Should have used the NTSC & AGA fixed version in NTSC mode to see what is faster then.
I think the music is a remake which is why it sounded like it was nothing like it to that other guy just to clear the confusion so no more of those comments get posted toward him.
That guy should have said the more obvious clearly though so you people understand what he's saying :P
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow! Your horrid Techno/hip-hip, whatever kind of crap you call music drove me crazy! Why not talk a spell and let people know what you are doing here? That stupid boom - boom - boom "music" is ridiculous! I bet you play Guitar Hero too!
really amiga user cant handle hearing another computer can have similar capablites.
no!! amiga has to be superiour to everything.
no computer is superiour.
i own both, there are alot of design traits i prefer in the st, there are one or 2 i prefer in the amiga.
amiga user like to use terms they like aga chips, and compare to say a (86) stfm, when aga (92) was the last graphics chip designed in a comercial amiga, and the Atari falcon which is comparable to the A1200 has comparable capablities
the main reason between the larger differences, in the st and stf ranges 85-86, was purely down to the market they went for which was the consumer market. where amiga went for and failed in the pro market.
only releasing to the consumer market in 87 the 500 the same year atari released a blitter chip machine the mega st in 87, ste in 89, the earlier mega st didnt have the chip, due to late delivery of the chips.
but both atari and commadore based their computers on the same jay miner design
Atari st runs faster than the amiga as standard and is often smoother geof crammonds grand prix is better to play on a standard st than it is an amiga ..The amiga will always be my favourite .
Can you imagine hooking up a PS3 to an Xbox to play a local multiplayer game these days? It just would never be allowed to happen. Gaming/computing was far more exciting and innotative back in the 80s and early 90s. Those were the days...
@Harp00nX it would truly be great with cross platform multi play abilities :) from the fist typed in game on a Zx80 clone (Lamda 80) to my xbox, gaming has always been fun.
@MiddlemanOne Ye over a network, im taking about physically connecting two different consoles/computers in the same room with a cable. If it happened you can bet it would be disabled by the next firmware update from todays petty companies.
very nice, the only goof is although you are playing in sync, the clouds show a different pattern for each player, while they should look identical if it was really in sync :)
Playing modules/samples on a 7.14Mhz Amiga takes almost no CPU time at all. The same goes for copper + blitter + sprites in most cases.
There are actually cases where full usage of the Amiga chipset slows down the CPU, but still the system gains VAAAAAASTLY more more than it loses in overal "multimeda performance". The Atari probably loses the extra 0.86Mhz CPU performance in TOS just to update the mouse pointer at 60fps. (it has to update 1920 bytes of graphics data each second)
The Amiga, on the other hand, was a breakthrough in technology and had custom chips that could do things other home computers couldn't do in years to come. The reason the original Amiga had a 7.14Mhz clock frequency was actually to GAIN graphics performance, because the custom chips and the CPU was synchronized to the pixel clock. On a 68000 equipped Amiga, custom chips took every odd memory access cycle while the CPU took every even cycle and therefore almost no CPU slowdown at all occurred.
Both the ST and the Amiga had a floppy read rate of about 250 kilobits / second = ~30kb/s.
As stated before, the REAL reason why Amiga games loads slower, is because they are generally larger. (sample data + extra graphics)
Technically speaking the ST was put together with parts already on the market and is basically a "frame buffer" connected directly to the CPU + YM2149/AY38910 + memory + glue logic. Nothing new actually, Just EXTREMELY affordable in 1985.
Amiga Fan boys. Commodore stole a patents from Granada TV for graphics, from Atari for the Joystick, parts from the Atari 800 sound chip, the list goes on and on. The ST had a faster processor and memory, higher un-interlaced resolution, Midi, IBM standard Floppy, built in RF, built in PSU, and on we go. The Amiga was a technical abortion. 99% of the people who did word processing, or ran business software (The little they had) on the Amiga are now blind, or have flickery eyes.
@meowmmmmm Sounds like someone's jealous of our multitasking, real sound, and screen resolution higher than a postage stamp. Oh, and the better graphics capabilites, nicer keyboard, expandability, more flexible floppy drive, and a seperate PSU so we didn't have to give ourselves a hernia every time whe moved the keyboard.
Oh, and I'm sorry you were too poor to buy zorro bus midi adapter and a REAL computer. I bet they only added midi ports to say sorry about the ZX Spectrum sound chip.
@richardmaudsley77 The ST had a different sound chip than the Speccy, and came out before the Speccy 128 did.
I do miss the Amiga's 8 Bit PCM only sound. NOT. And the high resolution interlaced graphics, Not. The non standard Zorro expandability, Not.. How about Workbench which was not even on ROM, Not. Pathetically slow floppy, Not.
Hey mom and dad, I want this expensive Amiga Computer. It does everything we need, as long as we only want to play games, or gen lock video.
@meowmmmmm Actually I think you'll find the 128 has the same chip. You think zorro is "non-standard"? Non-standard to what? Hows 400kb floppies doing for you?
Hey kids, I know you wanted an amiga but I got fired for drinking. I'm sorry you'll have to deal with this low res slow and unstable monstrosity. Yes I know the file menu takes up all the screen. I'm sorry that switching between one program to another takes 5 minutes. I'm sorry you're going to get bullied for having the losing system.
@richardmaudsley77 The sound chip is similar, yet very different. The St only used single sided floppies for a very short time. Double sided came out before the Amiga did.
Slow > ST has faster processors than the Amiga. Unstable > The ST was used by more businessin in Germany, than the Amiga in the whole world. Low Resolution > The ST could output at 640 x 400 at 85 Hz non Interlaced. Yep it was only Black and white, but have you ever tried doing can or DTP with an interlaced screen
@meowmmmmm sond chip similar? The same. Only variation is where they sourced it.
The STF, with the non shit drive, came out in 86. The amiga 85. "faster processors" Meaning simply the CPU was 0.8Mhz faster, but then loaded up with Blitter, Copper, and PCM duties so it had bugger all processing time left. And I dunno where you got that figure about germany from, as the Amiga outsold the ST series so badly atari abandoned the market and did games consoles again.
Sound chip was made under license by Yamaha, and contained more hardware. Paula was based off the 8 Bit Atari Pokey chip
The A1000 came out in late 85, the A500 discussed came out in 87. The Amiga had some cool hardware, but once again, the main CPU was in wait state during this. Playing music on the Amiga required more CPU clocks than the ST music.
Sales for the ST were higher in Germany, Amiga were higher in the UK. (Check government sales records)
@meowmmmmm "based on" POKEY so much as they had the same main designer. What "more hardware" did the Atari soundchip have over the 128 spectrums?
Nobody mentioned the A500, since we're arguing "pure" it's strictly 85 vs 85. And like I've said, only amigas that weren't equiped with fast ram (i.e none) had to pause the CPU for the other chips.
You're using misremembered "facts" filtered through 20 years of ST forums, all to pretend your shitbox is good for anything but MIDI. That's pathetic.
The YM2149 in the ST contained sound hardware, including extra to also control the Floppy, Serial and Parallel Ports. Stil say it's the same?
Fast ram slightly sped up certain parts of the Amiga, but the Amiga wait state problems were a fault of Agnus. When Agnus was accessing certain parts of the system, the CPU and other support chips could not.
Note that many games could not do detailed graphics and music at the same time due to this.
@meowmmmmm No, you are full of crap. Saying that the sound chip in the ST also had I/O circuitry does not change the fact the actual SOUND part is identical. What's next, OCS/AGA paula are different because of the packaging?
Fast ram doubled (on the A500) to Sextupled (A1200) system performance, idiot. That part the CPU couldn't access was called Chip ram. Your entire fucking retarded argument is that half the time the CPU couldn't use graphics memory. That's how dumb you are. Get out.
@richardmaudsley77 You not an Amiga fan boy, your a fanatic. You're foul mouthed and know nothing. When you have programmed both systems come back and make a valid conversation. Until then, find some soap to wash your mouth out, then educate yourself on two systems that you do not have a clue about.
@meowmmmmm Trap sprung. You don't have any valid arguments, so you've decided to attack my choice of language based on your outdated superstitions instead. You lose. I win.
I won way back in 1985, but I'm glad 25 years later you've re-affimed it for me. Now if you'll excuse me I'll be off, got to emulate your frankenstien shitpile on my amiga.
@meowmmmmm It's really funny though that you handwave away the ST's missing features as not important. I'm sure multitasking and the ability to play real sounds without CPU intervention are really not important.
@richardmaudsley77 The ST could have been better. At the time though, not many computers had the memory to take advantage of true Multitasking.
The Amiga sound part is misleading as it had no tone generator, and while while 'Paula" used DMA to access ram, the CPU was put in wait state. Who gives a crap about 8 Bit sound, when I had mine hooked up to a Roland Keyboard.
What about reliability? The Amiga was the 1980's xbox 360. Had a drastically higher failure rate than the Atari ST.
@meowmmmmm By the way, we had 640x480 colour interlaced from 1990 and it only took replacing two chips to use it in older models too.
No tone generator? Paula can do FM and AM. Nobody did back in the then, Because we had 800K floppy disks and a microphone. The CPU wasn't in wait state on anything but a bare machine, learn to fast ram. Pretty sure your roland cost more than the amiga ever did.
What about reliability? Amiga was the 80's 360. Had a drastically higher purchase rate than the ST.
Lotus is a prime example of where the Amiga shines compared to the ST.
Of course the Amiga version takes longer to load (as most Amiga games do) because the sample data takes a lot of extra memory and the graphics uses one extra bitplane.
To say the only difference between the Amiga and ST version is the sound is kind of like saying that you are blind.
In real life (not YouTube), It's obvious the Amiga version runs much smoother and has got more colors.
Lotus is a prime example of why custom chips aren't always the best bet ;)
Sure ... sound on the ST is inferior (even tho I like it better on a personal note), but otherwise the games are virtually the same ... just that the amiga version loads and plays almost unplaybly slow.
Please stay serious. The graphics in the ST version have been reduced heavily, to fit to the Processor's speed. And then add digitalsounds there? Do you want to play a game or some interactive slideshow?
To get the same speed AND smoothness you need 32mhz CPU in the STeem emulator and that has no sample playback (which is a massive hit on the 8mhz 68000 in the ST) and it is also using half the colours ;o)
The ST version is pushing the hardware nicely sure, and on Mega STE 16Mhz mode is a fine game but the Amiga game engine could replicate SEAs Outrun coin-op pretty much.
To get the same speed AND smoothness you need 32mhz CPU in the STeem emulator and that has no sample playback (which is a massive hit on the 8mhz 68000 in the ST) and it is also using half the colours ;o)
The ST version is pushing the hardware nicely sure, and on Mega STE 16Mhz mode is a fine game but the Amiga game engine could replicate SEAs Outrun coin-op pretty much.
@factor6 the first amiga (85) only sold to the pro market, wasnt till 87 they release the consumer level 500.
Atari has choose to release at a lower price range with a cut down chip set (atari had the blitter85) they released the bltter chiped mega st design in 86 (though earlist examples never included)
the amiga 500 was released with the higher speced chip set to combat atari's 2 year lead.
atari had sold so many st's, it became impossible for programmers to make use of the blitter chip
ST less colours, even less details. Lotus is one example of how superior the AMIGA was, compared to the standard ST. The AMIGA version has to load even much more content for graphics and sound, which explaing the longer loading times.
It's also a bad trick, to use ST at 60Hz and 50Hz on the Amiga. This acts directly on the shown frames. To switch AMIGA from 50Hz to 60Hz on an RGB display is only some small register change. So there is no excuse for that.
@1337Shockwav3 If you think the Amiga version is unplayable, your brand loyalty is blinding you. I've never noticed a difference in speed, only the STs less detailed graphics.
@richardmaudsley77 hardware wise theres very little difference between the capablity of a mega st or ste and an amiga (87) 500, 500+ or 600.
problem was atari designed the original st, stf series down to a price range to get early domination of the consumer market, while amiga went for the proffesional.
when atari put the blitter chip in its consumer level machines, they found developers wouldnt develop for it and negate the millions who had bought a (86) stf , but the ste was just as capable
@cant1rac Very wrong. There was massive differences between the hardware. The CPU ran at a different speeds, DMA, Copper chip, Blitter chip, screen modes. The only thing they shared was the same CPU, and even that was at a different speed.
@Ziplock9000 hmmm!! a blitter chip, i seam to remember my ste having one of them. and the mega st before it ohh and wasnt there one in the atari falcon, pardon me beg my pudding......lol
@cant1rac The vast majority of ST models sold never had a blitter, and the Falcon only sold a few thousand for example, stop being a pedant about models that never really took off. What about the other things I mentioned like DMA, Copper Chip, Screen modes, CPU speed, ECA, AGA etc..As you can see, the Amiga and ST differ in more ways than they are alike.
@Ziplock9000 the ste was a huge seller, but atari had sold too many st/f models, for game devlopers to ignore in game devlopment. the reason why the first st, didnt have a blitter to begin with, was due to atari court case with commadore, claiming when they had bought amiga from under their nose and returned ataris loan, they had stolen ataris property, ie the blitter chip.
atari lost the court case, and had to redesign the chip they thought was theres to avoid patent restrictions.
@Ziplock9000 a lot of the design on both machines came from the same people, ie. blitter chips are different, but in many ways they are similar because they both come from jay miners design.
its more design varients to avoid litigation.
even a lot of the differences arent that different, but yes there are differences and you mention a few.
but the capablities of both machines are pretty much similar
@Ziplock9000 jay miner, was critical of atari and stated his reasons for leaving to set up lorraine.
he was critical off commadore not putting in features more recognisable with the st.
quote.
"Actually MIDI isn't so far away from the standard serial port on the Amiga, and soon after the machine was released, someone came up with a tiny plug-in box that gave you all the MIDI inputs and outputs, but Commodore refused to manufacture and push it which was one of my big disagreements with them. "
@cant1rac You may want to re-read what I said as I did get my facts right. I said the *FALCON* only sold a few thousand (5000 in France for example). You are drifting WAAAAYY off the point now with side issues and irrelavant points. What I was debating is your point about the differences in the hardware between Amiga 500/+/600 and the mega st or ste. The chipsets were almost completely different and thus capabilities too.
@cant1rac This is what I said "The vast majority of ST models sold never had a blitter, and the Falcon only sold a few thousand for example,".. I was reffering to the Falcon.
@Ziplock9000 also there are design varients, im never said there wasn't. but since they came from a similar source, they are not that different,
graphical capablities of the falcon for example many would say is better than the a1200, but i would say that the blitter isnt better in either. there is differences in memory handling.
porting software between atari and amiga is fairly easy, and much off the software for amiga 85-87 are straight atari ports.
If we just look at one of the chips in the chipset, the CPU for the most popular Amiga model (A500) we see that it ran at 7.09 Mhz (PAL). The competing Atari at the time ran at 8 Mhz. This is a difference of 23%, which at the time was MASSIVE. Other chips in the amiga simply did not exist at all in the Atari model at the time. Therefore as I said, there is more differences than similarities. The games physically looked and sounded differernt too. (This vid)
@Ziplock9000 the st had better memory handling, id dispute your 23% claim as .91mhz is not 23% of 8mhz. but the differences between each part of the system + on the atari side and - point on the atari side.
@cant1rac Correct 11.37% and It made a real difference at the time with 3D games, ask anyone that played Stunt Car Racer, it was very visible. You cant get 'good' memory handling with a 68000 as it has no MMU. That restricts you to only 68030+ machines.
my ste which is comparable with the 500 and 500+ ran at 8mhz. stop comparing an original st with a 500 or later amiga computer released over 2 years later.
and the ST did have better memory handling than the amiga, but really the difference are minor, stunt car runs as fast on my ste as it does on my amiga 500+
@cant1rac Once again you are not reading what i said correcly. I said the The Amiga 500 ran at 7.09Mhz (PAL) and the ST at 8Mhz, not the other way around. And sorry, memory handling/protection HAS to be a function of the CPU and MMU which is leveraged by the OS. This means a 68030 or a 68020 with an MMU. Regarding stunt car racer, you are again reading it back to front.
