[net.micro.mac] Atari ST vs. Apple Mac

kjardine@watmum.UUCP (Kevin Jardine) (05/14/85)

Here are some price comparisons (in Canadian dollars, $1 CDN ~ $.7 US,
officially, but in the computer market, it seems more like $1 CDN ~ $.6 US)
The Apple prices are from the Apple Canada Suggested Retail Price List.

	Item			Atari ST		Apple Macintosh

512K 68000 computer with 1	$1400			  $4095
360K (500K unformatted) 3 1/2"
floppy drive and a monochrome
monitor

High density dot matrix printer ~$300-$400		  $950
(1280 dots per line)

Daisy wheel printer		 $399			  $3280


Floppy Disk Drive		 $260			  $775

Hard Disk			~$700-$800 		  $3125
				   (15M)		  (10M)

The monochrome monitor has a higher resolution (640 X 400) than the Mac's,
and a colour monitor (that can show 512 colours) is also available for
$600.  I'll grant you that dealers may substantially discount their Mac's,
but not by THAT much.  Of course Mac owners pay for QUALITY, right? [:-)]

ix408@sdcc6.UUCP (Cris Rys) (05/18/85)

The nicest quality I have noticed about the Atari ST is that
it has a cheap mass storage. A 15MB hard disk on the Atari
will reportedly sell for $400.

Any reports on a cheap hard disk for the Mac?

Cris

ps. Even though the Atari looks good, there is *NO* software!

royt@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy M. Turner) (05/22/85)

Well, there were some fairly exorbitant prices listed for the Mac in the 
comparison, I must say--makes me want to hock mine immediately :-)

My 512k Mac and imagewriter and an exteral disk drive were being sold for
$2795 when I purchased it...I bought it through a university, and left off the
external drive, and paid $2262.  So where did you get your prices???  And
don't claim that mine was bought a while ago, either--it arrived day before
yesterday!!

Roy
-- 
The above opinions aren't necessarily those of etc, etc...but they
should be!!

Roy Turner
(a transplanted Kentucky hillbilly)
School of Information and Computer Science
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!royt

luscher@nicmad.UUCP (05/23/85)

> The nicest quality I have noticed about the Atari ST is that
> it has a cheap mass storage. A 15MB hard disk on the Atari
> will reportedly sell for $400.
> 
> Any reports on a cheap hard disk for the Mac?
> 
> ps. Even though the Atari looks good, there is *NO* software!

	For early Mac owners that is nothing they haven't lived
through before.  ;-)

-- 
Jim Luscher / Nicolet Instruments / Oscilloscope Div.
5225 Verona Rd Bldg-2 / Madison Wi 53711 USA / 608/271-3333x2274

kjardine@watmum.UUCP (Kevin Jardine) (05/24/85)

In article <423@gitpyr.UUCP> royt@gitpyr.UUCP (Roy M. Turner) writes:
>Well, there were some fairly exorbitant prices listed for the Mac in the 
>comparison, I must say--makes me want to hock mine immediately :-)
>
>My 512k Mac and imagewriter and an exteral disk drive were being sold for
>$2795 when I purchased it...I bought it through a university, and left off the
>external drive, and paid $2262.  So where did you get your prices???  And
>don't claim that mine was bought a while ago, either--it arrived day before
>yesterday!!
>
>Roy

As I stated in the article, the prices are in the official Apple Canada
retail price list and are in CANADIAN funds.  My point was that Apple 
is charging far more than Atari for a machine that is NOT three times better 
technically (although right now has far more software available).
I'll grant you that some universities are offering special deals on their
Macs, but these are not available for most of the "rest of us".
I am an Apple fan. It took courage and some innovation to bring the
Xerox Star microcomputer's ideas to an (almost) mass market computer,
but I think that is time that Apple stopped asking its dealers to charge
what the market will bear, and starts charging something closer to what
it actually costs to produce the machine.  The official cost for the 512K
upgrade is another example of this practice.  (Remember, the first ball
point pens were $25, and this time, that's in AMERICAN funds before the
days of stagflation.)

Right now, there is no way I can afford a Mac at the prices Apple is
charging.  I may soon be able to buy an ST.

Kevin

al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) (05/24/85)

> The nicest quality I have noticed about the Atari ST is that
> it has a cheap mass storage. A 15MB hard disk on the Atari
> will reportedly sell for $400.
> 
> ps. Even though the Atari looks good, there is *NO* software!

Can you buy the Atari today?  If so, from whom?  I.e., is it vaporware or
a product?

adm@cbneb.UUCP (05/25/85)

Where did the prices come from for the mac?  If thats the best
you can do, let me know; "have I got a deal for YOU!"

