Live data from Hacker News

Really Atari ST?

os2museum.com

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: Really Atari ST?

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember seeing a tool that could be used to punch a hole in floppy disks in order to double the capacity. I didn't have such a tool, but I did have a cheap soldering iron. I ended up with a bunch of 3.5" floppy disks with holes melted through them. Thinking back on it now, I'm surprised that I didn't damage the disk with the heat of the iron. Then again, maybe I did and didn't notice because I was 12.

I've seen it used - IIRC the problem is that the media isn't rated for the storage that you're now asking of it, so while it may survive being written/read a few times, it'd fail sooner.

Can confirm. I used to drill holes with a... well, a drill.

Totally worked. Capacity increased. Until one day your files were corrupted. And that day often came soon!

Re: Really Atari ST?

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember seeing a tool that could be used to punch a hole in floppy disks in order to double the capacity. I didn't have such a tool, but I did have a cheap soldering iron. I ended up with a bunch of 3.5" floppy disks with holes melted through them. Thinking back on it now, I'm surprised that I didn't damage the disk with the heat of the iron. Then again, maybe I did and didn't notice because I was 12.

I've seen it used - IIRC the problem is that the media isn't rated for the storage that you're now asking of it, so while it may survive being written/read a few times, it'd fail sooner.

It might fail sooner, but you were banking on it essentially just being a binning distinction, that they didn't really do any testing either way and just stuck them in cases with or without the hole depending on what they thought they could sell at the time.

Did I lose files on fake doublesided disks? Yes. Did I lose files on real doublesided disks? Also yes.

Re: Really Atari ST?

#43

There are so many things the ST does badly - weak sound chip, screen memory laid out like a Venetian blind (to quote Jeff Minter I think), and a mouse that was designed in a universe where ergonomics did not exist. But I still love it. Without the ST I wouldn't have discovered programming and all the highs (and lows) that it brings. Looking back now, I'm surprised people were able to get as much out of it as they did…

Well, I'd argue about the music. The chiptune music from SID and YM has aged very well, while Amiga sounds horrbile without FM synth and 8-bit 11kHz samples. Also memory was much better organized than Amiga - without the speed penalty. And the simplicity of Shifter (the "GPU") allowed for really awsome 'beyond the dream' hacks, which were unavaliable on Amiga due to much more capable - but limited in 'hacking' video…

Atari STE had 2 channels 8 bit DAC à 25kHz on DMA.

It was the Falcon who had incredible sound capacity with its matrix channel mixer and DSP.

Re: Really Atari ST?

#44
post #7

The one thing I like the most about the ST (when compared to, say, the Amiga) is its simplicity. It's vastly less capable, of course, but, in the end, the simplicity pays back by allowing easier expansion. The Amiga was a hard machine to evolve, something that cost Commodore a lot.

Indeed. As a student (1987) I had an Amiga 500 and after a few months I sold it and bought an Atari Mega ST2 in its place. The Amiga was so unpleasant to use for programming. To be confortably usable it required at least 2 floppy drives (a 3rd one would even been useful) or a hard drive, expanding beyond 1 MB was also not cheap and the display was horrible. TV resolution 576i (PAL) is inadequate for editing text. On the Atari we had the cheap SM-124 fantastic monochrome 71Hz refresh rate screen which allowed to stay for hours programming. All compilers and editor I needed would fit in one 800K floppy and the 2 mb of RAM would even allow to work from RAM disk. A breeze. Gaming was still possible with the second cable connected to the TV set (later I installed the PC-Speed emulator in my Mega ST which transformed it in a very capable XT PC (8Mhz V30, 704 kB DOS memory, with 640x400 Olivetti graphics). The Amiga was better for gaming, no contest, for serious stuff like porgramming, word processing (pixel perfect Signum!) and stuff, it was so much better in lower budget.

Re: Really Atari ST?

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on this because I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. My take is that both the Amiga and the Atari had a plethora of expansions and, without having any numbers to show, I think the Amiga won out in the expansion race, from 040 cards for the A500 (AFAIK no 040 was available for any Atari until much later) to the Video Toaster. Both machines were hard to evolve because bo…

The Amiga was much more closely tied to the hardware than the ST, by dint of it's bus system sharing between the blitter and CPU for chip RAM. Additionally, having the copper, sprites, scrolling, HAM and planar graphics modes meant that backwards compatibility is harder - just look at the difficulty of emulation for both of them. The Amiga graphics layout is also (slightly) more difficult to work with, there's a tric…

[deleted]

Re: Really Atari ST?

