wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) (10/22/86)
From the sounds of recent messages, I am not the only one who would rather be
using an Atari at work rather then an IBM. Whether a ST or a XE/XL is, I
think, a moot point. At work (Tektronix, Clark County) I have two options at
present: I can use a Tek 4107 terminal to a Gould 9000 mainframe, or I can use
an IBM-XT (576k) PC. What is so bloody frustrating about the IBM is that
everything that I can readily do at home on my 130XE takes a change in dip
switch here, a new ... board there, etc. My Atari's are set up for color, the
IBM requires a special color card; the Atari is set up for graphics, the IBM
requires a special graphics card! Who says that the IBM is better? Arghh!!
[The Gould 9000 is down so much as to become almost a non-option.]
I have finally found a good equivalent IBM program that is very similar to
Atariwriter or Atariwriter +. It is pfs:write. Similarly, pfs has equivalent
software to SynCalc, SynGraph, SynFile, etc. I suspect that AW is a clone of
pfs:write or that pfs:write is a clone of AW, and that both are also similar to
Applewriter. pfs:write is probably not the most sophisticated wordprocessor
in the world, but it is simple (KISS) and works! I have about had it with
"enhanced" programs that add more controls, commands, etc. then ten people
could use or figure out.
Back to my original point, I just wish that Atari would become respectable
enough to allow its use at "work"! Still am tempted someday to bring down a
spare 1200XLE (256k upgrade) and use it for my wordprocessing!
--Bill--
==> I hope that the above will generate some discussion, particularly
discussion of experiences with using non-IBM in work environments.oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) (10/28/86)
In article <1142@tekigm2.UUCP> wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) writes: ... First off, thanks, Bill, for a reasonable response, rather than the flame-able counterresponse one comes to expect on USENET (something which I'm guilty of on occasion). Most of your response I can understand and agree with; I just have a couple comments and additions: >And the software that you buy at the dealer (read: >commercial software) is a heck of a lot cheaper for Atari then IBM. Although >they are getting closer! Atariwriter+ costs $49.95, pfs:write costs $89.99. Yup. IBM software is more expensive, in general. >...are reasonably priced so there is no incentive to pirate them. Or am I >being unduly naive? *I* think so. However, your local piracy climate may be less, um, hostile than mine. >I am glad that you like the ST line, personally I hate mice and windows with a >passion. Me too, at least as a development environment. That's why I use Micro C-Shell. However, for some applications (end-user programs, editors, games, etc), a windowing system is ideal. It's nice to have the flexibility; it's even nicer to be able to push the mouse aside and get some *real* work done. >And you have to admit that the 1200XL was an aberrition. Yup, I admit it, and I was fool enough to buy one. > >Maybe I don't have quite >the memory available, but it is adequate for what I need. There is even a form >of CAD available now for the XE (albeit somewhat crude). So I say that the >XL/XE series are just as useful in business as the ST (unless you really need >the .5 -- 1 Meg of memory). [And the 130XE can be pumped up to 1 MEG if you >need it!] > >> Short digression: Owners of 8-bit machines can take that as snobbery >> if they wish (somebody always does, regardless of how tactfully it's >> expressed), but it's a plain and simple fact that the 8-bit microprocessor >> is nowhere near the present state of the art in cheap microcomputing. >> For some uses, the 8-bit micros can perform as well as the owner of the >> machine wants or expects it too; however, I personally could not tolerate >> using most of today's 8-bit offerings for the kind of things I do, both >> here at the office and while "playing" at home. >Not snobbery, but your only advantage is memory and possible IBM >compatibility. Not the only advantage-- even ignoring the rest of what *I* consider to be advantages to the ST, there's the large matter of speed. The ST gives me faster throughput than the local 11/780 running Unix (with 4 or more people logged in). The 1200XL wasn't sufficient for my hobby needs (try generating fractal images on a 1200 vs the ST). Again, though, the 8-bit can and will perform as well as some people want or need it to. >Having never used C or Pascal or Action! I cannot testify to the usefulness of >the 8bitter machines, but these languages are available for the XL/XE's. From what I have seen, these languages aren't really up to mainframe par. Action! is great, but requires either the cartridge or an extra ($$) utility in order to run the programs. It also is not compatible with any other computer ('though an Action! for the ST is rumored), which, once again, is fine for hobbyist hacking. The only C I've seen is a severe subset, without structures, real math operations (you can buy a utility which provides real math *functions*), and is not a compiler-- it generates p-code, which is interpreted at run time (slow!). Pascal I know nothing about, but I'd be surprised if it were a full implementation. Anyway, I take it as a good sign that machines incorporating the older microprocessors can and do fulfill the needs of many; let's hope those people aren't lead astray buy vicious salespeople, and end up with Mac's and IBM PCs. -- - Joel Plutchak, current ST owner uucp: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster ARPA: oyster@unix.macc.wisc.edu
