And yet the Mac survived to this day. Probably because they cost 2x as much as the ST...
- Operating system that isn't TOS
Why not now?
- Operating system that isn't TOS
- Separate, high quality keyboard
-clear upgrade path
The idea of that awful desktop being there all the time scares me a bit, to be honest.
TT... but no blitter?
- Weirdo external bus. ACSI vs SCSI... Hmm betamax much?
- Having to buy two monitors and a switch box. C'mon son.
calimero wrote:Why not now?
because we have barbecue
first, I compare original Mac Classic from 1984. and ST from 1985.
Silly_Pony wrote:Atari ST:
- Awful TOS. Severe bugs for years (hello there hard disk support), as well as clunky unalterable behaviors like pull down menus that pull themselves down.
Silly_Pony wrote:Not to mention having to install a hack like GDOS for real font support, or having to replace rom chips to upgrade.
calimero wrote:- Operating system that isn't TOS
- Atari get MultiTos (unix like OS) 8 years before Mac (Mac OS X)
calimero wrote:- Separate, high quality keyboard
- original Mac keyboard lack of cursors keys and numpad
calimero wrote:BUT you could still get 40MHz 68030 ST system for fraction of Mac price (with 3rd party accelerators)
calimero wrote:but because of this you have 3 different OS for ST and dozen desktop replacements...
beside TOS: Kaos, Geneva, MagiC, MiNT/MultiTOS
desktop: KaosDesk, NeoDesk, TeraDesk, Jinnee, Mag!xDesk ...that's all I can remember in second.
calimero wrote:32MHz 68030 is faster than blitter.
calimero wrote:SCSI was not finalized until 1986. so Atari take part of SCSI specification and come up with ACSI...
calimero wrote:? you refer to mono and color monitor? ultra sharp SM124 is one of biggest strength of ST!
and if you want color and mono on ONE monitor than you would get real mess!
calimero wrote:btw my point is that ST was far more better designed than Mac in 3 times less time.
So? Multitos was optional, shipped on floppy and was buggy. Didn't it come out in 93?
All he sees is his friends mac doesn't need a two head cludge.
With computers, you choose from power, cost, and polish. You can only ever have two.
calimero wrote:and now you are complaining that MultiTos is on floppy (harddisc)... ?
calimero wrote:anyway - MacOS was ok in 1984, but in 1995. everybody has preemptive multitasking and memory protection (except amiga ) and Apple. Atari did have both in 1993.
calimero wrote:btw regarding OS on floppy: DID YOU FORGET how often you need to swap floppy on Mac Classic ???
calimero wrote:so Mac Classic is better because it does not have ASCI (DMA driven, 1MB/s port...)? ok.
calimero wrote:yes, because Mac does not have colors
That's pathetic. Compare System .85 (Macintosh 1985) to System 7.1 (1993). Massive upgrades!
calimero wrote:That's pathetic. Compare System .85 (Macintosh 1985) to System 7.1 (1993). Massive upgrades!
massive (_cosmetics_) upgrade!
calimero wrote:I find very impressive that Apple with all millions and employes was unable to make successor of Mac OS with preemptive multitasking and memory protection.
calimero wrote:OS 7 was junk (I had PowerBook 5300 in 1998.) - you start application and it grab as much RAM as it think it will be needed.
calimero wrote:btw we can continue until tomorrow with this... BUT ST vs Mac Classic - situation is clear
New control panel systems, support for more hardware, pre-emptive multitasking, networking... Saying it's merely cosmetic improvement is pure ignorance.
The fact you are more interested in the memory management system than actually using the computer to achieve a task tells me a lot.
Now try ST range versus the II (three years earlier than Mac Classic).
calimero wrote:...pre-emptive multitasking
??? on Mac OS 7?
same goes to ST. It also evolved over time: you got networking, preemptive multitasking (Mac does not), memory protection (Mac does not)...
made far superior product than Apples Mac.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests