Author: Fat Rakoon (host213-122-89-250.btinternet.com)
Date: 09-08-2001 14:49
I have not yet compared the A1200 against the Falcon. I am not going to bother either, cos I agree.
However, the 1200 was never supposed to be a machine to go against the Falcon, its only a 600 with trimmings.
The 1400 was a head to head machine for the Falcon, and I will be honest, but I have a few friends with Both a Falcon, and A1400 and some say this and some say that with different software.
I would say that in terms of specs, they both have soem great hardware, the Falcon beats it on many many things, but in the real world, the 1400 is better with most things.
Unfortunately, I have not seen the same software running on each, and so this makes a fair comparison completely impossible.
You say the ST is better than the a500?
At what?
come on, I know for a fact, that the A500 was far superior at nearly everything to what the ST.
Ok I admit that the Workbench is completely cvrap and should never have been released, but other than that, while the ST was 8mhz and the Amiga was 7, this made no real difference at all!
The Amiga has very fast custom chip that more than made up for it, and it gave the amiga far better and faster graphics that left the ST standing, it has sound that was nothing short of perfect, oh yes, the STE is this and that, but with the STE's output being off, and there is always a hiss of some sort ( Caused by the Floppy Chip I if I remember ) when the Amigas sound output was spot on, this made all the difference.
I agree that for professional use, such as DTP, WordPro, CAD, etc the ST is the better choice, BUT ONLY IF YOU HAD A MONO SCREEN
I mean on a TV you had 640x200x4 on an ST, when the Amiga has 640x256 in 356 colours ( I think? )
Yes, the ST was better with Floppies too, it used MSDOS 720k Disks while the AMiga like MAC has to use its own format, but even then, Atari never quite got it right, so you need to use a PC Formatter to have true compatibility, and then the Amiga also has CrossDOS so there was not really any issue there?
Its hard to say that the ST beat the Amiga or the Amiga beat the ST without looking at the whole picture.
They were both good at certain things that the other was not, but then within just a few weeks, that arguement was closed when the other machine suddenly had software that was better again.
To my knowledge there is no real software that is available for both machines except for games, and unfortunately, the AMiga will always have better games than the ST, and from what Software we do have for the STE, it is I am afraid still better on the Amiga.
However, having used HiSoft Basic on the Amiga, I had to laugh that HiSoft even had the nerve to release it... Basic, and C from HiSoft is utter crap in comparison.
Unfortunately we cannot really compare the clones against each other either, because the amiga clones do beat ANY atari clone hands down I am afraid.
I dont like this as much as you, but I see them every bloody day. I have some POV Script done by Amiga owning friends, and for example I have one that takes 20-25 minutes on the milan, while on the Amiga, it takes 30 seconds. Ok, so the Milan is not the fastest Atari Clone, but neither is an upgraded A2000 the best Amiga, its one of the oldest.
All in all though, I still agree that the Atari is far better to work with. I use Magic mainly, and while I also have WB3.9 which handles multitasking better than Windows ever could, I still prefer the overall feel of the Atari anyday.
I get my work done straight away on the Atari when the Amiga isnt all that much cop and I would not really use it for anything serious, just pictures and games.
|
