There has been enough written about the differing qualities of the
Amiga and Atari products during the late eighties. The two companies
had an unhappy family relationship with both attempting to do the
same thing under, at times, the same controlling arm. Atari failed to
secure Amiga and having lost the purchase went ahead and tried to
out-do the Amiga in a speed challenge to take the home market first.
Jack Tramiel who had left Commodore under a cloud was determined to
beat Amiga with the new range of consoles and almost did it with the
ST computers. Each camp will tell you that their product was better.
The Amiga was definitely pulling away in the early nineties but was
crippled by its own inability to set its focus. In truth it probably
needed a Jack Tramiel at the helm to steer it clear.
Anyhoo, I am not here to compare the actual working characteristics
of the two machines but simply to compare body parts. Both are of a
similar age and both those shown are working without fault and have
not been modified. The Amiga does have a KCS PC card fitted but that
is about it.
See what you think. Personally whilst I like the design lines of the
A500 I do feel that the Atari is built better. On the plus side for
Atari I do like power onboard and the reset switch. What I don't
like is the mouse and joystick buttons on the bottom.
In terms of what I find objectionable about the Amiga I would only
say the use of the flame retardant intumescent in the paint finish
for obvious reasons. I would have liked the case to have been a
little more rigid, particularly where the slope meets the straight.
But other than that I can't really fault the Amiga. Its brilliant.
The most annoying aspect of the Atari is the boot process. It just
sounds so lame and the eventual basic interface is crap. Sorry. I
am not saying the Amiga could not have done more to give some
essential boot out of the box, but if you are going to do anything
at least make it professional looking. The Acorn is way better.
