|
Post by nuroslam on Jan 18, 2009 2:33:22 GMT -5
can I get some opinions on these? never was hip to atari
|
|
|
Post by relayer on Jan 20, 2009 10:58:50 GMT -5
Do you want those opinions with or without a "side order" of Amiga Fanboyism?
|
|
|
Post by David Murray on Jan 20, 2009 14:07:29 GMT -5
Do you want those opinions with or without a "side order" of Amiga Fanboyism? Ahahahahahaqhahahahahahahaha. Wait, let me catch my breath... ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
|
|
|
Post by twilitezoner on Jan 20, 2009 19:28:11 GMT -5
Easy Chicken head fanboys . The ST is a fine machine and a lot more reliable.
|
|
|
Post by nuroslam on Jan 21, 2009 0:44:21 GMT -5
any opinions would be ok, i was offered both(working), 3 monitors (1 color, 2 b/w), a scanner, harddrive, scanner and manuals for $30. Currently I have no retro machines. My goal is to have a retro ham shack. I would rather start with a c128 but this local and in my lap
|
|
|
Post by twilitezoner on Jan 21, 2009 5:51:57 GMT -5
I think you will have fun with it. Good luck with your collecting.
|
|
|
Post by David Murray on Jan 21, 2009 8:17:15 GMT -5
Most of what I know of the Atari ST was from watching the computer chronicles episode where Jack Tramiel came on the show and demonstrated the machine.
Now, even though I'm an Apple fanboy today, back in the 1980's I was definitely not. Mostly because I felt the Amiga was a far superior machine at a fraction of the price. But it didn't take Apple long to surpass Amiga's capabilities (as did the IBM compatible world.) But at the time the Atari ST came out, I also felt it was a far superior platform to the Macintosh. It is a pitty neither the Atari or Amiga ever got much beyond the "home user" platform. It is also a pitty they didn't advance the computers with better processors, more RAM, etc... Maybe with some local networking (sort of like appletalk) and a decent monitor rather than something based on an interlaced TV signal, then maybe Apple would have had some competition in the education and business markets.
|
|
|
Post by archimed on Jan 21, 2009 12:35:57 GMT -5
The 1040/520's are great machines, and from what you've described, that's a great way to start off your retro collection! I've noticed that 520 software usually sells fairly cheaply on eBay (lower demand compared to ][e and IBM PC software), so you should be able to track down some pretty cool stuff easily. I played quite a few games on the 1040, and I must say that it's a great little gaming machine. Just make sure there's a DMA cable for your hard drive included. I picked up a huge package of 1040/520 stuff last summer, and the DMA cable was missing $30 is a *steal* for that equipment. Go for it!
|
|
|
Post by twilitezoner on Jan 21, 2009 12:49:46 GMT -5
Well said David. It was a frustrating time for Atari and Commodore users.
|
|
|
Post by robertb on Jan 21, 2009 14:07:29 GMT -5
But it didn't take Apple long to surpass Amiga's capabilities (as did the IBM compatible world.). Just about 8 years or more. Truly, Robert Bernardo Fresno Commodore User Group videocam.net.au/fcugCatch the Fatman and Circuit Girl at vimeo.com/jeri
|
|
|
Post by David Murray on Jan 21, 2009 14:35:21 GMT -5
Just about 8 years or more. That figure is speculative. In fact it is very difficult to come up with an exact figure. I doubt many people would still hold that the modern PC is less powerfull than the original line of Amigas that Commodore made. But, where to draw the line is somewhat difficult. In my person opinion, the last viable Amiga was the Amiga 500/2000 line. I say that because by the time Commodore came out with anything that was more upgraded than those (such as the 2500) sales were already in decline. So there was never widespread use of any of the faster machines. If you go back and build a timeline of machines from 1985 to 1990, and compare Apple, Amiga, and IBM compatibles you will find Commodore was much slower to adapt to faster processors and newer technology. Apple was already shipping lots of computers with 68020 processors while Amiga was still using 68000, and by the time Amiga had a 68030 on the high-end machines, Apple was pretty much standardized on it. But CPU's aside, many technologies came way too late such as the before-mentioned networking (important to schools and business) and better interfaces for the monitor. And besides all of that, Commodore never had a suitable form-factor for any of their computers that was suitable to schools and business. Except, maybe the PET which was appropriate during the time it was made. But honestly the "computer inside the keyboard" design was never widely embraced except in the home user market and the high-end machines were either too late (such as the C128D) or too expensive (such as the Amigas) I bet if Amiga had come out with a smaller system with an integrated monitor (like the Mac Plus style) and networking, schools would have snatched them up.
|
|
|
Post by robertb on Jan 21, 2009 16:12:41 GMT -5
That figure is speculative. No, in a cross-comparison of OS's and platforms, the Amiga holds its own. Here are my points of reference (with machines as originally released with OS's) -- Amiga 3000 with OS 2.0 Amiga 4000 with OS 3.0 compared to Mac LC with System 6.06 Mac Quadra 900 with System 7.01 Mac Quadra 950 with System 7.1 Mac Quadra 840AV with System 7.1 compared to PC 80386 with DOS 4.0/5.0 PC 80486 with Windows 3.1 I also narrowed the time of reference to 1990 to 1993. Those were the systems and OS's, during that time frame. Truly, Robert Bernardo Fresno Commodore User Group videocam.net.au/fcugCatch the Fatman and Circuit Girl at vimeo.com/jeri
|
|
|
Post by David Murray on Jan 21, 2009 16:55:41 GMT -5
Robert, you missed the point. First of all, even looking at the machines you mentioned the only one that holds a candle is the Amiga 4000 which still only came with 2 MB of RAM and a video system still based on composite video interlaced scanning system, and no networking capabilities.
And even if the 4000 had all of the things I mentioned that it lacked, the market for the product had dwindled down to a niche by that point anyway.
I don't know what the cost of an Amiga 4000 was when it was released, but I bet it was also pretty high.
I honestly can't believe anyone is arguing with me on this. I mean, lots of people like to blame Commodore's marketing department for their downfall. But lets face it, they had a bad reputation for selling the same systems for years at a time without upgrades.
|
|
|
Post by robertb on Jan 21, 2009 18:54:37 GMT -5
I also narrowed the time of reference to 1990 to 1993. Oops, I forgot to mention I was counting from 1985, the year the Amiga was introduced. That is where I get the 8 years or more figure. As you can see from the cross-comparison of platforms and OS's, the Amiga remained competitive in its later years until the demise of CBM. Truly, Robert Bernardo Fresno Commodore User Group videocam.net.au/fcugCatch the Fatman and Circuit Girl at vimeo.com/jeri
|
|
|
Post by nuroslam on Jan 24, 2009 10:22:16 GMT -5
Took possession of the systems last night, very happy indeed. the 1040STe had been upgraded to 4 meg the hard-drive is actually in a "power center" along with a cdrom. looks like it could be a home-brew hack. There is no manufacturer information anywhere on box, no detail information either, just a blank box except for "power center" Perhaps someone could identify it. 3.bp.blogspot.com/_LfLoi1xIZLA/SXswP25-zUI/AAAAAAAAARM/US_ppTQ9A3E/s1600-h/power_center-01.jpgJoystick works but is rather noisy, as if it needs a good lube job! (Suncom Tac30) monitor switch box (Practical Solutions Monitor Master) with a mono vga out added to the side, guy said a friend back in the atari club here in phoenix made it for him All seems to work fine.
|
|