Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site enmasse.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!mroddy From: mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga Subject: Re: Re: recent Amiga vs ST debate Message-ID: <516@enmasse.UUCP> Date: Mon, 23-Dec-85 10:20:29 EST Article-I.D.: enmasse.516 Posted: Mon Dec 23 10:20:29 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 03:43:37 EST References: <800@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> Organization: Enmasse Computer Corp., Acton, Mass. Lines: 76 > From: "ROBERTS, JOHN" > > Several Points of Comparison in the Amiga vs ST Debate > > 1) The official Atari price of the ST system that has received so much > praise in this mailing list is actually $1798 (799 for the monochrome > version, plus 999 for the color version). Hold on there, you can buy a monchrome system (list $799,) and you can buy a color monitor seperately for about $400. Total price: ~$1200. That is the same price as an Amiga without any monitor at all. The monochrome version is far superior for text applications than either the color ST or the Amiga in any resolution. > > > 4) Commodore/Amiga has been fairly open and honest about the internal > structure and functioning of their machine, while by comparison > Atari has been relatively secretive (specific examples furnished upon > request). As a hardware designer, I like to know that there is > something other than a little green man in the box. As a customer, > I like to know what the machine is potentially capable of, which > to me involves knowledge of what's inside. Uh, I have the schematics at home, they came with the developers kit, availabler to the general public for $300. > > 6) Most of the Dhrystone benchmarks run on the Amiga (showing slightly > slower execution than the ST) have been run with the processor using > the same memory as the specialized chips. With an expanded memory > space (which could be desired for its own sake) performance should be > enhanced, especially for graphics-intensive applications. A faster > processor (the 68020) should give a greater increase in performance. > What should really give floating point performance a boost is the > addition of a good floating point processor chip (of which the 68881 > is a logical choice for the 68000 family). I expect a 68881 to be > available for the Amiga long before the ST gets one (if ever). > Wait, hold on here. Memory outside of the lower 256K on the Amiga is slower, not faster. The Dhrystone benchmarks are CPU only, not graphics intensive. Hell, if we redesign the ST it will be better also. > 7) A minimal Amiga system I would buy (512K, RGB monitor) costs > considerably more than a minimal Atari 520ST system I would buy. > I think the Amiga would better suit my intended applications. Even with your suggestion to buy two ST's, the Amiga costs more. > > 8) Jack Tramiel of Atari has announced an intention (as of a few > months ago) to eventually sell hard disk and CD drives for ~$500. Not to mention that the hard disk interface is onboard and supports up to 16 peripheral deivices. > > 9) The fact that the markets for the two machines do not completely > overlap may help both companies to survive. My perception of local > market conditions is that STs, Amigas, and C-128s (surprisingly) are > being sold as fast as the dealers can get them, at least for the > time being. Perhaps market share will be determined by which company > can produce computers most quickly. I haven't done a market survey, but at the local high volume retailer, (Bit Bucket, Newton MA,) the Amigas are stacked up to the ceiling, and they don't have an inventory of STs. (They report that the STs sell as fast as they come in, the Amiga business is slow and steady.) They also say that lack of Amiga software while the ST software is quite impressive, has had a severe impact on Amiga sales. -- Mark Roddy Net working, Just reading the news. (harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!comm!mark)