oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) (10/23/86)
In article <1128@tekigm2.UUCP> wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) writes: >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. I don't think it's such a moot point. >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!! As a workstation, the 8-bit Atari lacks one thing that is essential: 80 characters per line. Unless things have changed since I bought an 8-bit Atari, you still need to get "a special card." Color is nice (I don't like doing without it), but that's just icing on the cake for a workstation. But what about the capabilities as a microcomputer, you ask? Well, the IBM has the 8-bit beat here, too. Say you want to hook a standard printer up to your 1200XL; what do you do? Call mail-order place after mail-order place, trying to find somebody who knows what kind of cable you need; then pay $59.95, only to discover that the 1200XL is different somehow than the rest of Atari's 8-bit machines, so you have to go through the whole cycle again. Oh, and what about a modem-- you know, a standard Hayes-compatible. Well, you can spend another $59.95 for a gizmo that you stick in the joystick ports, but you need to use the software that comes with the gizmo. 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, but frankly, I would not even *think* of trying to market a serious program for the 8-bit Atari, if only because of what I know about the, um, "habits" of local Atari users with regard to software piracy. There's a guy who gets pissed when, for example, Analog states that there isn't much Atari software because of piracy, but who has a veritable library of questionable software. I ran into that problem again when trying to *give* away my used 8-bit software-- everybody just gave a little smirk, a knowing wink, and said they already had all that software ("Know what I mean? Know what I mean? Wink-wink! Nudge-nudge!"). Of course, I'm not saying that all 8-bit Atari users are blatant pirates, nor that no IBM PC users are; but given the sheer number of IBM PCs and compatibles out there, there *has* to be a larger selling potential. >I hope that the above will generate some discussion, particularly >discussion of experiences with using non-IBM in work environments. However, after all that, I'd much rather have an ST on my desk. It solves all the terribly frustrating connectivity problems I had with my 1200XL, has (or at least had) an *extremely* crisp 80-column color monitor, and has software and hardware capabilities unquestionably more sophisticated than the 8-bit line. [[ 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. ]] And now, back to the ST: It still doesn't have as much good, cheap software as the IBM PC (unless somebody can show me an emulation/communications program as good and cheap as ProComm), but it's got enough already to do most of what I do every day, it's cheaper, and I like the environment better (using Micro C-Shell, not the standard GEM desktop). If Atari could afford to provide a bit of IBM-style support, it would be an ideal machine. Instead, it's "merely" the best thing around in terms of cheap home computing. Unfortunately, my superiors don't want to believe it, so I'm using this XT. As you so eloquently stated above: Arghh! -- - Joel Plutchak, former 1200XL owner uucp: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster ARPA: oyster@unix.macc.wisc.edu Can you say "opinion"? I *knew* you could!
pete@utcsscb.UUCP (10/25/86)
>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, but frankly, I would not even *think* of trying 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. 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). >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. >]] 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. Even the Z80 (8 bit and proud) can do 16 bit math. - No I'm not an 8 bit user (anymore. I have a 1040ST), but I refuse to be blind to 8 bit processors --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pete Santangeli BIX:psantangeli USENET:pete@utcsscb.UUCP
wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) (10/25/86)
In article <405@uwmacc.UUCP>, oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) writes: > In article <1128@tekigm2.UUCP> wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) writes: > >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. > > I don't think it's such a moot point. > > > As a workstation, the 8-bit Atari lacks one thing that is essential: 80 > characters per line. Unless things have changed since I bought an 8-bit > Atari, you still need to get "a special card." Color is nice (I don't like > doing without it), but that's just icing on the cake for a workstation. You have two choices here: one buy the new XEP80 80 column adapter device or two, buy software that allows 80/132 wide screens (with horizontal scrolling). Admittedly horizontal scrolling is the pits but it beats 80 columns interlaced into 38 columns. > But what about the capabilities as a microcomputer, you ask? Well, the > IBM has the 8-bit beat here, too. Say you want to hook a standard printer > up to your 1200XL; what do you do? Call mail-order place after mail-order > place, trying to find somebody who knows what kind of cable you need; then > pay $59.95, only to discover that the 1200XL is different somehow than the > rest of Atari's 8-bit machines, so you have to go through the whole cycle > again. Oh, and what about a modem-- you know, a standard Hayes-compatible. While I was no getting into modems, I will admit that you need an 850 interface for almost anything, be it modem or printer. (Or another 850 equivalent--except that Atari is providing an RS232 port on the new XEP80 for printer or whatever. And trying to find cables to connect a IBM into anything as simple as a Epson printer can be just as much a pain. I have an easier time locating Atari cables then IBM cables unless I go to mailorder. > Well, you can spend another $59.95 for a gizmo that you stick in the > joystick ports, but you need to use the software that comes with the gizmo. > 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, but frankly, I would not even *think* of trying > to market a serious program for the 8-bit Atari, if only because of what > I know about the, um, "habits" of local Atari users with regard to software > piracy. I think that there is as much public domain software out there for the Atari 8 bitter as there is for IBM. 