Amiga vs Atari ST - Computer Chronicles 1985

[@pnvgordinho]

Still play Amiga games "emulated". So many hours playing sensible soccer with my friends. Good old games.

[@RuiassousaFCP]

i keep my amiga alive as you see in my photo, still fun to play

[@volo870]

I love wood grain. I think today's TV needs more men in three piece suits sitting in wooden interiors talking smart things. And pipes. They do need need to smoke pipes occasionally.

[@backmaskmetal]

The interesting thing about this video is how the Amiga is so obviously technically superior, yet the Atari ST demo guys were better at demonstrating the versatility of their platform. I love how their "Boing" attempt lacked sound, and had choppier motion. All the Commodore guys would have had to do in this demo is show a spreadsheet or word processor, though I don't think the Amiga even had the Pen Pal suite at this point in time.

[@DigitalPrime]

ST for music production, Without the ST Digital music production would not be where it is today. Although i did own both and loved them both.

[@jptrainor]

I had an Atari ST with monochrome screen. It was great. (Good enough, in fact, that a thief felt it was worth stealing two years after I bought it). I used Mark William's C and learned C programming, the emacs editor, and the unix shell. I've used those skills continuously since that time.

[@stevelovelace6907]

God, I miss those days! So much nostalgia.

[@doomslayerdave]

These machines were very interesting and during their first few years they had cutting edge tech. The problem is here in the United States by the time the software library and users got anywhere close to being a segment worth watching an IBM AT clone with VGA or a 386 simply performed as well, if not better. Not to mention the industry standards and absurd amount of software. Don't get me wrong I definitely see how revolutionary the Amiga (and to an extent the ST) were back in their day. It kickstarted the multimedia generation of home computing. By 1990, 1991 however they were irrelevant in the US because a 386DX with a decent VGA graphics card and monitor combined with Adlib or Soundblaster had enough power to blow the doors off anything Atari or Amiga could produce. The 1200 was too little, too late and the Atari Falcon simply was nonexistent from a market penetration stance.

[@netowork3d]

Fato se ser um pacote fechado... o que a Apple faz hoje!

[@CaminoAir]

I owned an 1040 STE and an Amiga 600. I readily admit the Amiga was overall the more advanced machine, but the ST was not a direct competitor to the Amiga hardware. Both machines happened to be the only 2 options for the home user at that time. Personally, I preferred the STE (personal choice), which was a solid and easy to use machine (keyboard was poor though), while the Amgia was a ground-breaking machine. Ironically, both micro's should have been produced by the rival company originally!

[@YoungGarrett]

Flatout the Amiga 1000 was about 8 years ahead of anything the IBM PC was able to do. Commodore stuffed up the marketing for it and didn't push a Hard Disk early enough and it lost its edge :(

[@n8goulet]

Exactly how I felt. For 8 years, they were the best. In fact, I started selling IBM PCs about 1993 when Windows 3.1 first came out, and the CD-rom first hit the market. I bought a 386 laptop, 486 desktop but it wasn't until Windows 95, the Pentium chip and CD-roms standard on every computer that I felt the Amiga was truly obsolete. I bought an Amiga 1200, but it was too little, too late. I had two Amiga 1000's, and also 2000 HD with Video Toaster. Amigas ruled!

[@n8goulet]

+Keeper Garrett I couldn't agree more! And that's exactly what happened. It was my main computer platform for 8 years until the Windows machines took over the market, due to Amiga loosing it's edge (AGA was too little, too late)

[@purrbox7514]

You are correct there, I was a PC owner in the early 90's and was frustrated at how much better the Amiga was than my PC. The Amiga effortless handled smooth scrolling graphics and 4 channel sound. Early PC's had VGA graphics but still struggled with scrolling and digital sound as it all had to be rendered by the CPU. It wasn't until the 486 era that PC's really overtook the Amiga. One major issue with the PC sound (especially mod files) was that it didn't use any interpolation so there was a lot of noise / harmonic distortion on the PC.

[@edstar83]

So were the Amiga 500 and C64

[@pianowhizz]

@@purrbox7514yep: in 1994 the i486-DX2 66MHz with double-speed CD-ROM + Sound Blaster 16 + VESA local bus graphics card + 5,400rpm HDD + XGA 1,024 x 768 monitor were the first Windows PCs to eclipse the Amiga. And even then you needed to be technical to effectively wrangle your config.sys and autoexec.bat - so really it wasn’t until Windows 95 that mainstream gaming moved over to MS Windows! Plus they were almost 3 times the price of the Amiga 500/1200.

[@fredrik999z]

Thanks for the clip! I love these old computer shows, so nostalgic. And yes, The Amiga had better sound and graphics than Atari ST BUT the Atari STFM had inbuilt MIDI ports, PSU and RF modulator. It was also cheaper than Amiga 500 so that made it for the time a very affordable music computer for amateurs. I had both so I can't see a clear winner..

[@AtariDeathGod]

It was an easy choice for me. In my area, I got an ST, with floppy drive and a color monitor for around $900, and some software thrown in. The Amiga 1000 was $1500 with no monitor. Ugh. The Amiga is a good machine, not knocking it, but I'll always love my Atari's. Especially my 68030 powered portable Atari STacy running at 40mhz. :)

[@HANGINGWANG]

Very few of today's hipster generation would fully understand what this step really meant. I am 34, I lived through the 80's, I saw every step of this huge change. I saw unbelievable progress. Nothing much changes these days, same stale boredom, 1000 time recycled rubbish for a very sorrowful uneducated generation. Marketing has you in it's garlic fouled claw!

[@RuiassousaFCP]

agree, i started with ZX spectrum 48K to the 128K, then the "super" commodore 64 (best selling computer ever") and the Amiga, i have all of them today working at home, those were the days

[@eustacequinlank7418]

HANGINGWANG I know this comment is a year old, but it winds me up, what the fuck do hipsters have to do with this? If anything the streotypical one would understand precicely how important a step up these machines were. The word hipster just doesn't have any real meaning or defininition any longer from over use by people like you.

[@RuiassousaFCP]

i sugest you guys to watch "from bedrooms to millions, the Amiga years" docummetary

[@davidvincent380]

"Nothing much changes these days" Now in 2016 we have finally good and cheap VR for everyone, and AR is coming and will be a life changer in the next decade... What a time to be alive !

[@sbrazenor2]

david vincent VR has been 'the next big thing' for decades. So far it hasn't happened. It's better, but it needs that 'killer app' that really drives it to the mass market that will sustain it.

