Slimer wrote:
On 2015-05-21 11:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Slimer wrote:

It HAD to be software piracy. I truly don't understand what else
could have gone wrong because they also focused on releasing ever
more compelling versions of the ST unlike Amiga. It is incredibly
sad to see what happened to a platform which honestly seemed
superior to the PC until at least 1988.

Not even close. Though the Atari was more than adequate for
individual hobbyists, the PC was always oriented toward professional
users of all types. By 1985 there were a plethora of expansion cards
available for the PC that were superior to any other platform, but
they cost a lot. 32 bit video graphics editing cards cost about $5K,
audio cards were over $1k, and so on. The professional alternatives
involved dedicated hardware that cost over $100k for these tasks.
Atari's Amiga was the only other computer-based contender in those
markets, and I suspect that it was the Amiga that drained the Atari
ST development resources.

Professional typographic programs such as Ventura Publisher only ran
on the PC. When the Mac was introduced, folks flocked to it because
they didn't have to be techie pros to get up and running. But there
was still a big difference between setting type on an 8" B/W screen
vs. the 15" color screens common for PCs.

There were a lot of special-purpose expansion cards, such as
multi-processor cards for intensive tasks. These are just a few of
the factors that established the PC for professionals, and there
still isn't much in the way of competition for it.

The problem is that to get the same kind of experience from a PC
between 1985 and 1989 that you would get from an Amiga or an Atari
ST, you had no choice but to pay more.

The PC is a platform to build systems for professional use. IBM & MS
established industry standards for hardware and software that allowed
developers to market advanced products, the result being both better
performance and a better investment for businesses. Apple captured the "out
of the box" market after moving away from their Apple ][, and neither
Commodore nor Atari could keep up or overtake the momentum from either of
those directions.

Essentially, the PC didn't deserve to win because it _required_
additional cards to be as functional as what its competitors had for a
lot less.

Those "competitors" were a bad investment for businesses because they were
not compatible with anything that was actually being used. Every try to run
Lotus 123 or WordPerfect on an Atari ST? Businesses are going to hack their
way to a solution that they can just buy for a few tax-deductable dollars
more. As I said, once the PC's pro expansion cards were added the serious
competitive alternatives were dedicated systems costing hundreds of
thousands of dollars more. History shows that the PC was and still is the
winning concept for professionals, so it's hard to argue that it wasn't a
deserved outcome.
--
best regards,

Neil