> MB> its worst day, crippled or otherwise. A 68030+65001@16Mhz combo is
>> MB> always going to out do a 68020@14Mhz, especially after dropping a
>> MB> 68882 into the equation;-).
>>
>> Of course, I wasn't arguing that. I said that the 14 MHz 68020 in the
>> A1200 is roughly as fast as the 16 MHz 68030 in the Falcon. Their
>> custom chips have different strengths, and which is faster depends on
>> what you're trying to do. If you're memory bound (blitting a bunch of
>> moving objects), the A1200's memory bus is 63% faster than the
>> Falcon's. If you're doing lots of calculations (say 3D graphics), the
>> 56001 and 68882 are a huge benefit.
>>
>> MB> Does the A1200 have a copro?
>>
>> A 68881 or 68882 is supported, but not included in the base model.
>> However, if you consider the launch date and price, you should
>> probably be comparing the Falcon to the A4000/030, which had a 030/25
>> with 68882 as standard.
>>
> 
> Unfortunately as standard there was only an empty socket in this 
> machine. One had to put the 68882 into it on its own, but... the 
> A4000/030 came out to the market later than the A4000/040 and was a 
> crippled/stripped to the bones version of the A4000, good for all those 
> who were heading for an accelerator card anyway. The 68EC030 card looked 
> like it's been put inside just to show that it can actually boot and is 
> not DOA ;-)

Not all Falcon's had 68882's either. But Atari never made an 040 box 
(past prototype). The TT030 I would compare to an A3000 and a A4000 to a 
  Hades or Milan. The Falcon was still supposed to be a home computer.

Ok are we ready for the truth now;-). Or are we still playing?

Mark

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
> news:pan.2005.12.06.13.34.02.636931@charter.net...
> 
>>On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:36:36 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is nothing an ST can do that an A500 isn't capable of.
>>
>>MIDI...from a stock machine.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> MIDI is absolutely useless without additional hardware... and subsequent 
> cost.
> 
> $29.95 bought you an Amiga MIDI interface should you need it, and support 
> was built into the serial port.
> 

Yet you bitch about buying another monitor? How well did Cubase or 
Notator run on an Amiga? The Atari STILL has the best midi timing of any 
  computer (thanks to the PC's open architecture) and are STILL used in 
studios for that reason. Bars and Pipes, hehehehehehehe.......

Mark

PS Midi is very good at simple networking too. Try Substation or 
Midimaze for example.

Mark Bedingfield wrote:

>>> MB> Does the A1200 have a copro?
>>>
>>> A 68881 or 68882 is supported, but not included in the base model.
>>> However, if you consider the launch date and price, you should
>>> probably be comparing the Falcon to the A4000/030, which had a 030/25
>>> with 68882 as standard.
>>>
>>
>> Unfortunately as standard there was only an empty socket in this 
>> machine. One had to put the 68882 into it on its own, but... the 
>> A4000/030 came out to the market later than the A4000/040 and was a 
>> crippled/stripped to the bones version of the A4000, good for all 
>> those who were heading for an accelerator card anyway. The 68EC030 
>> card looked like it's been put inside just to show that it can 
>> actually boot and is not DOA ;-)
> 
> 
> Not all Falcon's had 68882's either. But Atari never made an 040 box 
> (past prototype). The TT030 I would compare to an A3000 and a A4000 to a 
>  Hades or Milan. The Falcon was still supposed to be a home computer.
> 
> Ok are we ready for the truth now;-). Or are we still playing?

As you wish... ;-)

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:5Lolf.13227$ea6.5782@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>> news:pan.2005.12.06.13.34.02.636931@charter.net...
>>
>>>On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:36:36 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is nothing an ST can do that an A500 isn't capable of.
>>>
>>>MIDI...from a stock machine.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> MIDI is absolutely useless without additional hardware... and subsequent 
>> cost.
>>
>> $29.95 bought you an Amiga MIDI interface should you need it, and support 
>> was built into the serial port.
>>
>
> Yet you bitch about buying another monitor?

Monitors were damned expensive. $29.95 for a port that only a minority of 
people would have a use for is pretty cheap.

 How well did Cubase or
> Notator run on an Amiga? The Atari STILL has the best midi timing of any 
> computer (thanks to the PC's open architecture) and are STILL used in 
> studios for that reason. Bars and Pipes, hehehehehehehe.......

You would like to think so, but I see Mac's and PC's everywhere in studios. 
The days of the Atari being a choice for the semi-professional+ are long 
gone.

>
> Mark
>
> PS Midi is very good at simple networking too. Try Substation or Midimaze 
> for example.

Simple being the operative word there.

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:5Lolf.13227$ea6.5782@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>news:pan.2005.12.06.13.34.02.636931@charter.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:36:36 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>There is nothing an ST can do that an A500 isn't capable of.
>>>>
>>>>MIDI...from a stock machine.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>MIDI is absolutely useless without additional hardware... and subsequent 
>>>cost.
>>>
>>>$29.95 bought you an Amiga MIDI interface should you need it, and support 
>>>was built into the serial port.
>>>
>>
>>Yet you bitch about buying another monitor?
> 
> 
> Monitors were damned expensive. $29.95 for a port that only a minority of 
> people would have a use for is pretty cheap.