Also I think you're forgetting that a large amount of software come with
the mac; for approx. $2500 (US), I can get a 512k mac with second drive, a word
processor (macwrite) a graphics package (macpaint), a game (the puzzle DA)
and many utilities (plus the guided tour with cassette!).  Not to mention
the two tons of public domain DAs, games, pictures, etc.

Not to mension detailled documentation is available (Inside mac, although it
does cost a bit of extra bucks).  Not to mention that Apple actually listens
to the users (via the net). Not to mention ....

No doubt the Jackintosh is cheaper initailly, but don't forget the philosiphy
behind this: Atari plans (as far as I know anyway) to make money on the
software and accessories, not the machine itself.  Pay now, or pay later!
There may be a market for the Atari ST, but I'll keep my mac thank you.

Wayne "I'd rather fight than switch!" Pollock

vantreeck@logic.DEC (05/28/85)

       The disparity in prices between the MAC and Atari ST, does not indicate
that Apple ripping anyone off. Rather, I think that it indicates that Atari has
not yet learned about margins. I suspect that MAC's suggested retail price is
about three times the cost of manufacture. And there's about a four or five
time markup on disk drives. This kind of markup is the usual for those in the
computer industry that not only survive but thrive. 

       Atari has had financial problems before. It appears that Atari has
not yet balanced it good technical and marketing prowess with good finanacial
management. In order to make an adequate profit selling at Atari's very low
margins, it would have to sell in volumes that a rapidly maturing market can
not support. Even Big Blue has discovered this and has started putting more
emphasis on the AT line which has more growth potential.

       You may get a great buy on an ATARI ST today. But will there be an ATARI
tomorrow to support your ST? That's a gamble I'm not going to take at this
time. I'm sticking with my MAC. 


						George Van Treeck

jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (05/29/85)

Last night while sitting trying to figure out how many more months it will
be before I can get my memory/disk upgrade, so I can start saving up for a
compiler, an ironic and interesting thought occurred to me.

This Atari ST... we keep criticizing its low quality compared to the
Macintosh.  This is probably justified; Apple I suspect put a lot more R&D
into the Macintosh; and it's the Commodore Amiga we really have to worry
about, anyway, since Apple lost the Turbo Pascal opportunity to Commodore.

But, if you read the interviews with the Apple engineers, it appears that
the Atari ST is more or less what the Apple engineers started out to build,
before the Mac started getting enhanced and improved into what it is now:
it had much lower resolution, was generally a smaller machine, and was much
less expensive.

Now, other than the fact that the Mac is so expensive, I personally think I
would rather have the Mac anyday.  But it's kind of interesting to consider
this possibility that maybe the ST is sort of what the Mac started out as...

DISCLAIMER: I like the Mac!  I just wish some aspects of it weren't so
obstinate...
-- 
Full-Name:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP:       ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail:    MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
	    2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642

	    "V'z bss gb gur Orezbbgurf, gb jngpu gur bavbaf
	     na' gur rryf!"  [Jryy, jbhyq lbh oryvrir Arj Wrefrl?]

adm@cbneb.UUCP (05/29/85)

> The nicest quality I have noticed about the Atari ST is that
> it has a cheap mass storage. A 15MB hard disk on the Atari
> will reportedly sell for $400.

The rumor I hear is that the 15MB disk is actually a 20MB disk that the company
couldn't sell elsewhere because of too many media defects.  Atari bought the
drives and is putting a special controller on to map out the defects.
This should slow down access to the disk, but it makes for a cheap disk drive!

broehl@wateng.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) (05/30/85)

I must take exception to this!

Saying "the ST is what the Mac started out to be before getting enhanced" is
almost exactly the opposite of reality.

I've *seen* the ST and played with it, and can safely say:

1. Yes, it exists.
2. It is what the Mac should have been, but isn't.
3. It's essentially an improved version of the Mac at a third of the price.

If Atari can really supply it at the price they're quoting (and I still feel
that's a big "if", regardless of what Tramiel may say), then for the price of
a memory upgrade on a Mac you can buy a complete ST with 512k, a disk drive
and a very nice high-resolution monitor.

The resolution on the ST is *higher* than the Mac, not lower (Mac is 512 x 384,
ST is 640 x 400).  The ST allows you to have color, but at lower resolution
(a reasonable enough trade).

They put enough keys on the keyboard (yay!) and a second button on the mouse
(interesting, but necessary?).  The display is larger and crisper than the
Mac's.  The thing comes with 512k standard.  They have provisions for a hard
disk built right in from day 1.

Now, if only there were some software.... :-)

I'm seriously thinking of buying an ST.  I wouldn't even dream of spending
three times as much for an inferior machine.

