@shalroth I had a Falcon till recently, and a TT030, and personally I preferred the latter. The TT RAM, separate keyboard, and the internal SCSI were a joy. I just wish I had the hi-res monitor for it, as when it was launched that kind of resolution must have felt like a "Vision of the Future!"(tm), It's a real shame developers of the time never really pushed the capabilities of either system. The lack of software to take advantage of the AppleTalk networking was a damn shame.
The adverts is sadly very true. IBM and Apple were great marketing companies, and Atari built not only affordable, but ground-breaking and highly developed yet simple to use systems. Unfortunately, their marketing was abysmal. Many of their best designs never even made it to the shelves. I often wonder what computing would be like now if Atari was still in the industry.
What's even more amazing that you could have added Mac emulation for an extra $300 (Spectre cart & Mac roms) to run Apple DTP programs 20% faster than a Macintosh Plus...
It was a different world back then, right? I keep a few Ataris around - when I'm laying down music tracks I like to use my Mega 2 and Cubase because it's been around for twenty years, so I've learned almost every trick and feature, and it's pretty distraction-free.
And Multi-tracking on a Falcon030 is a glorious experience.
Of course it could - the ST and Mac II were in different classes. The Mac II used a 32-bit 68020 CPU while the ST was still on an 8MHz 68000 at the time; the ST was aimed directly at the cost conscious market while Macs have always been a premium product.
That's a bit like saying 'My iPhone is better than your Gameboy...' however true it may be, it's a bit of a redundant statement!
The printer was only compatible with Atari TOS computers. It had no memory, instead using the computer's memory to cache the raster image. Atari didn't need to pay royalties for a page description language such as PostScript or PCL, instead using its own proprietary GDOS system, keeping the cost down. The computer itself never cost as much to manufacture as a Macintosh, having had a much shorter development cycle.
@shalroth I had a Falcon till recently, and a TT030, and personally I preferred the latter. The TT RAM, separate keyboard, and the internal SCSI were a joy. I just wish I had the hi-res monitor for it, as when it was launched that kind of resolution must have felt like a "Vision of the Future!"(tm), It's a real shame developers of the time never really pushed the capabilities of either system. The lack of software to take advantage of the AppleTalk networking was a damn shame.
Krys1304 1 year ago
The adverts is sadly very true. IBM and Apple were great marketing companies, and Atari built not only affordable, but ground-breaking and highly developed yet simple to use systems. Unfortunately, their marketing was abysmal. Many of their best designs never even made it to the shelves. I often wonder what computing would be like now if Atari was still in the industry.
Krys1304 1 year ago
I had a lazer writer 2! it was great... and the clearety was butifull
ZILOGz80VIDEOS 1 year ago
What's even more amazing that you could have added Mac emulation for an extra $300 (Spectre cart & Mac roms) to run Apple DTP programs 20% faster than a Macintosh Plus...
MrMaddog 1 year ago
It was a different world back then, right? I keep a few Ataris around - when I'm laying down music tracks I like to use my Mega 2 and Cubase because it's been around for twenty years, so I've learned almost every trick and feature, and it's pretty distraction-free.
And Multi-tracking on a Falcon030 is a glorious experience.
shalroth 2 years ago
Of course it could - the ST and Mac II were in different classes. The Mac II used a 32-bit 68020 CPU while the ST was still on an 8MHz 68000 at the time; the ST was aimed directly at the cost conscious market while Macs have always been a premium product.
That's a bit like saying 'My iPhone is better than your Gameboy...' however true it may be, it's a bit of a redundant statement!
shalroth 2 years ago
The printer was only compatible with Atari TOS computers. It had no memory, instead using the computer's memory to cache the raster image. Atari didn't need to pay royalties for a page description language such as PostScript or PCL, instead using its own proprietary GDOS system, keeping the cost down. The computer itself never cost as much to manufacture as a Macintosh, having had a much shorter development cycle.
shalroth 2 years ago
I want to know how this was possible. What was the catch?
MagikGimp 2 years ago
yes they are
bazfanv2 2 years ago
that means...my dad had one
P3dR085 2 years ago