Or you could include it as standard and still be cheaper than an Amiga.
> 
>  How well did Cubase or
> 
>>Notator run on an Amiga? The Atari STILL has the best midi timing of any 
>>computer (thanks to the PC's open architecture) and are STILL used in 
>>studios for that reason. Bars and Pipes, hehehehehehehe.......
> 
> 
> You would like to think so, but I see Mac's and PC's everywhere in studios. 
> The days of the Atari being a choice for the semi-professional+ are long 
> gone.

Not so, alot of sudios still use them as a master midi clock IIRC. 
Because the timing is so poor on modern equipment. So, how well did 
Cubase run on an Amiga anyway?
> 
> 
>>Mark
>>
>>PS Midi is very good at simple networking too. Try Substation or Midimaze 
>>for example.
> 
> 
> Simple being the operative word there.
> 
Thats right a $5 lead made it possible to hook 16 machines together and 
have a gaming comp with you mates.

Mark

"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
message news:5Hqlf.13345$ea6.10472@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>> message news:5Lolf.13227$ea6.5782@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>news:pan.2005.12.06.13.34.02.636931@charter.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:36:36 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>There is nothing an ST can do that an A500 isn't capable of.
>>>>>
>>>>>MIDI...from a stock machine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>MIDI is absolutely useless without additional hardware... and subsequent 
>>>>cost.
>>>>
>>>>$29.95 bought you an Amiga MIDI interface should you need it, and 
>>>>support was built into the serial port.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yet you bitch about buying another monitor?
>>
>>
>> Monitors were damned expensive. $29.95 for a port that only a minority of 
>> people would have a use for is pretty cheap.
>
> Or you could include it as standard and still be cheaper than an Amiga.

$29.95 is peanuts for those into MIDI, it would be the least of their 
expense.

>>  How well did Cubase or
>>
>>>Notator run on an Amiga? The Atari STILL has the best midi timing of any 
>>>computer (thanks to the PC's open architecture) and are STILL used in 
>>>studios for that reason. Bars and Pipes, hehehehehehehe.......
>>
>>
>> You would like to think so, but I see Mac's and PC's everywhere in 
>> studios. The days of the Atari being a choice for the semi-professional+ 
>> are long gone.
>
> Not so, alot of sudios still use them as a master midi clock IIRC. Because 
> the timing is so poor on modern equipment.

Professionals seem to be happy with it, I think

So, how well did
> Cubase run on an Amiga anyway?
>>

It doesn't, MIDI was the domain of Atari where Video was the domain of 
Amiga. Despite that the MOD tracker format was by far and away much more 
popular then MIDI anyway, and spawned many a talented musician.

>>>Mark
>>>
>>>PS Midi is very good at simple networking too. Try Substation or Midimaze 
>>>for example.
>>
>>
>> Simple being the operative word there.
>>
> Thats right a $5 lead made it possible to hook 16 machines together and 
> have a gaming comp with you mates.
>

Yeah, that was a huge plus.

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
> message news:5Hqlf.13345$ea6.10472@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 
>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Bedingfield" <mark@nomorespamplease.computercom.com.au> wrote in 
>>>message news:5Lolf.13227$ea6.5782@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ronald J. Hall" <dark_lord@charter.net> wrote in message 
>>>>>news:pan.2005.12.06.13.34.02.636931@charter.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:36:36 +0800, Clockmeister wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is nothing an ST can do that an A500 isn't capable of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>MIDI...from a stock machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>MIDI is absolutely useless without additional hardware... and subsequent 
>>>>>cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>$29.95 bought you an Amiga MIDI interface should you need it, and 
>>>>>support was built into the serial port.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yet you bitch about buying another monitor?
>>>
>>>
>>>Monitors were damned expensive. $29.95 for a port that only a minority of 
>>>people would have a use for is pretty cheap.
>>
>>Or you could include it as standard and still be cheaper than an Amiga.
> 
> 
> $29.95 is peanuts for those into MIDI, it would be the least of their 
> expense.
> 

That would be an assumption, not a fact.

> 
>>> How well did Cubase or
>>>
>>>
>>>>Notator run on an Amiga? The Atari STILL has the best midi timing of any 
>>>>computer (thanks to the PC's open architecture) and are STILL used in 
>>>>studios for that reason. Bars and Pipes, hehehehehehehe.......
>>>
>>>
>>>You would like to think so, but I see Mac's and PC's everywhere in 
>>>studios. The days of the Atari being a choice for the semi-professional+ 
>>>are long gone.
>>
>>Not so, alot of sudios still use them as a master midi clock IIRC. Because 
>>the timing is so poor on modern equipment.
> 
> 
> Professionals seem to be happy with it, I think

Not all, and I know quite a few. Especially those that started on the ST.
> 
> So, how well did
> 
>>Cubase run on an Amiga anyway?
>>
> 
> It doesn't, MIDI was the domain of Atari where Video was the domain of 
> Amiga. Despite that the MOD tracker format was by far and away much more 
> popular then MIDI anyway, and spawned many a talented musician.

