eve@ssc-bee.UUCP (Michael Eve) (09/18/85)
Just read in InfoWorld that Atari is going to offer a second operating system for the 520ST. Since I've been pondering the purchase of either an Amiga or a 520 (after Hanukkah), I was really excited when I saw the headline. I should have taken a cold shower. Atari is negotiating with a British company for something called BOS. Apparently, it is somewhat popular on the continent among business users. Atari wanted something to increase the acceptance of the 520 as a business machine both here and there, hence BOS. There are several business applications available for BOS, and Atari wants to port these over. Eventually, BOS will be thrown in with new 520 purchases; current owners will have to shell out $100 for BOS. Oh, yes, the BOS application programs are in the $500 price range (yikes!). (** flame **) Once again, another computer company is stumbling around without clear goals. Who in the hell is going to buy an ST just to get to run BOS programs? Why couldn't they just buy something like CP/M68K or maybe OS-9? I'm not fond of the Amiga emulating a PC and running MS-DOS, but it makes a lot more sense than this BOS nonsense. Oh, well. The Atari just dropped another couple of notches relative to the Amiga (in my opinion). -- Mike Eve Boeing Aerospace, Seattle ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!eve
ekijak@ARDC.ARPA (Edmund S. Kijak, POINT) (09/24/85)
I agree, but I don't understand why you're "not fond of the Amiga emulating a PC and running MS-DOS". Seems to me that users would like to use the same operating system at home as they do at work. So if the Amiga or the 520 ST ran Unix or MS-DOS, it would be a more attractive machine both for serious home users as well as low priced commercial users. Industry is buying PC's in large quantities in order to automate. If a microcomputer manufacturer wants a large customer base, he should make his machine attractive to commercial & industrial users, not just home users. An individual buys one computer, one or two disk drives, one printer. A company buying equipment for use within its offices buys hundreds of computers, hundreds of printers, peripherals, etc. I can't picture a commercial company buying hundreds of 520 ST's no matter how cost effective it may be, because it doesnt attempt to fit in with the traditional office environment of MS-DOS, Unix, IBM-PC compatible software, etc. Too bad, because if you had one at the office, maybe you wouldn't have to buy a complete system for home - you could borrow some of the office peripherals over the weekend.
randy@NLM-VAX.ARPA (Rand Huntzinger) (09/24/85)
Don't be too sure the Atari folk are totally disdainful of the IBM-PC compatable world. TOS (or GEMDOS) used in the Atari is essentially a 68000 version of MS-DOS, and there are little things like using IBM key scan codes, an IBM-PC compatible disk file structure, etc. If you can write a software emulator for an IBM-PC which runs on the Amiga, you should be able to just as easily write one for the Atari ST, especially considering the above. Of course you could just put a 8086 or 80286 in a box on the side for that matter. I'm not too sure what the folks at Atari have up their sleeve, but I doubt they've missed anything so obvious as the position the IBM-PC has in the market. Neither have the Commodore people.
wcs@ho95e.UUCP (Bill.Stewart.4K435.x0705) (09/26/85)
> Don't be too sure the Atari folk are totally disdainful of the IBM-PC > compatable world. TOS (or GEMDOS) used in the Atari is essentially a 68000 > version of MS-DOS, and there are little things like using IBM key scan codes, > an IBM-PC compatible disk file structure, etc. If you can write a software > emulator for an IBM-PC which runs on the Amiga, you should be able to just as > easily write one for the Atari ST, especially considering the above. Of course > you could just put a 8086 or 80286 in a box on the side for that matter. > > I'm not too sure what the folks at Atari have up their sleeve, but I doubt > they've missed anything so obvious as the position the IBM-PC has in the > market. Neither have the Commodore people. Presumably th e reason for porting the British Operating System to the 520 is that it was easy to do quickly, and gives you access to a reasonable software base in a hurry. Porting MSDOS may not be difficult, if your comments about TOS<->MSDOS similarity are correct, but getting a 68000 to run machine code from the braindamaged 808[68] micros in realtime is difficult.. -- ## Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs