Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!necntc!ci-dandelion!ulowell!page
From: page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,rec.music.synth
Subject: Amiga vs ST wars, again (was: Amiga midi problems?)
Message-ID: <1637@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu>
Date: Wed, 19-Aug-87 11:50:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulowell.1637
Posted: Wed Aug 19 11:50:20 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Aug-87 04:21:04 EDT
References: <1408@ico.UUCP> <1601@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> <628@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: page@swan.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page)
Organization: University of Lowell, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 43
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.amiga:7565 rec.music.synth:1301

Henry_Burdett_Messenger@cup.portal.com wrote:
>These memory systems are *all* compatible with the new blitter chip, and,

Has Atari started shipping any of these blitter chips?

>unlike the Amiga, all memory on the ST is created equal (no "fast" and
>"slow")

Using the Amiga's definition that the 680x0 has unlimited access to
the memory bus *all the time* in 'fast' memory, and has to share it
with the 3 coprocessors in 'chip' [not 'slow'] memory, I'd say that
the ST is *all* 'chip' memory, and no 'fast' memory ... unless there's
something in the ST architecture that Atari hasn't been saying.

>>while the ST seems to be the machine of choice for synth stuff,
>>the Amiga seems better overall. 
>  
>This is still the case, and will continue to be the case. Unlike the Amiga, 
>the ST was *designed* for MIDI. 

Yamaha made a machine that was *designed* for MIDI also.  They didn't
sell too many of them, since they couldn't do much else very well.
I'm not saying the ST follows the same trend, just that your argument
isn't very convincing.  You can't say the ST will always be the
machine of choice for synth stuff, because you don't know that.
If/When Atari puts in an MMU, blitter or a new OS (Multitasking TOS,
UNIX, who knows what else), etc, this status could change quickly.  Or
another manufacturer could build a machine more attractive to
musicians.  Who knows?

In my opinion, the Mac is the machine of choice for synth stuff,
because the software support is wonderful.

>And if you don't take my word for it, ask Tangerine Dream. They use STs

NOT because it's an ST, but because the software they want/need is
available on STs.  Unlike a lot of us, they're more interested in
getting a job done (composing/editing music) than worrying if they
need to defend their purchase to an international audience.

..Bob
-- 
Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept.   page@ulowell.{uucp,edu,csnet}