@Ziplock9000 yes i agree, but since very few os were multi tasking and very few programmes took advantage, it doesnt make that practical difference in use, but it was an important inovation that amiga should be commended for
@cant1rac Amiga was also used a lot for Video work, even movie level stuff (Babalon 5 with the Video toaster). We never even mentioned the beastly Amiga 2000,3000 and 4000 that did not sell well to businesses but packed a punch. A4000 came *as stock* witha 68040
@Ziplock9000 yes but again we are comparing consumer level which the majority of st's were with a proffesional product at a completely different price range.
the amiga 1000 was superiour in a lot of ways to the original to the st, but we are talking completely different points of the market.
@cant1rac I'd not really consider the A1000 part of the equation as very few people owned them in Europe. It really started with the A500 which I personally consider the best home computer of all time, and so do most computer historians.
@Ziplock9000 i doas well but a large desktop foot print with a poor large external power supply and heath robinson modulator, for me detracts from the design and i prefer the st design.
i was never saying the amiga was inferiour or less capable than a st, and your assertion that the vast majority of games on the amiga are superiour i think if you compare them there is far less than you think
@cant1rac When I say games were better, I was not reffering to gameplay. Simply the graphics modes and sound, which were better on the Amiga for the vast majority of the battle. Atari did catch up as CBM stood still, but it was at the very end of the journey. Atari *would* have been better as the Falcon was better than the A1200, but CBM folded and Atari went onto consoles.
@Ziplock9000 id say most games i played there is absolutly no difference at all, all game development went to the st from 85-87 since the a1000 didnt sell to gamers, that started to swing round in 87 with the release of the 500 and by 88 game devlopment had switch to being favored on the amiga format.
a huge bulk of st and amiga games are identical, but there are a lot of games as well where the amiga version is better.vast majority are not better, but there is a sizable amount
@cant1rac Some are direct ports, but the majority have better sound for the Amiga. Also a smaller majority use the Amiga's better graphics modes and hardware scrolling. As mentioned the *too late for the party* St's did catch up, but account for a small fraction of game sales.
@Ziplock9000 it wasnt a case off catch up consumer St's were comparable in capablity, just that early 2 years off success over amiga tied game developer hands to had to retain compatablity with the lower models
my amiga 500+ or ste has very little differences that would make one superior than the other.
i perefer the ste's better peripherals expansion, where the amiga has better hardware expansion.
i prefer the built in modulator, tos with a built in gem os, midi, power unit and hardware switch.
design elements that i feel make the STE a better machine than my amiga 500+ the only thing truely better in the amiga is multi tasking support was avilable earlier.
@cant1rac In Late 1989 when the STE came out to play catch up to the Amiga, the race had already essentially been won in Western Europe for the Amiga. It stood out like a sore thumb that Amiga games looked and sounded better than the ST versions. Too little too late in general for Atari.
the difference between games has nothing to do with the post 86 Atari st's capablities.
rather that the early st's were so succesful that game developers had to cater for the lesser capablities off the stf and fm.
where as the amiga between 85 and 87 was a complete commercial failure, and they could effectively enter the gaming market unbound, Amiga only released a consumer blitter model in 87 due to the St's run away success
@cant1rac There are so many ST and Amiga models that it becomes complicated and possibly impossible to compare them fairly. All we can do is compare the whole brief 1980's/1990's battle. During that time the vast majority of Amiga games looked and sounded better than the ST versions.
@cant1rac Unlike the Amiga which in history stands out for having multiple great capabilities and operating system, the same cannot be said for the ST. The only thing that people will look back at the ST as noteworthy is it's MIDI port. Regardless of why and how, It was and always will be in the shadow of the Amiga.
@Ziplock9000 i think thats a fanboy statement. i unlike you are not trying to claim the st is superiour to anything.
the amiga has its pluses and minuses as does the archamidies the apple the ibm pc and and atari st, beos pc or any off the great computers of that era
your choice off computer is down to your needs.
i dont like more set of design feature of the st design than the amiga, thats my choice, but in no way am i saying that make the st superiour to the amiga.
@cant1rac Yes I am bias towards Amiga, but I can also demonstrate the hard facts like sales figures, the screen modes used for games and the sound too. The fact is that Atari caught up too late to make an impact. CMB was caught sleeping with the A1200, which was not as good as it should have been. Same sound chip, AGA should have been 24bit colour and chunk mode. CDTV was even worse, but it was all over by then.
@Ziplock9000 its obvious your biased toward amiga,...lol but you've remaind polite and factual, which i do appreciate and hope i have been too
id say the only reason st didnt retain its lead in game development, was even releasing a blitter consumer chip machine in 87 the same time as amiga, there hand were tied by the early success with models pitched lower down the market
@cant1rac Technically it was more than just the blitter, it's the hardware scrolling, better screen modes (more colours), hardware sprites, better sound and DMA. All of those made game look better in that VERY crucial time in 1987.. by then the Amiga brand had won the hearts and minds of gamers who seen the Amiga as the next CBM 64.
@Ziplock9000 atari gambled, they're release shedule was far behind with cmd winning the court case, they could release a consumer model with no blitter and short term domminate the computer landascpe, which they did 85-87, or they could wait and release in 86 with a lower priced blitter capable model, they should have waited.
but they were scared of lossing an early lead on commadore, in the end that early led, lost them the lead and created compatablity problems from the 500's release
@Ziplock9000 when i mean compatablity problems i mean a game developer wouldnt release` a ste only game since so many st, stf and fm models were sold between 85 and 87
@cant1rac Thats strange because Amiga game developers had no problem releasing AGA games for the A1200 when so many ppl had A500/+/600's. In 85-87, I'd take a guess that the CBM 64 was still the best selller, although that is just a guess. Unless by dominate you mean best capabilities.
@Ziplock9000 it seamed to be a major problem on st, i guess devlopers figured on a slow down in st sales because off the amiga, and felt saturation of atari blitter models wouldnt penetrate enough in the market quick enough, because amiga was making such big sales
@Ziplock9000 most games right up to Atari pulling the plug, say they will run on the st f models, very few say ste as the minimum spec or a blitter chip
@cant1rac CBM almost did not go under, CBM UK wanted to buy the rights from CBM International, but (if I remember correctly) CBM International said no. Since then the brand name has been kicked around like a 2 cent hooker. The current owners have a site that looks like its from 1995 and have no idea WTF they are doing with the brand. At least Atari lasted longer in other forms.
@cant1rac Yup, nice chatting. For CBM, they should have never made the 500+ and 600 as they were totally pointless and obvious stopgaps. Instead they should have released the A1200 a year earlier with a one-byte per pixel screen mode as the PC would win the game race with 2.5D games. The CD32 was a damn joke too with a 'hack' sortof-not-quite chunky to planar chip. The old fationed planer screenmodes killed the Amiga for me or we would have had Doom on the Amiga first.
@Ziplock9000 many mega st (87) and ste owners like myself, were pissed off seeing some amiga games and getting a lesser version, when these computers were capable enough, because of legacy compatablity.
so much so i bought an amiga 500+, and other than the hardware expansion slot and odd game, i thought id wasted my money
@cant1rac At least you seen sense in the end and got an Amiga!!! lol. My Journey was Atari 2600, ZX81, Atari 600XL, CBM 64, BBC B, A500, A1200, CD32 and finally PC with PS1, PS2, XBOX, XBOX 360.
@Ziplock9000 all very good machines still have a atari vcs heavy sixer, an amstrad cpc, atari ste an amiga 500+, atari jaguar, snes, n64, sega saturn, gamescube, ps2, xbox, xbox 360 and a wii
@cant1rac For me the PC killed the Amiga in 1990 with one game 'Wing-Commander'. At that point and later confirmed with 2.5D games like Wolf3D and Doom it was obvious that one-byte-per pixel screen modes were imperative. CBM had enough time to change the A1200 to add the new screen mode, but they did not. By then the market was screaming for textured 2.5D games. The half arsed chunky chip in the CD32 was a freaking joke and made it terminal. By then, the PC had won.
@Ziplock9000 correction i like more design features of the st than the amiga , but that personal prefrance and my need not yours and not to say the st is superiour.
your computer needs or another may mean the amiga is the better design
@88try88 lucky guy. I was a school boy back in the days so I coudln't afford much. Buing Amiga 500, extra 512K RAM and TV modulator was a large expense for my parents so I had to stay with A500 for years. I didn't ahve any idea about BBSes and stuff :) Even the phone calls weren't cheap :) But later when I got A1200 I tried out some local BBSes.