[@n8goulet]

Setting the record straight, Atari's new owners (formerly poor business practice clowns of Commodore) wanted the Amiga technology that was light years ahead of anything else for it's market. Amiga corp ended up selling it to the new people at Commodore instead, and the ST was developed to compete (and inferior in almost every way). The Amiga did initially cost about double, but was many times more the computer. I'm glad I bet on the Amiga from day one. It ended up many times outselling the ST despite the price differences and a lot more software & hardware was developed for the Amiga as a result. My primary interests were playing ports of coin-operated arcade games in the home (such as Marble Madness) and MIDI music / software synthesis. Let me point out at the Amiga's built in sound chip was better than many synthesizers on the market, and leaps above the ST's. Also, half the circuitry was in the Amiga already, so adding the interface was very inexpensive and more options were available (I bought one with two MIDI out ports for like $50). I ended up emulating the popular Ensoniq Mirage sampling keyboard (about the price of the Amiga alone), and bought 30 Mirage disks I could pop in and play via my MIDI keyboard. I ended up emulating the IBM, and did my College home work at home instead of the lab, using 3 1/2" disks made for the IBM. I used my Amiga for live performance (not sequencing) via MIDI keyboard for a variety of synthesis programs and drum machine emulation in my bands. The Amiga had about the widest variety of music software available (and the best). Arcade ports were superior on the Amiga and it had the most available. I ended up working in TV, and selling computers and now do tech support for computers for a living, and I collect coin operated arcade machines. The Amiga, even at the price difference, was the obvious choice for anyone that knew anything about computers. I switched from an Apple ][ plus, and had my toy C-64 and TI/994a (same sound chip as ST). I felt my Amiga was still the best thing available for the next 8 years before the PC world really obsoleted it.

[@n8goulet]

Regarding the comment on the show at 23:00. He mentions how the ST will be successful because of one of the magic names in computers, Jack Tramiel. I was thinking when I was watching it, that is why it won't be successful. Because it's put out from the guy that brought us a very cheap & very buggy computer, designed to be cheap & inexpensive (and I'm telling you this, as I was once President of a Commodore 64 users group). very unlike the Amiga which was designed to be the best it could be, at a price reasonable for what it was but not a give away price. And even worse, from someone that used ruthless business practices. Countless magazine articles on that topic back in the day. The C64 was very affordable and did make owning a computer possible, but it wasn't taken too seriously vs say an Apple 2 system. I owned both at the time.

[@purrbox7514]

Sorry but you sound like a bit of an Amiga fan boy there. Whilst the (Paula?) sound chip in the Amiga was impressive for a home machine it was no where near good enough for a professional studio environment. The ST offered a midi interface built in so was the obvious choice for recording studios. An Akai sampler could easily outperform the Amiga sound chip. 28Khz 8bit sound is just not good enough. I know there were various hacks to produce more but they are CPU intensive, not what you want in a studio environment.

[@HarikenRed1]

Denise was the graphic chip with video RGB output and sprites control. Agnus (and all the derivatives as the fat and super fat ones) was the ChipRAM address controller including the blitter/copper and DMA controller for video and sound. It was the chip which generated the hardware scrollings. Yes, fantastic time where computers were fun! Sigh.... Commodore did a complete marketing mess :-(

[@TheCodedtestament]

I was lucky enough to own both,Despite popular belief, the ST was considered more powerful by some ST users - the ST's processor ran a whole 1MHZ faster than the Amiga's processor. I don't think this made any real difference though, as the Amiga had the superb custom chips to back it up and take the strain away from the main CPU.

[@geoffreyoltmans4356]

In the case of the Atari ST (and to a lesser degree Amiga).... it sounds like from firsthand accounts that Jack Tramiel had burned so many bridges with retailers that many of them refused to do business with Atari since they felt there was a very good chance they would get screwed or hadn't gotten over being screwed in previous business dealings. This effectively limited it's distribution. The Amiga suffered similarly probably to a lesser degree, but they were not nearly as ubiquitous in the US market to make any major headway.

[@The_Conspiracy_Analyst]

They're missing the point. When you bought a computer back then, you were buying into an ecosystem. Stuff wasn't compatible, and there was no e-commerce. This was the day of mail order taking 6 to 8 weeks to arrive, so mail order catalogues weren't the answer. You were limited basically to what was locally available at the local computer store. And IBM PC and compats had a TON of software AND support (peripherals like printers, etc). Second place was the Mac, which always had about 1/4th of the software (but it was good). This is what I remember from the main Micro-center in Lane Avenue Mall. I don't think I EVER even saw an Amiga or Atari in there, so lord knows WHERE you'd even get them. And software? Forget about it! And THIS is where these companies scrimped and cut corners -- their dealer network and software available for the machines. I guess there was always warez sites but only a few people knew about that and there were only a few sites. Also about the graphics on these machines. They always brag about "color" which the mac didn't have at the time. Well yeah, look at how low res those displays are, and how clunky and toylike it makes the OS and menus -- that's because the resolution at 16 bit color was only 320 × 200 on that Atari! The Mac might not have had color, but it DID have 512x342! So almost 3x the resolution!!! Which makes it much useable for a ton of applications that don't need color! So the Atari and Amiga strength was games -- but then let's not forget the NES also came out this year (for most places). So for $150 or whatever you could get a machine to play games on. So what did the Amiga/Atari cost? $2000? If you went with a Nintendo instead, that would leave $1850 in your budget to buy lots of games!!! THIS is why these machines failed. Focused on games at a time when Nintendo and other consoles were coming out, no dealer network for sales/software/support, and a lack of available software.

[@valenrn8657]

$699 USD for 1987 Amiga 500.

[@valenrn8657]

NES release timeline JP: July 15, 1983 (Famicom) NA: October 18, 1985 EU: September 1, 1986 EU/AU/IND: 1987 SK: 1989 BRA/ZA: 1993

[@The_Conspiracy_Analyst]

@@valenrn8657 That's for the machine only, not counting monitor which adds a lot to the price. Like $300 or $400

[@n8goulet]

I found the Computer Chronicle episode interesting (a show that I generally liked, and placed on the air at PBS). Note: Amigas graphics were replacing TV station gear at the time that costs tens of thousands of dollars. The Atari guy said 15:00 into the show how the ST was "as powerful if not more powerful than any computer on the market place". Was he kidding? Did he forget about the Amiga? I recall how the company or ST owners pointed out how it ran at 8 mhz vs 7.16 mhz. But they forget to tell you, just to do something as simple as make the mouse point move, used up CPU power. There wasn't any serious task the ST could do faster. Initially, and years later, I found no software or hardware products of interest that weren't available for the Amiga. I went in computer stores every week. I regularly read up on the Amiga over a year before it came out, and the press knew it was gonna be way ahead of anything else. Those Amiga custom chips (video & sound) made that computer special. I believe one of the show's hosts developed GEM which the ST used. Naturally, better business for his show to recommend that platform. It was no match for the Amiga's multi-tasking OS. And the show's comments at 23:00 how the ST is cheaper, therefore will sell better. Boy were they wrong! The Amiga far out sold the ST, due to better everything. I recall even having an Atari ST emulator for my Amiga at one point. Consumer Reports had a similar comparison. I haven't bought an issue since.

