dan@BBN-LABS-B.ARPA (09/13/85)
From: Dan Franklin <dan@BBN-LABS-B.ARPA>
The Atari ad was really very clever in its subtle distortions and omissions.
For anyone who couldn't remember offhand, when seeing that ad, just why
the Amiga might be worth $1000 more than the Atari 520ST, here are some entries
they SHOULD have had in that table but didn't...
ATARI 520ST Amiga
Screen Resolution
Interlaced, color 640x200 640x400
Windowing Hardware No (I assume) Yes
Maximum RAM ??? 8 MB (theoretically, anyway)
Multitasking OS No (I assume) Yes
Sprite Hardware No (I assume) Yes
Hardware collision No Yes
detection
IBM PC Emulation No Yes
And of course Atari quotes the Amiga price with color monitor and compares it
to the Atari 520ST price with monochrome monitor.
The ad's screen resolution entry, which compares non-interlaced resolutions
only, I find particularly annoying. Clearly Apple should come out with a
similar "comparison" with an entry "Screen resolution (pixels/inch)" which
proves that the Mac's screen is much higher resolution than anybody else's...
Re Dvorak's InfoWorld column: Dvorak too (as usual) is being a bit misleading.
Does the Byte article really indicate that technical people are being ignored?
The Boston presentation of the Amiga contained dealers, PR people, and software
developers in about equal numbers, and the head of Commodore Amiga software
development (or something like that--at any rate, a knowledgeable person)
was there answering questions ranging from the availability of genlock (yes)
to whether the IBM PC emulation assist board would have an 8086 in it (no).
Does that indicate that technical writers, and others, are being ignored?
I can't help suspecting that Dvorak is just hurt because he wasn't invited...
If, in fact, "leading technical writers" are "withholding judgement" on the
Amiga, it's probably because they haven't had a chance to use the machine very
much (technical presentations and articles are not enough). And THAT is
probably because the software we've seen so far hasn't been very robust
("crashes every 15 seconds", as someone else put it). Developers are tolerant
of such things; they know they can be fixed. Reviewers generally aren't.
Dan Franklinwarack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack) (09/16/85)
the other. In fact the reason why the Mac screen is so small is because the design team couldn't find a bigger monitor with the same resolution for a reasonable price. War is waging over interlace vs. non-interlace. A non-interlaced screen scanning at the same rate and the same 'SIZE' will have less flicker [discounting differences in phosphor, etc.] The advantage of interlace is that INFERIOR (not bad, just inferior) hardware can provide a decent emulation of more expensive better hardware. A monitor that is only capable of tracing 200 lines in 1/60 of a second can act like a 400 line monitor and still be bearable. It's NOT perfect, but comes really close. There are situations where it hurts though, like drawing 1 pixel wide horizontal lines on every other line (want a headache). But in most cases, and ESPECIALLY with text, interlace is a big win for the money. Chris -- _______ |/-----\| Chris Warack (213) 648-6616 ||hello|| || || warack@aerospace.ARPA |-------| warack@aero.UUCP |@ ___ | {seismo!hao | tektronix}!hplabs \ |_______| !sdcsvax - !sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack || || \ Aerospace Corporation, PO Box 92957, LA, 90009, Station M1-117 ^^^ ^^^ `---------(|=
rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (09/19/85)
> From: Dan Franklin <dan@BBN-LABS-B.ARPA> > > The Atari ad was really very clever in its subtle distortions and omissions. > For anyone who couldn't remember offhand, when seeing that ad, just why > the Amiga might be worth $1000 more than the Atari 520ST, here are some entries > they SHOULD have had in that table but didn't... > > ATARI 520ST Amiga > Screen Resolution > Interlaced, color 640x200 640x400 you forgot to mention amiga has more color's at comparable resolutions. > > Windowing Hardware No (I assume) Yes > > Maximum RAM ??? 8 MB (theoretically, anyway) Maximum RAM 2MB** (how much will it cost?) > > Multitasking OS No (I assume) Yes Not at this time > Sprite Hardware No (I assume) Yes Yes (but not TI/800/COMMODORE) > Hardware collision No Yes > detection (are you sure?) > > IBM PC Emulation No Yes Is anything really compatible with IBM (AT isn't) ? (no but program look-alikes are coming) (data format compatiblity if you can find the one of a kind DIN plug [a contradictory term], a cable and 5 1/4 disk are all that's needed. The operating system will suppore at least 1 meg with a theoretical maximum of 2 meg, but it is a "hardware hack" to do the expansion. (anybody tried adding two meg yet?) > And of course Atari quotes the Amiga price with color monitor and compares it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I thought the monitor brought the price well above what they quoted. > to the Atari 520ST price with monochrome monitor. The point of this ad is not which machine is techically better (Commodore is Clearly a better machine), but whether the Commodore is at least TWICE AS GOOD, and whether you want to pay that much. It is interesting that they didn't compare themselves to the PC, APPLE ][, and the C-128. For that matter, they could have compared themselves in price to VT100's, low res graphics terminals, and other "business alternatives". It looks like they wanted to be compared with business machines. If there is a war between the AMIGA and the ST over the next "Industry standard", the ability to get more machines on the market because of a lower price may be Atari's only edge. The PDP-11 wasn't as powerful as an IBM-370, but it broke IBM's choke-hold on the market. Commodore is priced right at IBM's best market, IBM can always upgrade their graphics (EGA,PGA??), that is a very dangerous position. The winner (Atari/Commodore) should be obvious by the end of November. The one with the most software to support it, will probably carry the "New Standard". Buy the way, there are already a few companies discussing "Atari Compatibles", or OEM'ing ST's. How hard would it be to make a "Commodore Compatible" (very)? How hard to make a TOS compatible (the hardware could be virtually anything). My guess is that we will see a "Third party standard" for BOTH machines (OS9-68K or Xenix ?) because we need a familiar multitasking system and Un*x is too expensive. If AT&T wanted to get a BIG market for SYS-V, they could clean-up with an unbundled kernal for under $100, but WILL THEY DO IT? Let's just hope they keep their OS in RAM long enough for someone to develope a multi-tasking system (NO MORE MUCKING AROUND IN THE BIOS) see Dvorak's Column in Infow*ld for a good description of the effects of BIOS HACKING APPLICATIONS.
jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West) (09/21/85)
In article <267@ccivax.UUCP>, rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: > > From: Dan Franklin <dan@BBN-LABS-B.ARPA> > > > > The Atari ad was really very clever in its subtle distortions and omissions. My main complaint was the ad with the American flag (e.g. Infoworld cover, 8/19/85) with the big letters "America -- We built it for you." Last time I checked, Atari had moved all its manufacturing overseas. So while they want to appeal to patriotism to buy it, they have no interest in returning the favor when building it. Joel West CACI, Inc. - Federal (c/o UC San Diego) {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sdcsvax!jww jww@SDCSVAX.ARPA PS: > If there is a war between the AMIGA and the ST over the next "Industry > standard", the ability to get more machines on the market because of > a lower price may be Atari's only edge. > The winner (Atari/Commodore) should be obvious by the end of November. The industry has strongly resisted the attempts by Apple (a Fortune 500 company) to establish the Mac as a new "Industry standard". Except for toy home applications and games, I predict that there will be *NO* such acceptance for either the ST or Amiga. But then I own a Mac and C-64, so I may have some bias. I will buy a color Mac before I buy an Amiga, just because Apple was able to establish the Mac as almost a new "Industry standard".
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/26/85)
> Last time I checked, Atari had moved all its manufacturing overseas. > So while they want to appeal to patriotism to buy it, they have > no interest in returning the favor when building it. If Atari sold two versions, one built in the US (with a higher price and lower quality) and one built overseas, which one do you think would sell best? Is it really patriotic to encourage inferior and overpriced local products to remain so? Certainly when US products are doing well against foreign competition, we hear a lot about how "the free market" does wonders for the quality and price of products. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
ravi@eneevax.UUCP (Ravi Kulkarni) (09/27/85)
In article <1112@sdcsvax.UUCP> jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West) writes: >My main complaint was the ad with the American flag (e.g. Infoworld cover, >8/19/85) with the big letters "America -- We built it for you." > >Last time I checked, Atari had moved all its manufacturing overseas. >So while they want to appeal to patriotism to buy it, they have >no interest in returning the favor when building it. I am not in favor of hype in advertising, but just to offer some balance. I saw an interview with Jack Tramiel where he said he was using existing facilities in taiwan to build the ST. He claimed that labor accounted for only 2% of the cost to build the ST and that 75% of the parts were made in the usa. The actual design of the ST based on the schematics is by Atari, Japan. -ravi P.S. The atari ST and commodore amiga are not toys and in many ways are superior to the "toys" some business types use. -- ARPA: eneevax!ravi@maryland UUCP: [seismo,allegra]!umcp-cs!eneevax!ravi
jons@islenet.UUCP (Jonathan Spangler) (10/02/85)
In article <372@eneevax.UUCP> ravi@eneevax.UUCP (Ravi Kulkarni) writes: >In article <1112@sdcsvax.UUCP> jww@sdcsvax.UUCP (Joel West) writes: >>My main complaint was the ad with the American flag (e.g. Infoworld cover, >>8/19/85) with the big letters "America -- We built it for you." >> >>Last time I checked, Atari had moved all its manufacturing overseas. >>So while they want to appeal to patriotism to buy it, they have >>no interest in returning the favor when building it. If this is all you can complain about, them I say you have very little to say at all. Speaking along those lines, where do you think IBM gets their "machines" (intentional quotes). Certainly not from the good ol' USA... try Taiwan. Also, speaking of adds, has anyone seen the absolutely ridiculous Amiga add? See discussion on net.micro.amiga and then we can talk about "slimy" & ineffective advertising. I probably should have *flamed* this! Aloha, Jonathan Spangler {ihnp4,vortex,dual}!islenet!jons