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) (10/28/86)
In article <429@utcsscb.UUCP> pete@utcsscb.UUCP (Peter Santangeli) writes: ... Like I've stated before, no matter *how* carefully one words something, some guy is gonna get offended. Let's look at this one... >>And speaking of software, the IBM has just about every micro I know about >>beat cold in both public domain software and commercial software, in both >>quality and quantity. That may be only because of the perceived usage of >>the respective machines... > >Come on! Thats an AWFULLY BIG statement! >I agree that the PC has a LOT of public domain software (quantity) but I >bet it would STILL lose to CP/M in the quantity department. CP/M was >developed and nutured on PD stuff. Take a look at my "AWFULLY BIG" statement, right where it says "just about every micro I know about." Does that make my statement small enough for you? I admit to blissful ignorance regarding CP/M. I do, however, work at a place which features a large room (and larger staff) whose purpose is to educate people about features of current microcomputer hardware and software, and to help them choose what's right for their intended uses. The hardware runs the gamut from the Commodore 64 & Apple II, on through to to the Macintosh & Amiga. I *do* know a bit about the quality and quantity of software for that range of machines. >I certainly don't agree that it beats the MacIntosh in the quality >department. I will admit that this has a lot to do with the Mac user >interface. But in both commercial and public domain software, I would say >that the Mac has the PC beat hands down. (Especially in terms of USEABILTY). Again, that's an "intended use" question. I make no bones about the fact that the Macintosh is a good choice for computer-illiterate people who need good WP capabilities, immediately. However, unless you call a talking moose a quality PD program, I still maintain that there is more in both quantity and quality for the IBM PC than the Macintosh. Show me the listing of available Mac PD software, and I'll bury it under the tome of PC PD software (all quality considerations aside). We have a Mac contingent here at the computing center (curiously, most are not computer scientists) who always show off the latest Mac software (PD and commercial), and frankly, except for the WP offerings, I continue to be unimpressed. > >>...but it's a plain and simple fact that the 8-bit microprocessor >>is nowhere near the present state of the art in cheap microcomputing. >>For some uses, the 8-bit micros can perform as well as the owner of the >>machine wants or expects it too; however, I personally could not tolerate >>using most of today's 8-bit offerings for the kind of things I do, both >>here at the office and while "playing" at home. > >This is another BIG statement. I always love hearing from PC users bragging >about there 16 bit machines. It remains a fact that ALL software designed >for the PC is designed to be able to run on the original PC using the 8088. >It is also a fact that INTEL(!) describes the 8088 as an 8(!!) bit processor >with some 16 bit facilities. ... >No I'm not an 8 bit user (anymore. I have a 1040ST), but I refuse >to be blind to 8 bit processors You do, however, seem to be blind to the text that appears on your terminal. Take a look at my original statement again: "...the 8-bit micros can perform as well as the owner of the machine wants or expects it too; however, *I personally*..." [italics added]. That doesn't seem like blindness to me; it seems like exactly what was stated-- a personal opinion and preference. To reiterate what I have already stated, I *have* struggled with an 8-bit computer, I *don't* own a PC (assuming you mean IBM), and I currently am very satisfied with my ST (although a bit less than satisfied with the support given by the manufacturer). I also fully realize that what I find to not suit my needs and wants (e.g. the 8-bit Atari offerings), can and does do a wonderful job for some people (Bill Dippert, for example). As for your statement of "fact" that "ALL" software designed for the PC (assuming again from context you mean "the IBM PC") is designed to be able to run on the original 8-bit microprocessor: poppycock! Come over here sometime and I'll show you some software I've designed for the IBM PC (here at the office, i.e. commercially) that could not run on an 8-bit machine without significant changes. Anyway, I'm glad you put your money where your mouth is, and own an ST :-). -- - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster) (Follow-ups have been redirected to net.micro, since this discussion appears to be heading out of Atari-specific topics into generic micro topics.)
chiu@princeton.UUCP (Kenneth Chiu) (11/02/86)
In article <426@uwmacc.UUCP> oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) writes: >In article <1142@tekigm2.UUCP> wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) writes: >>. . .personally I hate mice and windows with a passion. > > Me too, at least as a development environment. That's why I use Micro >C-Shell. However, for some applications (end-user programs, editors, games, >etc), a windowing system is ideal. It's nice to have the flexibility; it's >even nicer to be able to push the mouse aside and get some *real* work done. Are you saying that you would rather program on a 24 x 80 terminal than a 19"- screen, bit-mapped workstation? (e.g. Sun) If so, either you have never used one, or are a super-human programmer. -- Kenneth Chiu UUCP: princeton!chiu Princeton University Computer Science Department BITNET: 6031801@PUCC