[@n8goulet]

Well, more than any computer ever since, yes the Amiga was created from the ground up by a team of developers to make it the best possible personal computer with the technology available to them at the time without having to remain compatible with technology the preceded it. And at a price point that was reasonable enough that people in the home could afford it, and professionals could take it seriously. No computer since has attempted to introduce something "revolutionary" since in this way. Maybe one might say iPhone/iPad's to some extent were innovative like this. Mac's & PC's always had to adapt older eco systems of software & hardware, limiting possibilities and only small upgrades vs quantum leaps. The Atari ST was brought to you by the guy that brought computers to the poor. It had a lot of bang for the buck, but also a lot of technical glitches vs more serious computers (speaking of C64). I owned one, and a real computer (Apple ][) Not saying the ST was full of glitches, but this same person badly wanted Amiga technology and it was out of his reach, so he tried to make a cheap knock off of it. And that's exactly what it turned out to be. And the ST coming from him, many of us couldn't take him too seriously. The fact it had the MIDI interface built in did lure Steinberg and others, but trust me, for my musical needs, the MIDI software made for Amiga was much better for what I wanted. Internal sound generation vs buying expensive hardware synthesizers. These few companies actually though buying a cheap computer with it built in was a good idea, besides the fact half the interface was already built into the Amiga and all it needed was a $30 adapter or you could buy a better quality one like I did than what Atari limited you to. When you spend real money on a computer, a $30 interface is no big deal. Sales of the Amiga vs the ST proved most people knew despite a significant price difference, the Amiga was well worth the extra as the software & hardware options were much better. For most of us at least. Like-wise, many feel Apple iOS devices offer a lot more than what appears to be similar on the surface Android devices. Half the stuff I care about isn't even available for Android, like-wise Atari ST back in the day. But Android is every company vs one. In some cases, Android may be better for some users. Amiga vs ST, their were very few reasons to buy an ST over an Amiga other than the price difference. I think I've explained myself now. Commodore 128, ok that was really a joke released by Commodore during the Amiga era. For what? An ST made way more sense if one couldn't afford an Amiga. I lived and breathed this stuff back in the day, reading "thousands" of computer magazines and being President of a computer users group. I did my home work on Amiga vs ST. I tried the ST's extensively in the computer stores too.

[@arfived4]

Have you come here just to relive the arguments of your teens?

[@n8goulet]

Kind of like a flash back, huh? I don't really miss those discussions. I was totally sold on the Amiga a year before it was released it still had to be sold to everyone else. To think the guy that brought the cheap but extremely problematic (as in crashes, extremely slow disk loads) C-64 that few took too seriously for anything other than gaming was gonna try to steal some of the market for his cheap Atari ST instead I wasn't too happy about and I felt for the sake of the Amiga platform, I felt I needed to inform those potential buyers exactly why the Amiga cost so much more. It turned out I was right, despite the huge price difference, the Amiga outsold the ST something like 10 to 1. People aren't that stupid. In retrospect, worrying about the ST hurting the Amiga market was silly. Hardly anyone here in the states bought one (less than 1 in 10). In Europe the ST did a little better I believe. Maybe my comments ultimately did help the Amiga. By the time I sold computers for a living, the Amiga was on it's way out so I sold PC's and Macs. For the past 20+ years, I do technical support. Now we're back in the multiple platform era again. Windows no longer is the only game in town. I enjoy having my iPhone and Android tablet, but I'll take my Windows laptop over them any day. When I'm on the road, the iPhone is great. Now those technologies threaten Windows existence. So here we go again. LOL. The Mac is like the Atari ST where a tiny percentage of people bought them. Unlike the ST, at least there are some good reasons why people buy Macs. For most of us, I still feel Windows is a better choice due to huge availability of software, hardware, tech support, cost factors and openness of the platform vs Apple controlling the market and what we can do and not due. I think iOS largely is better than Android, but if I want to play my MAME arcade emulator, Apple says we're not allowing it. Ridiculous. iOS like Windows is the largest developer platform for software & hardware, making it an easy choice for most of us. Where as, there is way more stuff made for Windows than Mac and therefore, that alone should sell most of us. So to answer your question, my teen discussions are back, only different. If the Windows platform dies due to all the home users buying cheap mobile devices my IT business goes down with it when Microsoft can't make enough money to stay afloat with the loss of the home market. I just hope they don't screw it up with Windows 10 the way they did with Vista & Windows 8. The world was a better place for all of us when everyone bought PCs and we didn't have to worry about choosing a platform. Should people buy an Amiga or ST now? Of course not. I'm not that nostalgic. Was incredible back in the day. I have 3 Amiga's forsale if anyone in the area is interested.

[@n8goulet]

Similar as apples & oranges. Or more like apples & prunes.

[@bjbell52]

+n8goulet I wish I could have bought an Amiga because it was similar in design to my Atari 800 (build-in graphic co processors). But I was going to school and couldn't afford it; so I bought an ST. It got me through 3 our 4 years of college BUT my compiler class required an IBM style computer so I put together a cheap clone. I would have to say it was a bit satisfying watching my Jackintosh outperform a Mac.

Man, I can't believe even after all these years after both machines are dead and buried, that there are STILL people arguing about which one is better! I mean get a life people! Its's 2017! The war is over and has been for about 30 years! They were both good in their day for various things. Now we have a PC and the world is perfect. We don't need stupid rivalries anymore! We all know a MAC is a waste of space. Expensive, old fashioned hardware that was on a PC about 10 years before crapple got hold of it and put it in a MAC that's about as much use as a wet paper bag.

[@ClayMann]

You mock people for arguing about what's best and then proceed to do just that only with different brands. You're a hypocrite.

[@rx7here]

wow TV program was so much higher quality back then. Just think of any "information" channel today!

[@sporehux8344]

Think of it more like , how did people with square wheels cope with the invention of round wheels. the tech jumps at this time is far beyond the tiny incremental updates we get now.

[@CMDRBlueeagle66]

Loved my Amiga. I bought three back in the day. Still miss it.

[@TMS5100]

perfect example of why superior hardware alone is not enough to control the market.

[@AdamSternberg]

I owned both. I had a 1040ST and several Amigas (500, 2000, and 3000). The Atari had some really cool features about it but the Amiga was clearly better.

[@sluggotg]

The Atari ST was amazing because the Tramiel forced the guys at Atari to develop the ST in 6 months... they had to use Off the Shelf Products and did not have the time to create hardly anything Custom to the machine. They ended up with a Good Computer at a Fantastic Price. BUT.. The Amiga was developed over years and had Custom Chips all over it. The Sound Chip was VASTLY superior to the ST. (The ST was MONO Sound and was very difficult to produce music on.. The Amiga Sound Chip was 8bit , 4 Channel, Stereo Sound..not MONO like the ST). The Graphics chip had 4096 colors, (The ST had 512). The Blitter Chip handled the Animation, (The ST Had NO hardware acceleration). The Operation System on the Amiga was the First Fully Pre-emptive OS on a home computer and stayed that way till the 90's, when Microsoft developed the NT OS and made it a Mainstream OS in 2000, (Windows 2000 was Killer!!!). The Macs did not get a Fully Pre-emptive OS till years after Microsoft. The OLD Atari ST Fans get really mad when you put out the hard numbers... but the Amiga kicked the ST's Ass.. (But the ST was number 2 and totally kicked the crap out of the IBM and MAC). Notice how they hook the ST to a Very Expensive Sythn and play music from it... they do not play music from the ST.. Because it sucked. The Synthesizer they play the music from cost much more that the ST Computer.

[@purrbox7514]

You're missing the point, the Atari ST had a built in midi port. Recording studios need a sequencer that can be connected to their outboard gear. Yes, the Amiga could have done it with an external midi port but why would you pay more money for something that is going to do exactly the same thing?

[@da206hbe]

And yet Atari dominated totally in music studios way after it stopped being manufactured.

[@TheMovieCreator]

It's importaint to remember the Amiga 500 wasn't even announced when this episode was made, so it's role as successor to the Commodore 64 wasn't really apparent yet. And when it comes to the closing analysis, neither the Amiga or Atari ST really caught much wind in the US compared to Europe. On the other hand the Apple II never had quite the success in Europe and IBM PC's didn't gain dominance in he business market before the mid 80's over here. Still (allthough irrelevant at the time of this episode), I believe Nintendo, Sega and the whole video-game industry situation was an equally signifficant factor in why home-computers sort of fell behind in the US marketplace.

[@paul1979uk2000]

Yeah thats true, at Commodore there was a lot of mismanagement in the US which didn't help, commodore could of been in a good position to take on business and gaming with the right management but they messed up, as you say, they did well in Europe but even then they should of come out with newer hardware faster and not revising old hardware in a new box like they did, they should've also tried to get to grips with piracy, if Commodore was more on the ball at the time, they could of been a big player today because it was a good brand and was ahead of the competitors.

[@goognamgoognw6637]

I don't think businesses in that early technology had any chance to survive more than a 5-10 year lifespan at the most. There were too many constantly evolving factors. It was like trying to build a tower of Pisa on moving sands. Every computer was destined to fall into oblivion. hardware was evolving fast, OS standardization was a threat. The only brand still alive is Apple but it was dead too. The MP3 player is what got apple a second life before striking back at the personal computer market in a weird way by using fashion with those colored plastic CRTs. When i first discovered computers in 1987 my dream was an Apple II but it costed a fortune and more. I had to settle for an Atari STf and even that was a fortune for me at the time. When i think about it know i have buyer's remorse, haha.

[@paul1979uk2000]

goognam goognws That's true, I think another factor is that we had a lot of competition in those days, even more in the 80's, especially in Europe, I remember at one point in the 80's that we almost had a new computer coming out almost on a weekly or monthly basis and it had a dramatic effect on prices of them, in the end that wasn't sustainable, a lot of which started to disappear in the late 80's early 90's. Even Apple was on it's knees a few times in the past and if I recall, Microsoft bailed them out at one point with a lot of money, mainly because at the time, Apple as their only competitor so Microsoft was worried about being seen as a monopoly. When you think about it, Atari and Commodore was in a good position to dominate, more so Commodore because with the C64 and the Amiga they had hardware that was a very capable computer and games console but they had really bad management. In any case, I don't think the likes of Atari and Commodore would of been able to take on the PC, but they could of been big players in the PC market and both the PC and console market with the right management at the time.

[@necassidy7945]

Isn't it fascinating that the Salesmen speaking here actually deliver analysis that agrees with the idea of making the Amiga a bit cheaper by cutting down on the features (monitor, HDD, external drives) - and as soon as Commodore did that it was all over folks.

[@paul1979uk2000]

@@necassidy7945 The problem was, Commodore was trying too hard for the business market where it was clear the consumer market was more interested in their products and they should have run with that, especially in Europe, Commodore wasted a lot of resources in areas that they shouldn't have done and it didn't help them that they made a mess of it in the US.

[@antred11]

30 years. That's almost a third of a century.

[@ivansusovic9660]

i use to own amiga back in 80's

[@antred11]

Ivan Susović I got mine in 1990. Ah, memories ... :-)

[@dvamateur]

That's not to say that owning 30 years younger computer makes one smarter.

[@antred11]

Andrew Piatek That was *not* my point, just in case you got the impression it was.

[@SW-cs8xd]

Yeah your right just think about it. Japan made Atari ST and Amiga back in the 80s so that's almost like 30 years ago. I never even heard of the Amiga and Atari ST back then we never had these released in Canada.

[@ConvivialStudio]

Luv'd Atari for the classroom and Amiga for ART!

[@Whelkman]

The poor quality sound was due to the overly prolific st-01 sample set that the demoscene was built on rather than hardware issues. By the time these truncated synthesizer rips were being retired, the demoscene was moving to the 386/486.

[@coreybaldwin7563]

It was all over for both two years later when the Mac II was released. I was running a Mac II in 1987 with 16 MHz 68020 processor, 8MB of RAM (128MB max with mode32), a full 32 bit RasterOps video card at 1024x768 and a 2nd 32 bit Apple video card at 640x480 with a 80MB SCSI HD and 6 32 bit NuBus expansion slots. I sold my Atari Mega ST2 and bought the MacII and never looked back.

[@daishi5571]

I think you missed the point. These were self contained systems at a price point that was somewhat affordable. What you listed was an upgraded and very expensive system (what was that ~$8,000+ in 1987 so ~$18,000 in 2018) for most ppl what you had just wasn't needed (and lets face it it wasn't exactly supported well while it was sold) just for perspective the Amiga A500 released in 87 cost $699 (~$1600 in 2018) and while it couldn't do the 1024x768 it was capable of 704×576, sprites, fullscreen hardware scrolling, HAM mode (4096 colours) 4 channel stereo, Preemptive multitasking (Mac didn't get that until OSX in 2001) and it wasn't the Mac that killed the Amiga it was Commodore.