#46
post #7

The one thing I like the most about the ST (when compared to, say, the Amiga) is its simplicity. It's vastly less capable, of course, but, in the end, the simplicity pays back by allowing easier expansion. The Amiga was a hard machine to evolve, something that cost Commodore a lot.

I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on this because I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. My take is that both the Amiga and the Atari had a plethora of expansions and, without having any numbers to show, I think the Amiga won out in the expansion race, from 040 cards for the A500 (AFAIK no 040 was available for any Atari until much later) to the Video Toaster. Both machines were hard to evolve because bo…

The question is also to consider when and at what price. A Amiga 2000 had indeed quite the extension possibilities, but they were expensive. An Amiga 500 was a whole other story. The expandibility was limited and only in later times was it possible to add a lot of RAM and disks, etc. and RAM it needed a lot, much more than than Atari, but the Ataris didn't need as much memory, but they were also less greedy with it.

Re: Really Atari ST?

#48
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The floppy drive has a stepper motor that controls the placement of the read/write head above the disk. In the ST era, the control of that motor was directly under the control of the operating system. For an 80 track disk, the movement required to step between tracks was a certain known amount. If you formatted the disk with the tracks spaced closer together, by altering the stepper movement during that process, you…

Weren’t there special compression softwares that added even more capacity?

I don't really remember any: my main recollection as an ST user was the format programs that let you increase the track count and the sector density.

I recall the default format was 9 sectors, 80 tracks, 2 sides with 512 bytes per sector = 720KB, and you could push up to sometimes 82/83 tracks and maybe 10 or 11 sectors to get more out of a diskette.

Actually, I think my ST originally came with a single-sided floppy drive and had to be upgraded.

Re: Really Atari ST?

#49
post #7

The one thing I like the most about the ST (when compared to, say, the Amiga) is its simplicity. It's vastly less capable, of course, but, in the end, the simplicity pays back by allowing easier expansion. The Amiga was a hard machine to evolve, something that cost Commodore a lot.

I think the Amiga was much more expandable than Atari. Just check out the variety of accelerator boards, RTG graphics cards, serial boards, HD controllers, etc. available. The Atari OS (TOS) was also very simple compared to Amiga OS.

I think that's oversimplified. TOS was single tasking but two things a) unlike the Amiga a proper 68000 syscall TRAP mechanism was used meaning the OS etc ran using proper supervisor / user separation and b) the application toolkit (AES) built overtop supported message passing and multiple application semantics and c) the graphics subsystem (VDI) was also in theory abstracted away from the physical. In fact the OS components themselves had originally been developed (by Digital Research) for both x86 and 68000 and the original work was done on the Lisa before it ever got put on a Atari hardware. And DR's GEM had a life of its own on PC hardware (see Ventura Publisher, etc.), though handicapped by the Apple lawsuit and competition from Microsoft.

These things meant that later the Atari community and Atari themselves were able to extend the OS in a proper multitasking almost Unix-like direction (MiNT and MultiGEM) and bring it to new hardware, and new display formats and architectures, etc. Provided the applications being run were cleanly written (well, that's a big caveat...). For example -- we can now run TOS/GEM on an Amiga, that's pretty neat (though totally pointless).

In true Tramiel fashion they shipped the cheapest simplest thing they could. But it was something they were able to iterate on -- unfortunately they just did this too slowly. As others have pointed out, the Amiga had amazing hardware from the go, but its architecture became somewhat tied to that original hardware. It was more like a video games console than a workstation. They had a few years headstart on everyone else and then having (then dated) specialized hardware became a liability, not an advantage.

Re: Really Atari ST?

#50
post #40
post #27

Every time we talk of hardware from this era I'm reminded that I was absolutely set on getting a Commodore 64 or even better, a ColecoVision Adam computer, and my dad 'made me' get a Tandy instead. Ugly tan box. Yuck. My dad and I don't have what you might call compatible decision making processes, so there were many times I was disappointed by his decisions growing up. But that machine taught me DOS, the next one go…

According to the 8 Bit Guy, the Tandy was actually a superb DOS computer, maybe the best :)

The Tandy 1000 line was a great DOS machine of its moment for games, because the 1000 wasn't just a PC clone, it was a better version of the PCjr -- it had better sound and graphics out of the box compared to PCs, with better actual PC software compatibility and without the horrible chiclet keyboard. The 1000 was so successful for a while that games that supported the PCjr's enhancements were marketed as "Tandy-compatible".
Post reply on HN