Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Atari vs Amiga article  (Read 7506 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Oldsmobile_MikeTopic starter

Atari vs Amiga article
« on: February 11, 2014, 06:30:59 PM »
Was doing a google search for something completely unrelated and came across this article on an Atari website.  Seems to be pretty fair and unbiased (considering the source), although the reviewer fails to mention that the A1200's expansion slot can be used to add so much more than memory... 040/060/Mediator/etc.  Pretty good article though, just wanted to share:

http://www.atarimusic.net/featured-articles/atari-hardware/263-the-falcon030-vs-the-amiga1200
Amiga 500: 2MB Chip|16MB Fast|30MHz 68030+68882|3.9|Indivision ECS|GVP A500HD+|Mechware card reader + 8GB CF|Cocolino|SCSI DVD-RAM
Amiga 2000: 2MB Chip|136MB Fast|50MHz 68060|3.9|Indivision ECS + GVP Spectrum|Mechware card reader + 8GB CF|AD516|X-Surf 100|RapidRoad|Cocolino|SCSI CD-RW
 Amiga videos and other misc. stuff at https://www.youtube.com/CompTechMike/videos
 

Offline QuikSanz

Re: Atari vs Amiga article
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2014, 04:39:16 AM »
Too bad he didn't look at an 030/50Mhz, would have had his mind blown ;)
 

Offline mrknight

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 152
    • Show only replies by mrknight
Re: Atari vs Amiga article
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2014, 04:54:11 AM »
Interesting article, I will read it through later. Falcon is a nice computer, spec wise, but I can't understand why Atari opted for a 16bit wide data bus. Why? Where they really that desperate to save a few microcent on copper tracks? It's 1992. Even PC were up to 32 bit standard by then. With a full 32 bit bus this would have been a serious competitor for A1200, especially with that sound system. And despite the graphics.
 

Offline amigakid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 667
    • Show only replies by amigakid
Re: Atari vs Amiga article
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2014, 06:31:58 AM »
Actually pretty well written article.  I never used a Falcon, but I did have a friend that had a 1024st (think it was that number or something close to it).  I remember we used to compare it to my Amiga (had a 500 with 4meg busboard expansion) and we had a fun time doing that
 

Offline gertsy

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2006
  • Posts: 2317
  • Country: au
    • Show only replies by gertsy
    • http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/~gbakker64/
Re: Atari vs Amiga article
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2014, 06:52:48 AM »
He did mention accelerators in the expansion bay.
16 bit data pipe on a 32 bit 68030. Sounds like something Sinclair would do. On a machine with 8 channel 16 bit sound, a midi interface and DSP.  Crazy hobbling for what was at the time a dream spec machine.
 

Offline NovaCoder

Re: Atari vs Amiga article
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2014, 11:02:15 AM »
Quote from: mrknight;758773
Interesting article, I will read it through later. Falcon is a nice computer, spec wise, but I can't understand why Atari opted for a 16bit wide data bus. Why? Where they really that desperate to save a few microcent on copper tracks? It's 1992. Even PC were up to 32 bit standard by then. With a full 32 bit bus this would have been a serious competitor for A1200, especially with that sound system. And despite the graphics.


With a full 32 bit bus it would have left the A1200 for dust ;)

I actually had an STFM when they announced the Falcon, I remember reading in the Atari mags of the time about how Atari were struggling to get some units to retail before the company folded....sad times.
Life begins at 100 MIPS!


Nice Ports on AmiNet!
 

Offline spirantho

Re: Atari vs Amiga article
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2014, 11:32:34 AM »
My own Falcon hardly ever gets used, even though it's a nice computer.
The reason..? Just not enough software. Compatibility with older ST games was not good, which doesn't help... A real shame.
--
Ian Gledhill
ian.gledhill@btinternit.com (except it should be internEt of course...!)
Check out my shop! http://www.mutant-caterpillar.co.uk/shop/ - for 8-bit (and soon 16-bit) goodness!
 

Offline psxphill

Re: Atari vs Amiga article
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2014, 11:56:01 AM »
Quote from: mrknight;758773
Where they really that desperate to save a few microcent on copper tracks?

32 bit needs double the number of ram chips than 16 bit. Even if they halved the size of the ram chips it would still be more expensive.
 
The rumour is the prototype used a 68000 that could take upgrades (like an A1200) and they had designed a prototype 030 card. I imagine after the A1200 was released they knew they couldn't compete if they shipped with a 68000. Putting a full 030 in there instead of an EC020 in the A1200 gave you an increase in the perceived value. The 030 has more cache, they probably hoped that people would be able to write software that didn't need too much access to RAM.
 
Jack Trammiel was always about selling shoddy computers cheap. When he was at commodore it worked quite well, because his competitors used to charge a lot for shoddy computers. An industry of fast loaders for the c64 was created because they shipped it as soon as it sort of worked.
 
The Atari ST was never a competitor to the Amiga because he did the same thing after buying Atari.
 
The Falcon 030 had a chunky 16 bit colour mode, which AGA desperately needed. If commodore had not gone down the path of AAA in 1988 then AGA could have been better. They turned AA around in a year. AAA is a good example of second system syndrome.
 