[@fredflintstone505]

@Neb6 Yet there were two main computers used for computer animation back then. The Mac and Silicon Graphics. And there was a reason for that. You couldn’t put a 68030 into the Amiga when the 68030 didn’t exist yet. And when those cards were finally available, you were still bottle necked by the 16 bit expansion slots. The Mac II (1987) had full 32 bit NUBUS expansion slots. Those 32 bit expansion slots could handle high end graphics much, much better and faster then the Amiga ever could with it’s 16 bit Zorro II expansion slots found in the Amiga 2000 at the same time. Sorry it’s just a fact. Not to mention the Macs 16Mhz 68020 out performed the Amigas 7Mhz 68K. The Amiga had 12 bit graphics that could display a max of 4096 colors at 320x200. It’s highest Rez was 800x600 with only 2 colors. The Mac II could be configured with high dollar graphics cards that could display over 16 million colors at resolutions up to 1280x1024. The low end basic video card could display 256 colors at 640x480 or 800x600. Still better than the Amiga. The Amiga was no match for the Mac II. Sorry. Not that the Amiga was a bad computer. It was not in the same league as the Mac. Because by time the Amiga got the 68030 the Mac had the 68040. And don’t forget MacRenderman is now just Renderman and what Pixar uses to this day or computer animation.

[@fredflintstone505]

@@daishi5571 Yes. The Mac II was expensive. It was expensive because of how technically advanced it was. No other computer in it’s price range had the power or technology it had. It ran circles around the ST, Amiga and anything from the PC side. But as expensive as it was it didn’t cost much more than an actual IBM PC. Sure there were “clones” at that time, at about half the cost, but they were not 100% IBM compatible yet nor were they as technically advanced. It was the clones and the software that ran on them killed Atari and Commodore and several others. Why? Because back then “nobody got fired for buying IBM” They rode IBMs coattails to success. IBM had major clout. Heck the clones almost killed off Apple as well. Especially when the PC finally caught up technology wise to the Mac by 1995. By then Atari and Commodore were history.

[@infiltrator7777]

The good old days. Give me a Macworld or Amiga magazine!

[@vubhuhjkbhubohjb]

I had an Amiga and my friend had an ST I loved them both but the Amiga definitely had the edge with graphics (Deluxe paint shows this) and sound but in the real world with games it's was rare the graphics were better. Later in the life cycle sound on the amiga came into it's own. Cinemaware games spring to mind.

[@L337g4m3r]

The issue was that game graphics then were pixel art. If you made the games for the Amiga you would need to convert and re-draw for the lower spec ST. Studios being studios would find it easier to just make graphics for the lowest common denominator (ST) and do a straight port, it was less work. When games used the power of the Amiga it wasn't very close.

[@OldAussieAds]

It amazes me how Gary Kildall sat there having GEM demonstrated to him on the Atari ST, and he doesn't give away that it's actually his product. I really admired Kildall for that. He was always humble and when he was the host of the Computer Chronicles, he wore that hat as host, not computer pioneer.

[@akfreed6949]

He had to just sit there and not say anything . I knew who he was though . He was mentioned in ATARI and other home computer and computer magazines . I think GEM is way better than Windows .

[@OldAussieAds]

@@akfreed6949 I assume you are comparing GEM to the Windows of the day (1.0? 2.0 perhaps?). It certainly wasn't as good as the Mac OS of the day, though it got the job done.

[@akfreed6949]

@@OldAussieAds Looks new to me . ATARI ST blew away the Macs when doing computations for many years .

[@OldAussieAds]

@@akfreed6949 It depends what you were using the computer for. The Atari ST was great for home - a good range of productivity software (with an excellent mono monitor) and awesome games. It was also great for music. But the Mac was the king of desktop publishing, and was miles ahead when it came to business computing - with support from most of the major software developers such as Microsoft, Lotus, Aldus, Adobe, Word Perfect Corp etc. If the ST got the same support from those third party developers, then maybe it would have been a different story. I seem to remember they did get Microsoft Write and maybe they got Word Perfect as well? But only for a short time.

[@oldtwinsna8347]

It's a little troubling to me as unethical behavior to not disclose or recuse yourself from a situation such as that. There's a clear direct conflict of interest going on. They had other hosts who could have sat in. I guess the production felt back then the audience would not likely know as not something so easily fact checked as it is today.

[@tschak909]

This is running an extremely early version of Intuition (v28), there is no Workbench.

[@amigajunkie]

Amiga was the better of the two machines - HAM (Hold and Modify) mode using the Amiga's blitter allowed 4096 colours on screen simultaneously, custom chipset would offload work off the processor, paula sound chip for "real" music rather than AY sound of the ST.

[@sluggotg]

Hmm, the St showed a red/white ball, with no stereo sound..

[@oldtwins]

5:48 Stewart doesn't understand the power of the double screen, graphically intensive, multi-tasking going on, brushing it off as "Oh, visually nice but, don't see any benefit to that." The feature was just too alien-tech advanced for its time. A lot of people ask what would these guys think if you time warped back with today's tech devices, say a modern smartphone, and this is the kind of reaction you would get from someone like Stewart - an "oh interesting.. impressive... I suppose" but then just have it brushed off and have him go back to using a green screen dos terminal dialing up CompuServe the next moment. likewise, the mass public just wouldn't mentally understand why the heck you would need such a device.

[@n8goulet]

+oldtwins Stewart seems like a nice guy and I certainly enjoyed watching the show back in the day. I doubt he fully understood the Amiga as apparently some did not. His co-star however sold Gem to the competition, so one would think he we have financial reasons for favoring the ST.

[@paul1979uk2000]

They didn't really do a good job at selling what those hardware could do on that program, as we know, the Amiga didn't do too well in America where it did really well in Europe.

[@goognamgoognw6637]

Because you don't need a smartphone, it is the most useless electronic device ever created. You need a phone and you need computer but not a smartphone. Look at people walking everywhere with their heads down acting like morons with real people around them, living their virtual life, it's pathetic. i have a smartphone and don't use it. and proud of that. I use a proper clam shell phone for my calling needs.

[@paul1979uk2000]

goognam goognws Personally I think two computers will survive in the long run, smartphone that gives us all our computer needs on the go and PC that will likely become a house computer thats connected to more or less everything in the house, with that I doubt we're going to need a lot of the other devices in between them like games consoles when the other two do them better but this is decades off. In any case, I agree with you that too many of us are living in the virtual world than the real world and that seems to be getting worse, it's not really healthy and it's ironically disconnecting us from each other, I say ironic because it's capable of connecting people.

