You're comparing apples to oranges. The 2600 was a game machine, NOT a computer, which is what C-64 was. Atari 800 was better than C-64 on many levels, although it was nowhere near as popular in terms of sales. The same fate followed with Atari computer child - the Amiga, which was an extremely potent child, the most potent of all. All C= could muster was C-128, which was a joke. The 2600 started it, it was designed by a brilliant man, the same one that created the Atari computers & the Amiga. Unfortunately - he never received the recognition, they never reached the masses they deserved to reach, and unfortunately he's no longer with us, although [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_...

You're comparing apples to oranges. The 2600 was a game machine, NOT a computer, which is what C-64 was. Atari 800 was better than C-64 on many levels, although it was nowhere near as popular in terms of sales. The same fate followed with Atari computer child - the Amiga, which was an extremely potent child, the most potent of all. All C= could muster was C-128, which was a joke. The 2600 started it, it was designed by a brilliant man, the same one that created the Atari computers & the Amiga. Unfortunately - he never received the recognition, they never reached the masses they deserved to reach, and unfortunately he's no longer with us, although Jay Miner will always remain the most admired and cherished computer designer, if not of all time, certainly of microcomputer generation... for millions worldwide.

Errrm...NO!

The Amiga was and still is a Commodore product. And the Atari 800 paled in comparison to the 64 and the 128 due to the fact that it did not have the right music/graphics combo. If your thinking about the Atari ST then you are right, but it was not superior to the Amiga although it was its contemporary.

As for it been a game machine (console) yes that is a difference but the reason why the C-64 was so popular its because it was a terrific game platform (it even used the same joystick ports as the 2600). The problem with Atari is that they over promised, but failed to deliver, that an...

Errrm...NO!

The Amiga was and still is a Commodore product. And the Atari 800 paled in comparison to the 64 and the 128 due to the fact that it did not have the right music/graphics combo. If your thinking about the Atari ST then you are right, but it was not superior to the Amiga although it was its contemporary.

As for it been a game machine (console) yes that is a difference but the reason why the C-64 was so popular its because it was a terrific game platform (it even used the same joystick ports as the 2600). The problem with Atari is that they over promised, but failed to deliver, that and E.T.....shudder!

And Jay Miner worked for Commodore after he left Atari and founded Hi-Toro/Amiga Corporation which was bought out by Commodore in 1985.

You have some of the facts right, most of them wrong. Amiga is still an official company, although it's a far cry from what it used to be and even though it's proud of its parents, that's it about all it has to show as far as the link to the past goes (we're still waiting for them to come out with some hardware/software which has been promised for years). Commodore, the kind that owned Amiga has long been put out to pasture, as it should've been. There's a logo & name owned by a totally unrelated outfit, but it has nothing to do or own anything Amiga-related.

Amiga was NOT a C= creation, it was designed and created by Jay Miner & his team after he left Atari. Atari ST was (and is) a jok...

You have some of the facts right, most of them wrong. Amiga is still an official company, although it's a far cry from what it used to be and even though it's proud of its parents, that's it about all it has to show as far as the link to the past goes (we're still waiting for them to come out with some hardware/software which has been promised for years). Commodore, the kind that owned Amiga has long been put out to pasture, as it should've been. There's a logo & name owned by a totally unrelated outfit, but it has nothing to do or own anything Amiga-related.

Amiga was NOT a C= creation, it was designed and created by Jay Miner & his team after he left Atari. Atari ST was (and is) a joke and he had nothing to do with it. It was a brainchild of Jack Tramiel, one of the original founders of C=, who later took over almost dead Atari. He wanted to buy Amiga technology & bury it, but didn't succeed, C= wound up buying Amiga, the company and running it into the ground, because they were a bunch of inept idiots... which became apparent after the original, and highly brilliant Amiga team, was disbanded by C=, including Mr. Miner. There were certain versions of the OS that, if one used enough hands (more than 2 were needed) - could press a key sequence and a message from the original folks would show their sentiments about C=... and the message read 'We made Amiga and they f*ed it up'... based on how C=/Amiga history went - it didn't tack a legal scholar to figure out who they were talking about.

Atari computers that Jay put together (i.e. 400/800) were better than C64, but not significantly so, for the most part they were even platforms. The greedy idiots who ran Atari at the time decided to continue to rake in the dough regardless of any kind of reason or business sense... and thought that selling a similar in a way box for $1080 would go against $699 box from a competitor, just because of their clout. Obviously a stupid move, just as Atari initially...