However, I won't buy anything until there's some decent software; I also plan
to wait for a few reviews before I jump in headlong.  At the moment, though,
I'm *very* interested in the ST.
-- 
        -Bernie Roehl    (University of Waterloo)
	...decvax!watmath!wateng!broehl

chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/03/85)

In article <2450@wateng.UUCP> broehl@wateng.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) writes:
>I've *seen* the ST and played with it, and can safely say:
>
>1. Yes, it exists.
>2. It is what the Mac should have been, but isn't.
>3. It's essentially an improved version of the Mac at a third of the price.
>
>If Atari can really supply it at the price they're quoting (and I still feel
>that's a big "if", regardless of what Tramiel may say)

Prototypes are wonderful, but I'll believe the ST when I see it. The
latest, per the San Jose Mercury News, is that the ST, which was supposed
to be shipped to around now, will go to user groups next month. Also, the
lower priced machine (128K???) that was to be sold in mass market stores
has been cancelled, and the larger machine will be ready Real Soon Now.
Atari claims 200 software developers workin on the machine, but nobody has
been able to find a company admitting to this -- software looks to be as
much vaporware as the hardware right now. Atari, which previously announced
that the operating system would be in ROM for speed, has now recanted and
said it will be on disk and loaded, so you lose a fair amount of your ram
and your available disk and the speed advantages of the ST.

I've been following the Atari machine, both on the net and in the trade,
and what I see is a highly ambitious product with minimal profit margins
and a set of production specs that changes hourly. If I was a software
developer, I'd be VERY wary of this machine, simply because it seems Atari
isn't exactly sure how to build the turkey yet. If they did, they wouldn't
keep changing the specs out from under themselves and delaying shipping. It
is quite possible that the machine will get to market and be the greatest
thing since sliced bread. My opinion is that talk is quite cheap, and until
I see a production level machine, all of this is so much vaporware.
Prototypes are great, but I've see a number of products that almost never
made it out of prototype stage because what you can build one at a time
doesn't always translate to volume. Keep your eye on Amiga, folks, and if
Atari gets its act together without going broke (again) first, then we can
worry about the ST...

>... and a second button on the mouse (interesting, but necessary?).

Actually, yes. The one button mouse on the Mac is, in my opinion, its
strongest weakness. I've hacked to some degreee with mice with from one
button to four (and also a trackball, which has some advantages of its own)
and I find the two button mouse to be the best tradeoff between
functionality and confusion. You can easily get to either button, and you
don't need to watch the mouse like you do with four buttons, and you don't
need to use a 'Meta' key like you do with a one button mouse.
Realistically, the Mac IS a two button mouse -- look at how much you use
the <shift> key while clicking and dragging and imagine how much nicer it
would be if you had that shift key on the mouse where it was convenient...



-- 
:From the misfiring synapses of:                  Chuq Von Rospach
{cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui   nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA

This space for rent. Political, religious and racist quotes need not apply.

al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) (06/04/85)

> 
> Actually, yes. The one button mouse on the Mac is, in my opinion, its
> strongest weakness. I've hacked to some degreee with mice with from one
> button to four (and also a trackball, which has some advantages of its own)
> and I find the two button mouse to be the best tradeoff between
> functionality and confusion. You can easily get to either button, and you
> don't need to watch the mouse like you do with four buttons, and you don't
> need to use a 'Meta' key like you do with a one button mouse.
> Realistically, the Mac IS a two button mouse -- look at how much you use
> the <shift> key while clicking and dragging and imagine how much nicer it
> would be if you had that shift key on the mouse where it was convenient...
> 

With one hand on the mouse, I have another hand free to operate a whole
keyboard full of buttons.  With the shift, option, and command keys I
can get about 16 (?) functionalities out of the one mouse button and then
there's all those characters.  Since using two hands at once comes quite
easily, I feel that one mouse button is perfect.

hall@ittral.UUCP (Doug Hall) (06/08/85)

I have been using a 3 button mouse here at work (on a Valid
workstation) for several weeks. Prior to that my only exposure to mice
had been on the Mac and Lisa, both of which I've used extensively. I
found it quite easy to adjust to the three-button rodent - in fact,
using a Mac seems more cumbersome now than ever.

I find that having to switch my attention between the keyboard and the
mouse is annoying, and the three-button mouse keeps this to a minimum.
If I am going to do something with the mouse, I want to use only the
mouse, not some crazy "control-options-escape-left elbow click"
manuver. Same with the keyboard.

A one button mouse simplifies the learning process. But Apple forgot
that people aren't in the learning process forever.

Doug Hall
ittvax!ittral!hall