@factor6 I know you won't believe this, but I'm a 60 year old grandmother! I fell in love with BBSing when my teenage son got involved, I saw the potential for quality message forums for mature people. Great idea, bad timing. Something called "The internet" came along and the rest is history.
@richardmaudsley77 Ahh. The comments of a highly un-educated Amiga user. Believe me i've had both A1200 and Ste1040 . Had the software houses supported the Ste properly it would have proved more than a match from the amiga brand.. At the last check I remember that commodore bit the corporate dust and atari went on software developing. I agree then amiga knocked spots off the original ST+ But the STe done the same to the A600 its nearest rival. And remember ' Do not copy this post ' LOL
the STE machines were still worse, graphically than the OCS amigas (same palette but half as many on screen). The soundchip was a bit better, but the OS still sucked (CP/M-68K and GEM, sorry atari "tos" lol). Comparing it with an A1200 is suicidal.
The Falcon was decent though, but what's the deal with Mint weirdness? Confusing.
At any rate, Atari went bankrupt too, unless you want to claim infogrames trade name. In which case, commodore is alive four times over.
@richardmaudsley77 Did you own,use,programme and experience both machines at their limit? I did. Less than 1% of software exploited the STe to its limits and thanx to very poor marketing Atari lost millions. They had the machine but its predecesor killed it before it hit the shelves. I am not saying the Amiga was bad in fact quite the opposite. I still use its emulator today. It was more user friendly and aimed more at gamers but strugged everywhere else. I do still think the STe had the edge.
But it didn't. At all. Half the onscreen colours of a first generation amiga, a soundchip with one more channel, and a bargain bin operating system made of leftovers.
What was it better at other than playing an extra sound channel?
How can you compare it to the A1200 with a streight face?
@richardmaudsley77 Sorry mate but I couldn't resist it. Amigay owners are too easy. St guys know the commodore brand was better overall but its so funny watching you guys try and defend it. Ive spent years catching amiga live ones.lol. Just remember this. Who's machine did John Connor steal money with in Terminator 2. Cheesy I know. Now dont reply Cos Ive removed my eyeballs and wont be able to read it. Cheers for a good old Amiga isnt as good as atari debate. It was good to see you agree.LMFao
@richardmaudsley77 Long live diamond shaped function keys, grey plastic boxes and an acid inspired green desktop. Apparently Mr Atari got 'paula' up the duff and thats where the Archimedes came from. Denise tried to help her but Gary thought it was funny so agnus hit him. lmao
@kjw7000 i still cant get over outrun being ported from a druggie on crack ffs was made on the Sharp X68000 which was basicly the same as the amiga and atari put together but yet they gave us diarrhea :(
It was an early Amiga game, and British devs weren't used to 16-bit tech, so the results were often poor. Just look at Amiga games made between 89-94 - and compare them to the titles that were made between 87-88. The older games are mostly very weak in comparison. It took time for devs to get to grips with the Amiga and 16-bit tech in general.
Also, I think a lot of ports were rubbish, simply because developers weren't given much help from the original arcade dev.
@marzsyndrome the A500 it a little bit tuned: It has Kickstart 3.1, that's why it boots differently than 1.3, 68020 turbo board and AlfaData harddisk controller.
Should have used the NTSC & AGA fixed version in NTSC mode to see what is faster then.
I think the music is a remake which is why it sounded like it was nothing like it to that other guy just to clear the confusion so no more of those comments get posted toward him.
That guy should have said the more obvious clearly though so you people understand what he's saying :P
wrestletube1 3 weeks ago
I just bought an Atari 520 STFM with lots of games, it rocks.
NTxC 1 month ago
the hell
igorbog88 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The music is better from 02:34 on :-)
elwoodfr 1 month ago
Comment removed
elwoodfr 1 month ago
I don't llike your music, and as a result its not putting this video in a very favorable light. Have a nice day.
averagemale2000 1 month ago
the sound a lot better than the genesis
saiiad737 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow! Your horrid Techno/hip-hip, whatever kind of crap you call music drove me crazy! Why not talk a spell and let people know what you are doing here? That stupid boom - boom - boom "music" is ridiculous! I bet you play Guitar Hero too!
DickLodge68 4 months ago
@DickLodge68 well you sir seem to be very mentally limited.
that "RIDICULOUS" music IS the THEME MUSIC of the game and one of greatest musical pieces ever.
jarnoob 4 months ago 9
@DickLodge68
You are and idiot its the theme tune you moron .
paulb4uk 2 months ago
Comment removed
cant1rac 5 months ago
really amiga user cant handle hearing another computer can have similar capablites.
no!! amiga has to be superiour to everything.
no computer is superiour.
i own both, there are alot of design traits i prefer in the st, there are one or 2 i prefer in the amiga.
amiga user like to use terms they like aga chips, and compare to say a (86) stfm, when aga (92) was the last graphics chip designed in a comercial amiga, and the Atari falcon which is comparable to the A1200 has comparable capablities
cant1rac 5 months ago
the main reason between the larger differences, in the st and stf ranges 85-86, was purely down to the market they went for which was the consumer market. where amiga went for and failed in the pro market.
only releasing to the consumer market in 87 the 500 the same year atari released a blitter chip machine the mega st in 87, ste in 89, the earlier mega st didnt have the chip, due to late delivery of the chips.
but both atari and commadore based their computers on the same jay miner design
cant1rac 5 months ago
Comment removed
cant1rac 5 months ago
Why does the Amiga version have borders on the screen whilst the ST version doesn't ?
dark1ankh 5 months ago
eskiler bilir mükemmel perfect .....
onur22362236 6 months ago
Can i join with my amstrad CPC ? lol...
Anyway, awesome, I didn't knew such thing was possible.
macdeath69 6 months ago
Does it really matter :) I looved my Amiga and I have never played any games in split screen as much as LETC :) just brilliant and endless fun
Joliie 7 months ago
ST version was and is total shit. Jerky movement, crap sound.
MrFlibble2011 8 months ago 2
@MrFlibble2011
Atari st runs faster than the amiga as standard and is often smoother geof crammonds grand prix is better to play on a standard st than it is an amiga ..The amiga will always be my favourite .
paulb4uk 2 months ago
Can you imagine hooking up a PS3 to an Xbox to play a local multiplayer game these days? It just would never be allowed to happen. Gaming/computing was far more exciting and innotative back in the 80s and early 90s. Those were the days...
Harp00nX 8 months ago
@Harp00nX it would truly be great with cross platform multi play abilities :) from the fist typed in game on a Zx80 clone (Lamda 80) to my xbox, gaming has always been fun.
Joliie 7 months ago
@Harp00nX The new Counter Strike will be able to do that....it is cross platform compatible with the Xbox 360, PS3 and PC...
MiddlemanOne 5 months ago
@MiddlemanOne Ye over a network, im taking about physically connecting two different consoles/computers in the same room with a cable. If it happened you can bet it would be disabled by the next firmware update from todays petty companies.
Harp00nX 5 months ago
very nice, the only goof is although you are playing in sync, the clouds show a different pattern for each player, while they should look identical if it was really in sync :)
TheRealDirkies 8 months ago
I cant understand why people still think the ST was better as the Amiga !
The ST is just a 16 bit C64 like the Commodore godfather intended to , the Amiga is far better with its custom chips.
If you know a little about hardware you would agree with me !
Pinman1973 9 months ago
all i got to say hi ha ha ha
perspectivehorizon 11 months ago
amiga version is a lot smoother what are you guys talking about? lol. Also much more detail in the graphics.
animaze86 11 months ago 8
Hello, I see you've used our remix of Lotus turbo challenge II.
I am Dj Alundra.
I bet anything that you downloaded the theme on the website of amigaremix.
haha.
I'm glad you put our tune on your video.
This shows that you like;)
5 stars for the video.
Bye.
Att: Dj Alundra
pussi24 1 year ago
Comment removed
pussi24 1 year ago
Comment removed
pussi24 1 year ago
Playing modules/samples on a 7.14Mhz Amiga takes almost no CPU time at all. The same goes for copper + blitter + sprites in most cases.
There are actually cases where full usage of the Amiga chipset slows down the CPU, but still the system gains VAAAAAASTLY more more than it loses in overal "multimeda performance". The Atari probably loses the extra 0.86Mhz CPU performance in TOS just to update the mouse pointer at 60fps. (it has to update 1920 bytes of graphics data each second)
MrAhle2 1 year ago
The Amiga, on the other hand, was a breakthrough in technology and had custom chips that could do things other home computers couldn't do in years to come. The reason the original Amiga had a 7.14Mhz clock frequency was actually to GAIN graphics performance, because the custom chips and the CPU was synchronized to the pixel clock. On a 68000 equipped Amiga, custom chips took every odd memory access cycle while the CPU took every even cycle and therefore almost no CPU slowdown at all occurred.
MrAhle2 1 year ago
Both the ST and the Amiga had a floppy read rate of about 250 kilobits / second = ~30kb/s.
As stated before, the REAL reason why Amiga games loads slower, is because they are generally larger. (sample data + extra graphics)
Technically speaking the ST was put together with parts already on the market and is basically a "frame buffer" connected directly to the CPU + YM2149/AY38910 + memory + glue logic. Nothing new actually, Just EXTREMELY affordable in 1985.
MrAhle2 1 year ago
Amiga Fan boys. Commodore stole a patents from Granada TV for graphics, from Atari for the Joystick, parts from the Atari 800 sound chip, the list goes on and on. The ST had a faster processor and memory, higher un-interlaced resolution, Midi, IBM standard Floppy, built in RF, built in PSU, and on we go. The Amiga was a technical abortion. 99% of the people who did word processing, or ran business software (The little they had) on the Amiga are now blind, or have flickery eyes.
meowmmmmm 1 year ago
@meowmmmmm Sounds like someone's jealous of our multitasking, real sound, and screen resolution higher than a postage stamp. Oh, and the better graphics capabilites, nicer keyboard, expandability, more flexible floppy drive, and a seperate PSU so we didn't have to give ourselves a hernia every time whe moved the keyboard.
Oh, and I'm sorry you were too poor to buy zorro bus midi adapter and a REAL computer. I bet they only added midi ports to say sorry about the ZX Spectrum sound chip.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
@richardmaudsley77 The ST had a different sound chip than the Speccy, and came out before the Speccy 128 did.
I do miss the Amiga's 8 Bit PCM only sound. NOT. And the high resolution interlaced graphics, Not. The non standard Zorro expandability, Not.. How about Workbench which was not even on ROM, Not. Pathetically slow floppy, Not.
Hey mom and dad, I want this expensive Amiga Computer. It does everything we need, as long as we only want to play games, or gen lock video.
meowmmmmm 1 year ago
@meowmmmmm Actually I think you'll find the 128 has the same chip. You think zorro is "non-standard"? Non-standard to what? Hows 400kb floppies doing for you?
Hey kids, I know you wanted an amiga but I got fired for drinking. I'm sorry you'll have to deal with this low res slow and unstable monstrosity. Yes I know the file menu takes up all the screen. I'm sorry that switching between one program to another takes 5 minutes. I'm sorry you're going to get bullied for having the losing system.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
@richardmaudsley77 The sound chip is similar, yet very different. The St only used single sided floppies for a very short time. Double sided came out before the Amiga did.
Slow > ST has faster processors than the Amiga. Unstable > The ST was used by more businessin in Germany, than the Amiga in the whole world. Low Resolution > The ST could output at 640 x 400 at 85 Hz non Interlaced. Yep it was only Black and white, but have you ever tried doing can or DTP with an interlaced screen
meowmmmmm 1 year ago
@meowmmmmm sond chip similar? The same. Only variation is where they sourced it.
The STF, with the non shit drive, came out in 86. The amiga 85. "faster processors" Meaning simply the CPU was 0.8Mhz faster, but then loaded up with Blitter, Copper, and PCM duties so it had bugger all processing time left. And I dunno where you got that figure about germany from, as the Amiga outsold the ST series so badly atari abandoned the market and did games consoles again.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
@richardmaudsley77 Fan Boy.
Sound chip was made under license by Yamaha, and contained more hardware. Paula was based off the 8 Bit Atari Pokey chip
The A1000 came out in late 85, the A500 discussed came out in 87. The Amiga had some cool hardware, but once again, the main CPU was in wait state during this. Playing music on the Amiga required more CPU clocks than the ST music.
Sales for the ST were higher in Germany, Amiga were higher in the UK. (Check government sales records)
meowmmmmm 1 year ago
@meowmmmmm "based on" POKEY so much as they had the same main designer. What "more hardware" did the Atari soundchip have over the 128 spectrums?
Nobody mentioned the A500, since we're arguing "pure" it's strictly 85 vs 85. And like I've said, only amigas that weren't equiped with fast ram (i.e none) had to pause the CPU for the other chips.
You're using misremembered "facts" filtered through 20 years of ST forums, all to pretend your shitbox is good for anything but MIDI. That's pathetic.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
@richardmaudsley77 Gosh you are full of crap.
The YM2149 in the ST contained sound hardware, including extra to also control the Floppy, Serial and Parallel Ports. Stil say it's the same?
Fast ram slightly sped up certain parts of the Amiga, but the Amiga wait state problems were a fault of Agnus. When Agnus was accessing certain parts of the system, the CPU and other support chips could not.
Note that many games could not do detailed graphics and music at the same time due to this.
meowmmmmm 1 year ago
@meowmmmmm No, you are full of crap. Saying that the sound chip in the ST also had I/O circuitry does not change the fact the actual SOUND part is identical. What's next, OCS/AGA paula are different because of the packaging?
Fast ram doubled (on the A500) to Sextupled (A1200) system performance, idiot. That part the CPU couldn't access was called Chip ram. Your entire fucking retarded argument is that half the time the CPU couldn't use graphics memory. That's how dumb you are. Get out.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
@richardmaudsley77 You not an Amiga fan boy, your a fanatic. You're foul mouthed and know nothing. When you have programmed both systems come back and make a valid conversation. Until then, find some soap to wash your mouth out, then educate yourself on two systems that you do not have a clue about.
meowmmmmm 1 year ago
@meowmmmmm Trap sprung. You don't have any valid arguments, so you've decided to attack my choice of language based on your outdated superstitions instead. You lose. I win.
I won way back in 1985, but I'm glad 25 years later you've re-affimed it for me. Now if you'll excuse me I'll be off, got to emulate your frankenstien shitpile on my amiga.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
@richardmaudsley77 What ever makes you happy, maybe you want to hear some WW2 Jokes?
meowmmmmm 1 year ago
@meowmmmmm 640x480 colour non-interlaced from 1990, my bad.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
@meowmmmmm It's really funny though that you handwave away the ST's missing features as not important. I'm sure multitasking and the ability to play real sounds without CPU intervention are really not important.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
@richardmaudsley77 The ST could have been better. At the time though, not many computers had the memory to take advantage of true Multitasking.
The Amiga sound part is misleading as it had no tone generator, and while while 'Paula" used DMA to access ram, the CPU was put in wait state. Who gives a crap about 8 Bit sound, when I had mine hooked up to a Roland Keyboard.
What about reliability? The Amiga was the 1980's xbox 360. Had a drastically higher failure rate than the Atari ST.
meowmmmmm 1 year ago
@meowmmmmm By the way, we had 640x480 colour interlaced from 1990 and it only took replacing two chips to use it in older models too.
No tone generator? Paula can do FM and AM. Nobody did back in the then, Because we had 800K floppy disks and a microphone. The CPU wasn't in wait state on anything but a bare machine, learn to fast ram. Pretty sure your roland cost more than the amiga ever did.
What about reliability? Amiga was the 80's 360. Had a drastically higher purchase rate than the ST.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
Lotus is a prime example of where the Amiga shines compared to the ST.
Of course the Amiga version takes longer to load (as most Amiga games do) because the sample data takes a lot of extra memory and the graphics uses one extra bitplane.
To say the only difference between the Amiga and ST version is the sound is kind of like saying that you are blind.
In real life (not YouTube), It's obvious the Amiga version runs much smoother and has got more colors.
MrAhle2 1 year ago
Comment removed
TubeDestroyer2010 1 year ago
@TubeDestroyer2010 Maybe your Mum should have worked harder & bought you a fucking Neo Geo?
shpearg 1 year ago
Comment removed
TubeDestroyer2010 1 year ago
@shpearg harhar thats good. Amiga is for p*ssies
r8qt7 1 year ago
Just two words: Amiga sucks!
r8qt7 1 year ago
Comment removed
TubeDestroyer2010 1 year ago
To mi pripomina, jak jsme se s kamosem mackali u malyho 486 notebooku a hrali "multiplayer" Lotusu 3, jo to byla hra. :)
KubaPSP 1 year ago
Lotus is a prime example of why custom chips aren't always the best bet ;)
Sure ... sound on the ST is inferior (even tho I like it better on a personal note), but otherwise the games are virtually the same ... just that the amiga version loads and plays almost unplaybly slow.
1337Shockwav3 1 year ago
@1337Shockwav3 Exactly. You see only one difference (except sound) - blitter and no blitter. I think ST could do even sampled sounds in this game.
factor6 1 year ago
@factor6
Please stay serious. The graphics in the ST version have been reduced heavily, to fit to the Processor's speed. And then add digitalsounds there? Do you want to play a game or some interactive slideshow?
olynxmano 1 year ago
@factor6
To get the same speed AND smoothness you need 32mhz CPU in the STeem emulator and that has no sample playback (which is a massive hit on the 8mhz 68000 in the ST) and it is also using half the colours ;o)
The ST version is pushing the hardware nicely sure, and on Mega STE 16Mhz mode is a fine game but the Amiga game engine could replicate SEAs Outrun coin-op pretty much.
MadCommodore 11 months ago
@factor6
To get the same speed AND smoothness you need 32mhz CPU in the STeem emulator and that has no sample playback (which is a massive hit on the 8mhz 68000 in the ST) and it is also using half the colours ;o)
The ST version is pushing the hardware nicely sure, and on Mega STE 16Mhz mode is a fine game but the Amiga game engine could replicate SEAs Outrun coin-op pretty much.
MadCommodore 11 months ago
@factor6 the first amiga (85) only sold to the pro market, wasnt till 87 they release the consumer level 500.
Atari has choose to release at a lower price range with a cut down chip set (atari had the blitter85) they released the bltter chiped mega st design in 86 (though earlist examples never included)
the amiga 500 was released with the higher speced chip set to combat atari's 2 year lead.
atari had sold so many st's, it became impossible for programmers to make use of the blitter chip
cant1rac 6 months ago
@1337Shockwav3
ST less colours, even less details. Lotus is one example of how superior the AMIGA was, compared to the standard ST. The AMIGA version has to load even much more content for graphics and sound, which explaing the longer loading times.
It's also a bad trick, to use ST at 60Hz and 50Hz on the Amiga. This acts directly on the shown frames. To switch AMIGA from 50Hz to 60Hz on an RGB display is only some small register change. So there is no excuse for that.
olynxmano 1 year ago
Comment removed
TubeDestroyer2010 1 year ago
@TubeDestroyer2010 aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha :)
Certainly one of the best things I've read on youtube in a very, very long while.
Just as your nick claims, it's 2010 not 1985 ... and wow, you're acting _really_ mature considering you "should" be 37 at the time of writing.
Just get over it, that even your beloved miggy has its weak spots.
1337Shockwav3 1 year ago
Comment removed
TubeDestroyer2010 1 year ago
@TubeDestroyer2010 who'd want to play games, when you can have quality youtube entertainment powered by TubeDestroyer2010 ^^
1337Shockwav3 1 year ago
Comment removed
TubeDestroyer2010 1 year ago
@TubeDestroyer2010 aka TheTubeRuler2009 aka TheTubeRuler - gets off trolling Atari ST vids on youtube... now that's alternative entertainment...
shpearg 1 year ago
@1337Shockwav3 If you think the Amiga version is unplayable, your brand loyalty is blinding you. I've never noticed a difference in speed, only the STs less detailed graphics.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago 9
@richardmaudsley77 Loyality my ass :P They're both nice machines in their own way. Subjectively the ST Version plays a good bit more fluid for me.
1337Shockwav3 1 year ago
@richardmaudsley77 hardware wise theres very little difference between the capablity of a mega st or ste and an amiga (87) 500, 500+ or 600.
problem was atari designed the original st, stf series down to a price range to get early domination of the consumer market, while amiga went for the proffesional.
when atari put the blitter chip in its consumer level machines, they found developers wouldnt develop for it and negate the millions who had bought a (86) stf , but the ste was just as capable
cant1rac 6 months ago
@cant1rac Very wrong. There was massive differences between the hardware. The CPU ran at a different speeds, DMA, Copper chip, Blitter chip, screen modes. The only thing they shared was the same CPU, and even that was at a different speed.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 hmmm!! a blitter chip, i seam to remember my ste having one of them. and the mega st before it ohh and wasnt there one in the atari falcon, pardon me beg my pudding......lol
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac The vast majority of ST models sold never had a blitter, and the Falcon only sold a few thousand for example, stop being a pedant about models that never really took off. What about the other things I mentioned like DMA, Copper Chip, Screen modes, CPU speed, ECA, AGA etc..As you can see, the Amiga and ST differ in more ways than they are alike.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 the ste was a huge seller, but atari had sold too many st/f models, for game devlopers to ignore in game devlopment. the reason why the first st, didnt have a blitter to begin with, was due to atari court case with commadore, claiming when they had bought amiga from under their nose and returned ataris loan, they had stolen ataris property, ie the blitter chip.
atari lost the court case, and had to redesign the chip they thought was theres to avoid patent restrictions.
cant1rac 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 a lot of the design on both machines came from the same people, ie. blitter chips are different, but in many ways they are similar because they both come from jay miners design.
its more design varients to avoid litigation.
even a lot of the differences arent that different, but yes there are differences and you mention a few.
but the capablities of both machines are pretty much similar
cant1rac 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 jay miner, was critical of atari and stated his reasons for leaving to set up lorraine.
he was critical off commadore not putting in features more recognisable with the st.
quote.
"Actually MIDI isn't so far away from the standard serial port on the Amiga, and soon after the machine was released, someone came up with a tiny plug-in box that gave you all the MIDI inputs and outputs, but Commodore refused to manufacture and push it which was one of my big disagreements with them. "
cant1rac 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 if you want to argue get your facts right, a few thousands blitter chip models, utter garbage.
the ste was one off ataris biggest selling models, with only the stfm selling more.
check out ebay there is a huge supply of ste models, a computer that certainly didnt sell a few thousand.
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac You may want to re-read what I said as I did get my facts right. I said the *FALCON* only sold a few thousand (5000 in France for example). You are drifting WAAAAYY off the point now with side issues and irrelavant points. What I was debating is your point about the differences in the hardware between Amiga 500/+/600 and the mega st or ste. The chipsets were almost completely different and thus capabilities too.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 you were implying only a few thousand blitter models were sold, not the millions that were
cant1rac 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cant1rac This is what I said "The vast majority of ST models sold never had a blitter, and the Falcon only sold a few thousand for example,".. I was reffering to the Falcon.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 also there are design varients, im never said there wasn't. but since they came from a similar source, they are not that different,
graphical capablities of the falcon for example many would say is better than the a1200, but i would say that the blitter isnt better in either. there is differences in memory handling.
porting software between atari and amiga is fairly easy, and much off the software for amiga 85-87 are straight atari ports.
i said similar not identical
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac The Falcon was better, but it missed the boat.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
If we just look at one of the chips in the chipset, the CPU for the most popular Amiga model (A500) we see that it ran at 7.09 Mhz (PAL). The competing Atari at the time ran at 8 Mhz. This is a difference of 23%, which at the time was MASSIVE. Other chips in the amiga simply did not exist at all in the Atari model at the time. Therefore as I said, there is more differences than similarities. The games physically looked and sounded differernt too. (This vid)
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 similar architecture (blitter linked with a motorola 68000 processor) using jay miners lorraine project as the base.
never said they were identical.
they have similar and comparable capablities.
comparable model with comparable model (ste with amiga 500+ falcon with A1200)
there are differences i prefer ste builtin modulator, midi, power unit, hardware reset and i like the hardware expansion on the amiga.
cant1rac 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 the st had better memory handling, id dispute your 23% claim as .91mhz is not 23% of 8mhz. but the differences between each part of the system + on the atari side and - point on the atari side.
the performance is on avaerage the same.
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac Correct 11.37% and It made a real difference at the time with 3D games, ask anyone that played Stunt Car Racer, it was very visible. You cant get 'good' memory handling with a 68000 as it has no MMU. That restricts you to only 68030+ machines.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 NOT AT ALL.
my ste which is comparable with the 500 and 500+ ran at 8mhz. stop comparing an original st with a 500 or later amiga computer released over 2 years later.
and the ST did have better memory handling than the amiga, but really the difference are minor, stunt car runs as fast on my ste as it does on my amiga 500+
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac Once again you are not reading what i said correcly. I said the The Amiga 500 ran at 7.09Mhz (PAL) and the ST at 8Mhz, not the other way around. And sorry, memory handling/protection HAS to be a function of the CPU and MMU which is leveraged by the OS. This means a 68030 or a 68020 with an MMU. Regarding stunt car racer, you are again reading it back to front.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@cant1rac For almost the whole lifecycle of all Atari models, the OS was not even Multitasking, which is quite bad.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 yes i agree, but since very few os were multi tasking and very few programmes took advantage, it doesnt make that practical difference in use, but it was an important inovation that amiga should be commended for
cant1rac 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 really i dont know, what the debate is my only point is.
a. there are large similarities in the design
b. were there are difference they are not a great as fan boys would like to belive
c. the which is better is irrevilant because boths capablities are comparable.
if your just a gamer id recommend on of the later amigas.
if your a musician into desktop publishing and like games as well atari may be a better choice
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac Amiga was also used a lot for Video work, even movie level stuff (Babalon 5 with the Video toaster). We never even mentioned the beastly Amiga 2000,3000 and 4000 that did not sell well to businesses but packed a punch. A4000 came *as stock* witha 68040
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 yes but again we are comparing consumer level which the majority of st's were with a proffesional product at a completely different price range.
the amiga 1000 was superiour in a lot of ways to the original to the st, but we are talking completely different points of the market.
compare comparables
cant1rac 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 there is no doubt the amiga 1000 was superior in most ways to any comparable on the market at the time
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac I'd not really consider the A1000 part of the equation as very few people owned them in Europe. It really started with the A500 which I personally consider the best home computer of all time, and so do most computer historians.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 i doas well but a large desktop foot print with a poor large external power supply and heath robinson modulator, for me detracts from the design and i prefer the st design.
i was never saying the amiga was inferiour or less capable than a st, and your assertion that the vast majority of games on the amiga are superiour i think if you compare them there is far less than you think
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac When I say games were better, I was not reffering to gameplay. Simply the graphics modes and sound, which were better on the Amiga for the vast majority of the battle. Atari did catch up as CBM stood still, but it was at the very end of the journey. Atari *would* have been better as the Falcon was better than the A1200, but CBM folded and Atari went onto consoles.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 id say most games i played there is absolutly no difference at all, all game development went to the st from 85-87 since the a1000 didnt sell to gamers, that started to swing round in 87 with the release of the 500 and by 88 game devlopment had switch to being favored on the amiga format.
a huge bulk of st and amiga games are identical, but there are a lot of games as well where the amiga version is better.vast majority are not better, but there is a sizable amount
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac Some are direct ports, but the majority have better sound for the Amiga. Also a smaller majority use the Amiga's better graphics modes and hardware scrolling. As mentioned the *too late for the party* St's did catch up, but account for a small fraction of game sales.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 it wasnt a case off catch up consumer St's were comparable in capablity, just that early 2 years off success over amiga tied game developer hands to had to retain compatablity with the lower models
cant1rac 5 months ago
my amiga 500+ or ste has very little differences that would make one superior than the other.
i perefer the ste's better peripherals expansion, where the amiga has better hardware expansion.
i prefer the built in modulator, tos with a built in gem os, midi, power unit and hardware switch.
design elements that i feel make the STE a better machine than my amiga 500+ the only thing truely better in the amiga is multi tasking support was avilable earlier.
the main element bet
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac In Late 1989 when the STE came out to play catch up to the Amiga, the race had already essentially been won in Western Europe for the Amiga. It stood out like a sore thumb that Amiga games looked and sounded better than the ST versions. Too little too late in general for Atari.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 i'd say i a great deal off games i play there is very little difference.
the biggest difference is in platform side scrollers title, which i dont really play.
and there are a number of better games on ( Atari dungeon master )
but yes if you were going to buy one or the other for gaming id say the amiga as well
cant1rac 5 months ago
the difference between games has nothing to do with the post 86 Atari st's capablities.
rather that the early st's were so succesful that game developers had to cater for the lesser capablities off the stf and fm.
where as the amiga between 85 and 87 was a complete commercial failure, and they could effectively enter the gaming market unbound, Amiga only released a consumer blitter model in 87 due to the St's run away success
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac There are so many ST and Amiga models that it becomes complicated and possibly impossible to compare them fairly. All we can do is compare the whole brief 1980's/1990's battle. During that time the vast majority of Amiga games looked and sounded better than the ST versions.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@cant1rac Unlike the Amiga which in history stands out for having multiple great capabilities and operating system, the same cannot be said for the ST. The only thing that people will look back at the ST as noteworthy is it's MIDI port. Regardless of why and how, It was and always will be in the shadow of the Amiga.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 i think thats a fanboy statement. i unlike you are not trying to claim the st is superiour to anything.
the amiga has its pluses and minuses as does the archamidies the apple the ibm pc and and atari st, beos pc or any off the great computers of that era
your choice off computer is down to your needs.
i dont like more set of design feature of the st design than the amiga, thats my choice, but in no way am i saying that make the st superiour to the amiga.
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac Yes I am bias towards Amiga, but I can also demonstrate the hard facts like sales figures, the screen modes used for games and the sound too. The fact is that Atari caught up too late to make an impact. CMB was caught sleeping with the A1200, which was not as good as it should have been. Same sound chip, AGA should have been 24bit colour and chunk mode. CDTV was even worse, but it was all over by then.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 its obvious your biased toward amiga,...lol but you've remaind polite and factual, which i do appreciate and hope i have been too
id say the only reason st didnt retain its lead in game development, was even releasing a blitter consumer chip machine in 87 the same time as amiga, there hand were tied by the early success with models pitched lower down the market
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac Technically it was more than just the blitter, it's the hardware scrolling, better screen modes (more colours), hardware sprites, better sound and DMA. All of those made game look better in that VERY crucial time in 1987.. by then the Amiga brand had won the hearts and minds of gamers who seen the Amiga as the next CBM 64.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 atari gambled, they're release shedule was far behind with cmd winning the court case, they could release a consumer model with no blitter and short term domminate the computer landascpe, which they did 85-87, or they could wait and release in 86 with a lower priced blitter capable model, they should have waited.
but they were scared of lossing an early lead on commadore, in the end that early led, lost them the lead and created compatablity problems from the 500's release
cant1rac 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 when i mean compatablity problems i mean a game developer wouldnt release` a ste only game since so many st, stf and fm models were sold between 85 and 87
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac Thats strange because Amiga game developers had no problem releasing AGA games for the A1200 when so many ppl had A500/+/600's. In 85-87, I'd take a guess that the CBM 64 was still the best selller, although that is just a guess. Unless by dominate you mean best capabilities.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 it seamed to be a major problem on st, i guess devlopers figured on a slow down in st sales because off the amiga, and felt saturation of atari blitter models wouldnt penetrate enough in the market quick enough, because amiga was making such big sales
cant1rac 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 most games right up to Atari pulling the plug, say they will run on the st f models, very few say ste as the minimum spec or a blitter chip
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac CBM almost did not go under, CBM UK wanted to buy the rights from CBM International, but (if I remember correctly) CBM International said no. Since then the brand name has been kicked around like a 2 cent hooker. The current owners have a site that looks like its from 1995 and have no idea WTF they are doing with the brand. At least Atari lasted longer in other forms.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 well im going to work, i must say ive enjoyed our debate, even if we didnt agree on a everything....lol.
its nice to talk to someone who can even when they disagree remain respectful and politie.
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac I wasn't this nice back in the 1980's when I went to the computer club to erm *cough* share *cough* ideas.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@cant1rac Yup, nice chatting. For CBM, they should have never made the 500+ and 600 as they were totally pointless and obvious stopgaps. Instead they should have released the A1200 a year earlier with a one-byte per pixel screen mode as the PC would win the game race with 2.5D games. The CD32 was a damn joke too with a 'hack' sortof-not-quite chunky to planar chip. The old fationed planer screenmodes killed the Amiga for me or we would have had Doom on the Amiga first.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 many mega st (87) and ste owners like myself, were pissed off seeing some amiga games and getting a lesser version, when these computers were capable enough, because of legacy compatablity.
so much so i bought an amiga 500+, and other than the hardware expansion slot and odd game, i thought id wasted my money
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac At least you seen sense in the end and got an Amiga!!! lol. My Journey was Atari 2600, ZX81, Atari 600XL, CBM 64, BBC B, A500, A1200, CD32 and finally PC with PS1, PS2, XBOX, XBOX 360.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 all very good machines still have a atari vcs heavy sixer, an amstrad cpc, atari ste an amiga 500+, atari jaguar, snes, n64, sega saturn, gamescube, ps2, xbox, xbox 360 and a wii
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac I think Atari had far too many models
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 yeah on that point your very correct sir, i definetly would not disagree with that.
cant1rac 5 months ago
@cant1rac For me the PC killed the Amiga in 1990 with one game 'Wing-Commander'. At that point and later confirmed with 2.5D games like Wolf3D and Doom it was obvious that one-byte-per pixel screen modes were imperative. CBM had enough time to change the A1200 to add the new screen mode, but they did not. By then the market was screaming for textured 2.5D games. The half arsed chunky chip in the CD32 was a freaking joke and made it terminal. By then, the PC had won.
Ziplock9000 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 correction i like more design features of the st than the amiga , but that personal prefrance and my need not yours and not to say the st is superiour.
your computer needs or another may mean the amiga is the better design
cant1rac 5 months ago
@Ziplock9000 hmm 10% of 8 is 0.8 20% 1.6% how due get a 23% increase in performance from a 0.91 difference on an identical motorola 68000 processor
cant1rac 5 months ago
@1337Shockwav3 The Amiga version maybe is slow, because it add better sprites, better color pallet and of course better music... ;)
tommyjones1978 6 months ago
use to do this ,use to race with stuntcar racer aswell that was awesome.
mucker3001 1 year ago
i can see that lol but then how do i know ur playing 2 player u both could be playing each computer anyway i was only sayong
MrAlfieboy 1 year ago
i see what your sayoing but how do we know ur plaqying multiplay u could be playing against the computer
MrAlfieboy 1 year ago
@MrAlfieboy look more carefully, there are two perople holding joysticks.
factor6 1 year ago
Ive just realised i have a phone than could kick the asses of both machines put together. l o l. but snake isnt as gripping(nokia 3310) ;))
kjw7000 1 year ago
What's this remix of mod.bootup?
Firthy2002 1 year ago
I can confirm that the ST / A500 linking also works with Falcon, Stunt Car Racer and Populous. Immensely fun!
Schnitz1 1 year ago
my mum told me that they got a bank loan to get me an amiga for christmas ! guilt or what ! glad they did tho
cactusnads 1 year ago
WARNING, WARNING,
do NOT hotplug RS232 cables, it wasn't designed for that
delatnost 1 year ago
I ran a bulletin board on an Amiga 2500 back in 1993, before the internet... happiest online time of all. Loved your video.
88try88 1 year ago
@88try88 lucky guy. I was a school boy back in the days so I coudln't afford much. Buing Amiga 500, extra 512K RAM and TV modulator was a large expense for my parents so I had to stay with A500 for years. I didn't ahve any idea about BBSes and stuff :) Even the phone calls weren't cheap :) But later when I got A1200 I tried out some local BBSes.
factor6 1 year ago
@factor6 I know you won't believe this, but I'm a 60 year old grandmother! I fell in love with BBSing when my teenage son got involved, I saw the potential for quality message forums for mature people. Great idea, bad timing. Something called "The internet" came along and the rest is history.
88try88 1 year ago
@factor6 I can't beleve it! what kind of guy lets an atari in his house! and connecting it to your miggy as well, it might be contagious!
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
@richardmaudsley77 Ahh. The comments of a highly un-educated Amiga user. Believe me i've had both A1200 and Ste1040 . Had the software houses supported the Ste properly it would have proved more than a match from the amiga brand.. At the last check I remember that commodore bit the corporate dust and atari went on software developing. I agree then amiga knocked spots off the original ST+ But the STe done the same to the A600 its nearest rival. And remember ' Do not copy this post ' LOL
kjw7000 1 year ago
@kjw7000 Umad?
the STE machines were still worse, graphically than the OCS amigas (same palette but half as many on screen). The soundchip was a bit better, but the OS still sucked (CP/M-68K and GEM, sorry atari "tos" lol). Comparing it with an A1200 is suicidal.
The Falcon was decent though, but what's the deal with Mint weirdness? Confusing.
At any rate, Atari went bankrupt too, unless you want to claim infogrames trade name. In which case, commodore is alive four times over.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
@richardmaudsley77 Did you own,use,programme and experience both machines at their limit? I did. Less than 1% of software exploited the STe to its limits and thanx to very poor marketing Atari lost millions. They had the machine but its predecesor killed it before it hit the shelves. I am not saying the Amiga was bad in fact quite the opposite. I still use its emulator today. It was more user friendly and aimed more at gamers but strugged everywhere else. I do still think the STe had the edge.
kjw7000 1 year ago
@kjw7000
But it didn't. At all. Half the onscreen colours of a first generation amiga, a soundchip with one more channel, and a bargain bin operating system made of leftovers.
What was it better at other than playing an extra sound channel?
How can you compare it to the A1200 with a streight face?
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
@richardmaudsley77 Sorry mate but I couldn't resist it. Amigay owners are too easy. St guys know the commodore brand was better overall but its so funny watching you guys try and defend it. Ive spent years catching amiga live ones.lol. Just remember this. Who's machine did John Connor steal money with in Terminator 2. Cheesy I know. Now dont reply Cos Ive removed my eyeballs and wont be able to read it. Cheers for a good old Amiga isnt as good as atari debate. It was good to see you agree.LMFao
kjw7000 1 year ago
@kjw7000
Connor stole that money with a ms-dos machine so really it was neither, wait your shitpile had CP/M, lol.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
@richardmaudsley77 Long live diamond shaped function keys, grey plastic boxes and an acid inspired green desktop. Apparently Mr Atari got 'paula' up the duff and thats where the Archimedes came from. Denise tried to help her but Gary thought it was funny so agnus hit him. lmao
kjw7000 1 year ago
@kjw7000 i still cant get over outrun being ported from a druggie on crack ffs was made on the Sharp X68000 which was basicly the same as the amiga and atari put together but yet they gave us diarrhea :(
mucker3001 1 year ago
@mucker3001
It was an early Amiga game, and British devs weren't used to 16-bit tech, so the results were often poor. Just look at Amiga games made between 89-94 - and compare them to the titles that were made between 87-88. The older games are mostly very weak in comparison. It took time for devs to get to grips with the Amiga and 16-bit tech in general.
Also, I think a lot of ports were rubbish, simply because developers weren't given much help from the original arcade dev.
kingstonlj 1 year ago
The real meaning of plug n play! very good video!!
vagosgta3 1 year ago
@MrWoodyCool1 I'm not sure but this could also work with Stunt Car Racer and Hover Sprint.
factor6 1 year ago
Think it may work with vroom/F1 too
MiggyRGB 1 year ago
@MiggyRGB I think the same, but haven't tested.
factor6 1 year ago
@MiggyRGB yeah I think so
factor6 1 year ago
nice to see the amiga is sitting slightly higher than the ST. that's the way it should be.
vegunited06 1 year ago
Hehe, I don't think so :) I like the ST more.
factor6 1 year ago
Does the game do 4 player action (dual split screen)? Otherwise I dont see the point in doing this!
kikencorp 1 year ago
I think it can do 4 player game. But I'm not sure.
factor6 1 year ago
@marzsyndrome the A500 it a little bit tuned: It has Kickstart 3.1, that's why it boots differently than 1.3, 68020 turbo board and AlfaData harddisk controller.
factor6 1 year ago