It was game over in 1993 for home computers, the PC was taking them on with doom etc. A games console that offered similar games for a lower outlay would have sold well in some countries (until maybe Sony entered the market). I believe AGA with chunky 16 bit modes and texture mapping in the blitter would have been a game changer. Commodore just didn't think of doing it.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 12:00:06 PM by psxphill »
 

Offline slaapliedje

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 843
  • Country: 00
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • Show only replies by slaapliedje
Re: Atari vs Amiga article
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2014, 04:50:39 PM »
Oddly, it seems to me that the thing that sort of killed both Atari and Commodore were the console wars.  They both tried one last foray into the video game consoles, and it killed them.  

But at least with Atari, the "Intellectual Property" didn't just disappear into oblivion and everyone is confused on who owns it, unlike the Amiga.  So much great tech and great operating systems, bouncing from one legal mess to another.

I even think TOS for the Atari was fully open sourced, where AROS was created to reverse engineer the AmigaOS.  Which makes me want to play with AROS Vision :D

slaapliedje
A4000D: Mediator 4000Di; Voodoo 3, ZorRAM 128MB, 10/100mb Ethernet, Spider 2. Cyberstorm PPC 060/50 604e/420.
 

Offline paul1981

Re: Atari vs Amiga article
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2014, 05:44:47 PM »
The A1200 should have shipped with some onboard fast ram - 1 MB would have done the trick which doubles the speed of the machine without even upgrading the processor/clock. Seems silly that it shipped with chip ram only which effectively halves the speed of the base machine.
 

Offline psxphill

Re: Atari vs Amiga article
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2014, 07:44:06 PM »
Quote from: slaapliedje;758800
Oddly, it seems to me that the thing that sort of killed both Atari and Commodore were the console wars. They both tried one last foray into the video game consoles, and it killed them.

Consoles did have an effect, but it wasn't until the PS1/Saturn that the Amiga really had no hope.
 
A PC with a CD drive, sound card, network card & VGA card could produce better games in 1992 than an A1200. People who managed to persuade their employers to put a "multimedia" computer on their desk weren't even having to pay the high cost of all that hardware.
 
Quote from: paul1981;758803
Seems silly that it shipped with chip ram only which effectively halves the speed of the base machine.

Shipping with 1mb of chip and 1mb of ram would have been more expensive to and more expensive to upgrade the chip ram to 2mb and add more fast ram. So I think they made the right choice.
 
I'd have rather seen maximum of 4 or even 8mb of chip ram though.
 
AGA was too weak, the CPU speed shouldn't even have been an issue. The whole point of the Amiga architecture was using custom chips to take a load off the CPU so it doesn't have to be so fast. Shipping a slight upgrade to a 1985 chipset in 1992 was lunacy.
 

Offline Lionheart

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Feb 2014
  • Posts: 68
    • Show only replies by Lionheart
Re: Atari vs Amiga article
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2014, 08:19:41 PM »
Here is another comparison from back in 1992 comparing the Atari Falcon, Amiga 1200, and Apple Performa 400: http://cd.textfiles.com/atarilibrary/atari_cd07/INFO/MISC/MTRLACPU.TXT
 

Offline mrknight

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 152
    • Show only replies by mrknight
Re: Atari vs Amiga article
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2014, 11:30:00 PM »
Quote from: psxphill;758789
32 bit needs double the number of ram chips than 16 bit. Even if they halved the size of the ram chips it would still be more expensive.
I wouldn't neccesarily say that.  It's a matter of how many chips you have, the width of the chips and how many 'symbols' you can store per chips. Althought 32 bit chips would probably have been more expensive that 16 bit chips, at least as cent/bit is concerned, the total amount of RAM would affect the price more that width of the chips.
However, you need a more sofisticated RAM controller and custom chips for 32 bit memory access. Maybe the design decision was made because they had 16 bits designs for custom chips etc. that could easily be added to the Falcon (reuse=lower development cost)? I would call that a lazy approach;)

I found this development document for AAA. It looks pretty neat on paper and much, much better than AGA. It was cancelled in 1993 in favour of more advanced architectures. Probably a good thing by -93. But imagine an Amiga with this architeture in 89-91. Awesome!
http://www.thule.no/haynie/research/nyx/docs/AAA.pdf
 

Offline paul1981

Re: Atari vs Amiga article
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2014, 09:08:01 AM »
"The Atari & Commodore machines can operate at many different screen  resolutions and would require a multisync monitor for optimum flexibility. Also,  the Commodore Amiga 1200's maximum resolutions are interlaced(i). It's maximum non-interlaced resolution is 640x480. Both the Atari Falcon & Commodore Amiga 1200 will also overscan, giving them more resolution in that mode and making  them suitable for Desk Top Video (DTV). The Apple Performa would require an analog VGA type monitor. With additional Video Ram, the Performa can display up  to 32,000 colors maximum."

Maximum non-interlaced resoulution for the A1200 is 1280 x 256 or 1472 x 290 (with overscan) not 640 x 480. Oh, and wasn't the apple a bag of %&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!%&$#?@!e.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 09:25:38 AM by paul1981 »
 

Offline rzookol

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 77
    • Show only replies by rzookol
Re: Atari vs Amiga article
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2014, 10:26:53 AM »
Quote from: gertsy;758779
He did mention accelerators in the expansion bay.
16 bit data pipe on a 32 bit 68030. Sounds like something Sinclair would do. On a machine with 8 channel 16 bit sound, a midi interface and DSP.  Crazy hobbling for what was at the time a dream spec machine.



Not only sinclair:
https://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_performa/specs/mac_performa_400.html