Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site caip.RUTGERS.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!nike!caip!roberts From: roberts@nbs-vms.ARPA Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga Subject: Amiga vs ST - the debate continues Message-ID: <872@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Thu, 2-Jan-86 06:23:37 EST Article-I.D.: caip.872 Posted: Thu Jan 2 06:23:37 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 3-Jan-86 01:48:43 EST Sender: daemon@caip.RUTGERS.EDU Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 165 From: "ROBERTS, JOHN" > From: enmasse!mroddy@caip.rutgers.edu (Mark Roddy) > >> 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 I assume you mean that Atari/authorized dealers have decided to sell the color monitor as a separate item. If this is correct, I am glad that Atari has decided to be sensible about the matter. I had read in several publications that it was not possible to purchase a monitor as a separate item, and that was one of my main complaints about the marketing of the ST. I understand that normal NTSC-compatible RGB monitors cannot be used with the ST. Please correct me if I'm wrong. >> 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 > Uh, I have the schematics at home, they came with the developers kit, > availabler to the general public for $300. Could you please post a name and address by which such information might be purchased? (Admittedly shaky justification for posting to an Amiga mailing list, but since a number of Amiga users are also interested in the ST, I think it might be forgiven just this once.) In a product survey conducted by reading every Atari-oriented, Commodore-oriented, and general interest computer magazine I could find, I was able to find out a lot more about the internal structure and functioning of the Amiga than of the ST. Maybe the degree of willingness to communicate with publishers/reporters has been the main reason for the difference in coverage, rather than desire for secrecy. >> 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. Incorrect. The basic machine comes with 256K RAM, and another 256K can be added for about $200. (There is a separate non-user-accessible RAM to hold the operating system in current machines, unlike the ST, which eats up a big chunk of user RAM to hold the OS in current machines.) The Amiga treats the "internal" 512K user address space as a contiguous and uniform chunk of memory which is shared by the processor and the special-purpose graphics, sound, and I/O chips. This memory is designed to be faster than needed for any particular device in order to minimize contention (it is effectively a time-slice multiport memory), but for some applications there will still be a certain amount of contention, thus slowing down the processor. The Amiga is designed to make it easy to add external memory, which is accessed only by the processor. Processes running in external memory (still in the same linear address space, of course) are not subject to slowdown from memory contention, and will therefore be as fast, or sometimes significantly faster than processes in the "chip memory". I mentioned graphics in reference to Dhrystones because there are certain applications that are both computation- and graphics- intensive, and because the computational performance of the Amiga (and, I suspect, the ST) can be affected by what is being displayed. I am thinking of the 68881 not as a redesign, but as an add-on component. The 68881 is a very expensive ($240 - EDN 11/28/85) and, until very recently, nonexistent chip, but its eventual release was announced quite a while back. While it would not have been logical to design either the Amiga or the ST with a 68881, it would have been sensible to design the machines so one could be added later. With its comprehensive external port, I think Amiga has done this. I assume that both companies are thinking of eventually making improved versions of their machines, with faster processors, etc. The piggyback board with 68020 and 68881 is an unexpectedly early upgrade. >> 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. I think one Amiga would better suit my intended applications than two ST's. An Amiga AND an ST would be even nicer. >> 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. The first printed information on Amiga sales I have been able to find is a note in the December 30 issue of Electronic News concerning unit market share of personal computers for November, from data collected by InfoCorp. It lists the Amiga as having 4% of the November unit market share, compared to 7% for the Macintosh, 8% for the IBM PC/AT, 13% for the Apple IIc, etc. Not bad for a machine barely out of the starting gate, comparatively speaking. The ST is not specifically listed, and since EN has covered the ST in previous issues, I do not have any reason to believe that it is being ignored. It may fall into the category of "All Others (2% or less)" that collectively made up 31% of the unit market share. Note that these figures do not directly reveal total revenues or profits, but I suspect that Commodore/Amiga makes more money per unit sold than Atari. In reference to total company revenues, I just read an editorial in a Commodore-oriented (but not -owned) magazine expressing surprise that the C-128 is selling much better than expected. Commodore also has a different marketing program (with different machines) in Europe, which it claims was not hit nearly as hard as domestic marketing during the recent industry-wide slump. Still other sources indicate that Atari is making a nice profit selling the ST, presumably enough to keep the company going. Does anybody have any statistics on actual numbers of units sold? -- > Mark Roddy > Net working, > Just reading the news. > (harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!comm!mark) I think a rational discussion of the issues, such as this appears to be, will produce a lot more useful information on the two machines than some of the flames that have been appearing lately. Sorry about the length of this posting. If you think it's too long, you don't have to read the whole thing. (Same disclaimers as last time.) John Roberts roberts@nbs-vms.ARPA ------