[@SavageArms357]

@n8goulet, in a recent interview, Stewart said that the only vintage computer he still boots up to play around with to this day is an Amiga, due to how much he loves it. His dismissal on the show is simply him trying to remain impartial, and not let the people with hardware turn the show into a big commercial.

[@933r7]

9:30 the color cycle animation! man that was something..

[@ImortalMonster1]

Could you imagine dropping a modern gaming rig on there table? I need time travel now.

[@keoni29]

I did not see those smart whiteboards until 2006. They sure were well ahead of their time.

[@Mintcar923]

When I first started to use Windows back in '95/96 I said to myself what an Amiga ripoff! Don't know why the company went under but the way things were going back then I'd have thought it would be Amiga tablets and smartphones these days..

[@SW-cs8xd]

I don't know what Amiga is but I say Amiga sucks more than Atari and Atari still kicks ass now because they have sold millions of video games back in the 90s. Ha ha ha. Take that stupid Amiga software! Lol. 😂😛

[@Mintcar923]

+Sanly Woo Atari was predominantly the 80's.. You got some serious issues my friend hating on a computer brand you've obviously never had nor know nothing about..

[@KATODmusic]

+Klassicmedia .net, +Ray N You have right, Commodore 64 had best SYNTH chip (SID). Amiga 8bit digital sound today is not so interesting... But C64 SID synth is still briliant. (I'm also using it in my music). The same with Atari ST - ONLY professional device for MIDI in 80s, and still used in 90s in many studios. But Amiga had better graphics vs ST and sound in games. (ST had AY sound chip and no blitter for graphics). Of course later Atari STE with digital sound and blitter was close to Amiga - but it was later and almost no programs for it). Atari was king in MIDI and DTP. Amiga in games and graphics. Of course there was also TT and Falcon for professional graphics but later... :)

[@randomtux392]

The Amiga was way batter for games, hands down, it had the graphics, the sound and the many chips for it. I think that is partly why the Amiga outsold the Atari by 1.5x. All my friends had an Amiga, very few did the Atari ST. Unless you were doing it for midi, ofc.

[@Mintcar923]

Still to this day The Last Ninja which I had on C64/128 was the best music I ever heard in a video game..

[@MrAhle2]

Everybody with some technical insight knows that the Amiga was vastly more competent. Looking at just the amount of memory and the clock rate (as most people did), it might have seemed like the Atari was a worthy competitor for half the price. Sadly it took some time before developers began using the extra power of the Amiga and not just making 1:1 ports of Atari ST software/games without using any Amiga specific hardware. What a shame!!

[@Whelkman]

Realistically, the ST was more than half a computer for half the price. However both companies ended up failing so neither had a winning strategy. As mentioned in the show. they both had serious financial concerns before these units even came out which never went away. All in all, George Morrow proved to be correct: there in fact was not enough room in the market to support two more competitors.

[@randomtux392]

The Atari Falcon was the greatest, sadly it came about 6-7 years later. That one in 1988 would have been great. I dunno if the DSP 56001 was out yet in 88'.

[@goognamgoognw6637]

Yes, i remember buying my last Atari magazine around when the Falcon was released, i had lived through the rise and fall of the Atari ST and burned all my money with the ST. I could not buy a Falcon.

[@TheHypernaught]

The ST guy avoids the price question. The Amiga was far better in my opinion :)

[@Realmasterorder]

Both were amazing Atari Was better for Music enthusiasts but as much as i love that company,i have to say that Amiga simply was sooo much ahead of its time and remained all powerfull and dominated markets for a over decade ! I still remember dozens of Great games in these machines

[@ZarkowsWorld]

What, no head-to-head scream-match between the 'opposite talking points'? Thought that was the only way to feed us info via the television...

[@sluggotg]

Hmm They quoted the price for a Basic ST with a Monochrome Monitor.... but would not say how much the ST with the Color Monitor.. two Disk Drives a high end sound board and a Hard Drive Cost.. I wonder why? Also why did they not explain how the Increadibly expensive Sound Board cost hooked up to the Midi Interface. actually cost.. (A midi Interface for the Amiga.. was $25 bucks back in the 80's).... Oh.. why no explanation of the actual capabilities.. between the systems.. The Atari ST... 16 Colors out of 512 pallete... One channel sound. Single Tasking... VS the Amiga.. a pallete of 4096 colors with a Display of 32 Colors... (or 64 in extra Half Bright Mode.. or 4096 in HAM mode.. (HAM Was not very good for games).. Extra Half Bright Mode kicked ass in games..! The Amiga had 4 Channel Stereo sound.. with a 8 bit depth.. and the Amiga had Hardware Accelerated Animation... and From the ground up, ... OS and Hardware Multitasking.. The ST had none of thatl The ST was cheaper.. until they released the Amiga 500... But it was not in the same class as the Amiga.

[@cyphaborg6598]

What was TV back ten now is provided by the thing they were talking about back then on TV. The computer/internet.. now that's backwards compatibility right there :P.

[@pockytrader747]

My first computer was an Amiga 500.

[@kee1haul]

They were hard on the ST guys about price.

[@BenLindelof]

Neochrome on the ST was fun with color cycling.

[@Debbienezfan]

That is one hell of a comb over!

[@goognamgoognw6637]

Prehistory in Personal computer only dates back to 25 years !

[@Whelkman]

Gotta admit, though, they got far more out of the AY than anyone thought possible. Too bad sounding like an unfiltered SID was its ceiling. I'd say ST was the unit for "real" musicians, though, due to the MIDI port. Extensive Paula usage was a thing of the demoscene, which was and remains obscure.

[@mazharsaid4812]

how do i get this install printer options on the atari st emulators of today? on gem dos ? thanks

[@sluggotg]

When they ask the ST guy how much it costs for a 520 with a color monitor, with 2 additional disk drives and a Hard Drive... he totally dodges the question. He was trying to show that the ST had something over the Amiga... total Fail.. There is nothing the ST could do that the Amiga could do better... (As to the Midi Interface... ya.. that was $25.00 back in the day). The ST guy is doing his best to confuse the public. IF any of you are confused.. just look up the Specs on the Amiga and the ST.....the facts are the facts... there is no comparison.;

[@Wizardofgosz]

Wow. Amiga users still proselytizing.

