4 ms·
You're right, the Atari ST wasn't on the same level, it was $500 cheaper and had a faster processor.
by spingsprong 13y ago
You're right, the Atari ST wasn't on the same level, it was $500 cheaper and had a faster processor.
- vidarh 13y agoAnd still it was slower for almost everything, and had an OS befitting an 8-bit... EDIT: Now lets get on USENET and start another Amiga vs Atari ST flamewar on comp.sys.aiga.advocacy.
- clef 13y agoThanks for bringing some memories back, I had a 520 ST after my Amstrad CPC664.
- jurip 13y agoThat sounds like me. After that, I went OS/2. These days I fear for any platform I choose.
- ekianjo 13y agoAh, good memories of flamewars in pre-Internet age. The Atari ST was a good piece of hardware, but the Amiga was superior in almost everything it did.
- rbanffy 13y agoThe Amiga was more powerful, thanks to its multiple chips offloading the CPU for many tasks, but the ST was a simpler, more elegant, design. In the end, the evolution of the ST family was easier, as the machine was less tied to NTSC timings and other design compromises that betrayed the gaming console origins of the Amiga. TOS/GEM was a very limited stack, but we shouldn't judge the hardware by its default software.