There is no comparison between Mod and Midi. Especially when you get to 
Cubase audio on the Falcon. I think there was a version that ran on the 
ST/Mega/TT as well, using an external SCSI sampler.

So how many albums were recorded using the Mod standard? Midi was/is 
more popular than Mod has/ever will be.

Mod was/is very popular on the Atari too. I found an scream tracker 
player for the STE yesterday. Awesome stuff. Seems a mod player for the 
STFM has been released recently too, capable of 50Khz playback. The guy 
who wrote it (Paulo Simoes), would be the guy who wrote the fist 
overscan demos in the 80's and has recently broken the sprite record on 
the ST. He deserves a medal I think.

You do know that a stock STE is capable of 50Khz DMA stereo? Mods are 
not an issue for anything made by Atari after 1987. STE, MegaSTE, TT and 
Falcon.

> 

>>>>PS Midi is very good at simple networking too. Try Substation or Midimaze 
>>>>for example.
>>>
>>>
>>>Simple being the operative word there.
>>>
>>
>>Thats right a $5 lead made it possible to hook 16 machines together and 
>>have a gaming comp with you mates.
>>
> 
> 
> Yeah, that was a huge plus.
> 


I thought so. Have you ever played midimaze or Substation?

Mark

Mark Bedingfield wrote:

> 
> Yet you bitch about buying another monitor? How well did Cubase or
> Notator run on an Amiga? The Atari STILL has the best midi timing of
> any   computer (thanks to the PC's open architecture) and are STILL
> used in studios for that reason. Bars and Pipes, hehehehehehehe.......
> 
> Mark
> 
> PS Midi is very good at simple networking too. Try Substation or
> Midimaze for example.


You get boring.

The whole world knows, ATARI ST/TT/Falcon sounds best, connected to
MIDI Devices. Always too slow, but never faster or slower.

Get straight.... something new. Come on :-)))




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

I demand that Mark Bedingfield may or may not have written...

[snip]
> Not all Falcon's had 68882's either. But Atari never made an 040 box
> (past prototype). The TT030 I would compare to an A3000 [...]

ARM2 or ARM3? :-)

[snip]
-- 
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | d youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk
| RISC OS,    | Northumberland | s zap,tartarus,org
| Linux       | Toon Army      | @                      Say NO to UK ID cards
|                                                       http://www.no2id.net/

You will be awarded a medal for disregarding safety in saving someone.

"Darren Salt" <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in message 
news:4DD5A2080F%news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid...
>I demand that Mark Bedingfield may or may not have written...
>
> [snip]
>> Not all Falcon's had 68882's either. But Atari never made an 040 box
>> (past prototype). The TT030 I would compare to an A3000 [...]
>
> ARM2 or ARM3? :-)
>

I had an Acorn 3000... it sucked.

I used the monitor for my Amiga 2000 though so it was good for something. 

Clockmeister wrote:
> "Darren Salt" <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4DD5A2080F%news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid...
>> I demand that Mark Bedingfield may or may not have written...
>>
>> [snip]
>>> Not all Falcon's had 68882's either. But Atari never made an 040 box
>>> (past prototype). The TT030 I would compare to an A3000 [...]
>>
>> ARM2 or ARM3? :-)
>>
>
> I had an Acorn 3000... it sucked.
>
> I used the monitor for my Amiga 2000 though so it was good for
> something.

I get this feeling that everything that you didn't approve of sucked.

D.

"Paul Dunn" <paul.dunn4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
news:ueMlf.5495$E14.448@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
> Clockmeister wrote:
>> "Darren Salt" <news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:4DD5A2080F%news@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid...
>>> I demand that Mark Bedingfield may or may not have written...
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>> Not all Falcon's had 68882's either. But Atari never made an 040 box
>>>> (past prototype). The TT030 I would compare to an A3000 [...]
>>>
>>> ARM2 or ARM3? :-)
>>>
>>
>> I had an Acorn 3000... it sucked.

No, I did use it for a while but in this country there was virtually no 
support for it, that sucked. It didn't really do it for me, though the OS 
did look good and was pretty fast.

>> I used the monitor for my Amiga 2000 though so it was good for
>> something.
>
> I get this feeling that everything that you didn't approve of sucked.
>

No, I like plenty of older systems, like the TRS-80 for one. Amiga was my 
main focus at the time, and it was a nice (Acorn) monitor.

Blaine Adamson wrote:
> Which of these systems is the best doorstopper?
> 
> Discuss.
> 
Commodore rises from the ashes, let there be light!

http://hardware.commodoreworld.com/default.aspx?i=3&s=category&c=29

Blaine Adamson wrote:
> Which of these systems is the best doorstopper?
> 
> Discuss.
> 
Though the times may seem dark, there is a glimmer of light in distance.

Is Commodore poised for a comeback?
http://news.com.com/Is+Commodore+poised+for+a+comeback/2100-1041_3-5998732.html?tag=nefd.lede