[@sluggotg]

OK, Richard Wielgosz... Lets here it.. Why do you "Believe" that the ST was in fact the Superior Computer??? How Many Decades Have we heard how the ST Blew Away the Amiga??? Go ahead... Reinforce your position. .."Crickets chirping".. Come on .. Let us know.. You are still confused. The ST Was Created in a very, Very Short period of time. Using "Off the Shelf Components and Software". It was intended as an emergency answer to the Amiga and (to a much lesser degree.. the Mac). You are Implying that the Amiga Owners are just a bunch of Religious Fanatics with only their Beliefs.. Not Facts to support their Position.. Who is really "Proselytizing"? You imply .. "No Facts".. Just Religious Zealots.. ... But then... you have no facts to support your position.. You throw out an Accusation that really is nothing but "Name Calling" then think.. "Yep I sure put all the Amiga Users in Place:.. Meanwhile I make post after post saying "I liked the ST".. It was a great Low cost Computer... But if I Make a comment on how the ST Salesman Dodges a Question.. .Then I am a "Religious Zealot".? That is Sad.

[@datacipher]

Uh....you just proved his point by going even more berzerk with the fanboy antics. After decades, maybe it's time to let go bud....lol. You really enjoy being histrionic over a platform war from 1985??

[@26ct2957]

But the Amiga WAS better !

[@sluggotg]

And the Point is... Is 5 a larger number than 3? Is New York City bigger than Alameda California?? Does a Train Engine Put out more horsepower than a Moped??? If you answer any of these questions accurately... you are proselytizing.

[@AdamJessopmazdamjmx5]

At 22:36 can anyone find any information on the net about this electronic whiteboard?

[@SE09uk]

In reality the normal people just did not need a computer until about 95 they were okay if you had a printer and made things with that or used it for games i was a Amiga fan big time and talked friends and family in to buying them but in the end as none computer users said to me "why, it's taking your money and time up, other than games what can i use it for"

[@funguy8801]

Yeah, the Amiga was really known for its game catalog. But if you were into music (as I was) then there was great tracker software available. Of course the Atari ST's built-in MIDI ports were an advantage for the rival machine. Amiga users would need to buy a MIDI adapter.

[@miggy4eva980]

Bahaha shouldn't even have been a conversation. Amiga destroys the Atari

[@PRAEst76]

Confused about which of the two most popular home computers would be best for you? Be confused no longer.

[@jasonlee7816]

most of the 16-bit and 32-bit video game consoles left Amiga and ST for dead in terms of game visuals

[@5HlNOBI]

Amiga. Better OS and sound easily.

[@medny]

I seem to remember the Amiga being higher priced, so it would be uncompetitive if it didn't have more features/capability.

[@MrGashden]

Just remember that in it's day the Amiga was the only computer capable of preemptive multitasking and could do this with just 1MB memory. Its graphic capabilities were so powerful, all the CGI used in the TV series Babylon 5 were created on an Amiga!

[@LakeHowellDigitalVideo]

Only the first season was done on an Amiga. Season 2 and above were rendered on a PC.

[@MrGashden]

Yes it took the PC that long to catch up!

[@beezle1976]

Video Toaster with external hardware responsible for the rendering. An Amiga based system is more accurate.

[@JimGardner]

For a real kick watch this on your Android phone running a Windows 3.1 emulator.

[@Landrew0]

What will they come up with next?

[@zarjesve2]

MrAhle, what happend with your old account and old videos (Atari ST and Amiga game comparations )???

[@justwatching2008]

When i was a kid, i played only 8 Amiga games back in 1992. Some games i remember it could turn on Music & SFX at the same the time, this is only 8 games i played them back then. And now nowadays, i tried some other game(i don't remember the name or which one it was compilation on my Amiga 32), i can't turn on both music & SFX, it just turn off music while SFX on and opposite, could it be the developer had a problem back then? Or perhaps someone tell me what the reasons or explain.

[@paul1979uk2000]

Many games did do music and sfx fine without any problems, Turrican series of games is a good example of that, it does surprise me why the Amiga didn't do most games with music and sfx at the same time, the hardware was capable of it, maybe it was a different time and many developers preferred one or the other and not both.

[@justwatching2008]

Much appreciate for knowing, man.

[@paul1979uk2000]

***** You're welcome.

[@spatulasnout]

Generally it would depend on whether the developer wanted to spend CPU cycles mixing sound samples in real-time. If you wanted the hardware to do all the work playing the sounds, then you had a total of 4 channels. Two left, and two right. To play one stereo sound, or to play one mono sound panned somewhere between L/R, you had to use 2 of the 4 channels. (The latter issue-requiring two hardware channels to play a mono sound panned was an unfortunate limitation.) So, without involving CPU mixing, you were limited to just 2 stereo sounds playing at once, or just 2 mono sounds with L/R panning. (If you didn't mind sounds being panned completely left or right, then you could have 4 independent mono sounds at once.) To get around these limitations, some games use the CPU to perform real-time mixing of the 8-bit audio samples, on an interrupt-driven basis. (Interrupt-driven meaning, the hardware signals when it is about to run out of samples, and the CPU interrupts whatever it was doing to quickly mix a few dozens of more samples into a buffer to keep ahead of the hardware, then the CPU returns from the interrupt state to resume whatever it was working on in the foreground.) Using just 2 hardware sound channels, you could mix in as many stereo or mono/panned samples as the CPU could handle: both music and SFX. The drawback of course being, fewer CPU cycles available for the rest of the game logic. Overall the Amiga hardware was a lot of fun to program.

[@paul1979uk2000]

spatulasnout I remember some of the trickery some developers did with the hardware, TFMX I think it was called was one where they could use 7 sound channels by using some of the cpu, it worked pretty well in many games like Turrican 2 and 3 and supposedly the Amiga 500 hardware could mix 8 channels but that would leave little to no cpu cycles left for anything else so some games stuck to 7 channels for titles screens and other stuff like that. Always find it interesting how developers find ways to push hardware more than what the creators of the hardware thought possible.

[@kerrymoulding8216]

Loved the AMIGA - Then, and still do - started with the Vic 20 it was cheap and "Had to Have it" :)))) learned to progam in those days ( thanx for that Commadore, (Bummer thats why my programs failed - I can't spell) went onto the c64 , joined an Amiga Club on Gold Coast Australia ( best time :) - still learning :) love it :) thanx AMIGA

[@kerrymoulding8216]

why i liked it - you could hook it up to your TV - didn't need a monitor

[@kerrymoulding8216]

kerry moulding

[@321minder]

lol, all said.. happy days.

[@Whelkman]

I especially like how they cut off the marketing guys to stick to their format rather than let them yammer on. If you watch a few of these you'll notice that the guests appear to be a little intimidated and try to be on their best behavior. This show seemed to genuinely care about providing as accurate a look as possible to the viewer rather than attempting to replicate Jerry Springer like train wrecks masquerading as news.

[@oubrioko]

3:59 This guy must have been nervous. He's swaying so much, I'm suddenly craving Dramamine.

[@mjp29]

I had the Commodore 64 and the Atari 800XL. The Atari was by far the best system - far far less bugs.

[@n8goulet]

And interestingly, the Atari ST was made by the guy that brought us the very buggy Commodore 64 (I had one for games when they came out), and some of the key Atari 800 guys brought us the Commodore Amiga. Can you say, company flip flop?

[@Vlad-1986]

The only thing that puts me off is the lack of a hard drive. I like the machine, but I dislike to rely on not-so reliable floppy disks.

[@amigachris]

I was an Amiga guy but the ST had a great hi res 640x400 70hz mono display - amiga interlaced modes great for video but sucked for business use so productivity meant a 640x256 15khz mode with visible scan lines. You could buy better graphics cards later on but $$$.

[@purplexenno]

you do know that the Amiga is a GAMING SYSTEM that happens to be able to do other things, right???

[@beezle1976]

I see that a bit, but it's not accurate. Ever since ECS the Amiga has had non interlaced, 4 color 640x480 and 800x600 modes (and other strange modes can be created).

[@beezle1976]

Actually, the opposite is true. Jay Miner was quite adamant about them creating a proper computer and didnt want to make just a games machine. It's a tidbit that is easy to find, with plenty of video footage from the man himself saying it.

[@dzonikg]

In that year amiga was best

[@StreetDrivenDaily]

2:04 amiga 520? maybe hes talking about the modulator :)

[@whattheheck1000]

I believe this aired on December 3, 1985. August 3, 2013 12:12 am

[@krokeman]

18:20 it seem Stoneware made wrong decision. We've never heard of this company again....

[@jack_knife-1478]

I loved my c64 back then.

[@akillaskaramitros7516]

Notator on the atari st is still the best MIDI sequencer....2016!!!!

[@sluggotg]

Even back in the 80's a Midi Adapter was $25.00. Not that hard to buy or find software for.

[@akillaskaramitros7516]

find softwAre for??? Hahaha very funny ...dude amiga for midi timing sounded as a good joke back then perhaps because nobody wanted a fucking guru meditating in the studio

[@ClayMann]

that's not true at all. My Amiga was hooked up to a bunch of synths all daisy chained together. Not only was it the sequencer but it provided samples too which was still something back then you had to pay a fortune for with some Akai sampler. I never had a single problem with MIDI on the Amiga. I wasn't a pro or anything. I was just doing this for fun so I can't compare my experience to using an Atari ST in the studio but it really wasn't a patchy setup. The Amiga was such a rock solid machine.

[@akillaskaramitros7516]

amiga was superior in terms of graphics... but please guys dont mention midi...ST is still being used today in professional recording studios.Its MIDI timing surpasses most of today's MIDI interfaces.Cubase hasn't changed much on the MIDI side(WHERE IS THE IPS???INTERACTIVE PHRASE SYNTHESIZER)Ableton live is based on notator(logic).Notator exists ONLY(!!!) on ATARI ST. www.synthtopia.com/content/2010/03/10/atari-ste/

[@ClayMann]

I would never knock the Atari ST as far as music goes. Including MIDI ports was a genius move. It was the machine to own if you were serious about music production. I wasn't serious, I was just having fun and loving getting cheap bargains on an effects unit here and bargain synth there. But it has to be said that I had everything I felt I needed. I could control the synths over MIDI with the sysex codes. Jeez its so long ago now I forget all that stuff. I just wanted to say it wasn't a pile of shit for music that crashed all the time. Just because the Atari ST was a superb machine for music making doesn't mean the Amiga couldn't be worth using too. I know this because I did just that for many years. You make the most of what you've got and both machines were up to the task of doing all kinds of great stuff. I do also have to say that anyone still using an Atari ST today to make music has some serious problems with moving on. People like that are missing out on so much. Intervention needed! lol

[@trafficone2008]

Its Strange That Atari Did Not Show The 520 At The Time But Showed A High End Spec Atari With A Hard Drive Which Was Not Available To The Consumer For Years Later And No Internal Sound But Had Midi Which Kinda Cheated There Ect

[@russellspeak3096]

To this day (30 years later) I still regret buying an Atari ST over an Amiga.

[@DustyCustard]

That female reporter's voice is soooo Barbara Wintergreen. :D

[@Kg277]

Most 16-bit consoles, and even more 32-bit consoles. Gaming consoles that is..

[@bjbell52]

1985? They said both the 800 and the 64 were one year old? I bought my first Atari in 1980.

[@leftyhara3876]

+bjbell52 yeah well, I bought my first 64 in 82.....

[@teeemack]

I still have my Atari 520ST

[@kirk1968]

Same here, modded to a whopping 1MB RAM :D

[@pelgervampireduck]

I never had these machines, I always used PC, I think I missed out, both these machines are a bit superior to what the PC was doing in the 80s, back then I had an XT with green monochrome monitor, this would have been a great upgrade, also pc didn't have sound blaster yet. I know amiga is more powerful but these days I'd get an atari st because it can read pc diskettes so copying stuff to it is easer than on amiga. judging for what I've read writing amiga diskettes on pc is impossible and downloading something to transfer it to the amiga is a pain in the ass :(

[@daishi5571]

Early Amiga were able to read and write PC formatted discs, but it did require a program to do so. Newer Amiga's integrated that onto the OS. But reading Amiga Discs on a PC is a pain (possible but a pain)

[@OhFishyFish]

14:20 - did he burp?!

[@AdamJessopmazdamjmx5]

😂 Yep! The guy on the front right! 😁

[@jasonlee7816]

what was downhill about them for you?

[@optimalsupreme5080]

Wait Amiga in prototype form in 1982 ,,humm yep so it was ready

[@jasonlee7816]

do you mean the 16-bit and 32-bit game consoles?

[@TheMadisonHang]

@25:35 that would reach classrooms 20 years later.

[@chaoticsystem2211]

Did you rip that video on an Atari? ^^

[@Adrian-yp7nb]

I agree that Amiga was better, but not by much.... I just preferred Atari ST/e....

[@schegges]

15:20 ....... "Jim Tittsler" xD

[@jer6900]

Far more impressive is that comb over

[@f1lupo]

still using AmigaOS today! The only thing Atari was better than was the Apple II junk of that era.

[@TheHoldenmcgroin]

" I let you answer that one, it's pretty obvious..." Depends what you were doing... Just games? Amiga. Want to do more than games? Atari ST.

[@BlackDragon-xn2ww]

I never owned one of these machines the retail price of them both Atari or Amiga was too high in my judgement at the time I use to say why would spend $5,000 on a complete system and yes a very limited powered one at that the C64 was only I think $99 back then on sale used about $35 but I must say the graphics were amazing for the time on par with game consoles of the time and speed of cpu that wasn't seen on IBM dos machines till the 486 came out would like to have one of these today just to tinker around with .