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. > There's a guy who gets pissed when, for example, Analog states > that there isn't much Atari software because of piracy, but who has a I agree that piracy is deplorable, but I doubt that anyone does not have some pirated software. My feeling is that if it is still available at the dealer, then you should pay for it. (Dealer being anything from your local computer store, to mailorder, to the publisher of the software). But, and this is a big but, if it no longer is available anywhere legitimately, then I will used a socalled "pirated" copy. This generally applies to games, as they seem to be the most pirated software. I don't think that I have ever seen real useful software pirated (ala Syncalc, SynFile, etc.), these are currently available and are reasonably priced so there is no incentive to pirate them. Or am I being undully naive? > > However, after all that, I'd much rather have an ST on my desk. It > solves all the terribly frustrating connectivity problems I had with my > 1200XL, has (or at least had) an *extremely* crisp 80-column color monitor, > and has software and hardware capabilities unquestionably more sophisticated > than the 8-bit line. I am glad that you like the ST line, personally I hate mice and windows with a passion. But admittedly the ST line is fairly well thought out line. It should get more software as time goes on. And you have to admit that the 1200XL was an aberrition. I have two of them as well as my 800XL and my 130XE. So I have had experience with them -- I have never had any software that I could not use on all four machines, albeit some on the 800XL requires the translator disk and more on the 1200XL require it. Apparenly the 130XE OS has been corrected as it seems to take software that the XL's require the translator for. Two of the machines (800XL and one of the 1200XL s) have had the Newell 256k upgrades installed. For all practical purposes, they are the equivalent of the 130XE now, except that they still sometimes require the translator disk. Example: the new Atari Planetarium program (which I recently purchased) will load up on all of the machines. The 1200XLE requires the translator, the 800XLE does not. However, during the time that the program is calculating, the 130XE shows the correct screen , the XLE's show gibberish. Apparently the Planetarium program uses a different form of bank selection or something. At anyrate, getting back to my original discussion: I have purchased AW+, SynCalc, SynFile, SynGraph, etc. and they would suit my "business" needs just as well as the software I have at work for my IBM-XT. 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. > And now, back to the ST: > It still doesn't have as much good, cheap software as the IBM PC (unless > somebody can show me an emulation/communications program as good and > cheap as ProComm), but it's got enough already to do most of what I do > every day, it's cheaper, and I like the environment better (using > Micro C-Shell, not the standard GEM desktop). If Atari could afford to > provide a bit of IBM-style support, it would be an ideal machine. Instead, > it's "merely" the best thing around in terms of cheap home computing. > Unfortunately, my superiors don't want to believe it, so I'm using this > XT. As you so eloquently stated above: Arghh! 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. > - Joel Plutchak, former 1200XL owner > uucp: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster > ARPA: oyster@unix.macc.wisc.edu > > Can you say "opinion"? I *knew* you could! - Bill Dippert, current owner of 130XE/800XLE/1200XLE/1200XL uucp: tektronix!tekigm2!wrd Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts. (Jack Friday, Dragnet)
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (10/27/86)
In article <1142@tekigm2.UUCP> wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) writes: >In article <405@uwmacc.UUCP>, oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) writes: >> In article <1128@tekigm2.UUCP> wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) writes: >> >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. >> >> I don't think it's such a moot point. >> >> >> As a workstation, the 8-bit Atari lacks one thing that is essential: 80 >> characters per line. Unless things have changed since I bought an 8-bit >> Atari, you still need to get "a special card." Color is nice (I don't like >> doing without it), but that's just icing on the cake for a workstation. >You have two choices here: one buy the new XEP80 80 column adapter device or >two, buy software that allows 80/132 wide screens (with horizontal scrolling). You just destroyed your original argument: that IBM's were bad things because you had to buy add-ons all the time, and that you didn't have to do that for Atari 8 bit machines... >> But what about the capabilities as a microcomputer, you ask? Well, the >> IBM has the 8-bit beat here, too. Say you want to hook a standard printer >> up to your 1200XL; what do you do? Call mail-order place after mail-order >> place, trying to find somebody who knows what kind of cable you need; then >> pay $59.95, only to discover that the 1200XL is different somehow than the >> rest of Atari's 8-bit machines, so you have to go through the whole cycle >> again. >While I was no getting into modems, I will admit that you need an 850 interface >for almost anything, be it modem or printer. (Or another 850 >equivalent--except that Atari is providing an RS232 port on the new XEP80 for >printer or whatever. And how many companies do you think make/support serial (RS232) printers as opposed to Centronix style parallel printers...? >And trying to find cables to connect a IBM into anything >as simple as a Epson printer can be just as much a pain. I have an easier time >locating Atari cables then IBM cables unless I go to mailorder. Are you serious? The Centronix parallel cable with a DB25 connector has got to be *the* most common cabling connection available... >> 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, but frankly, I would not even *think* of trying >> to market a serious program for the 8-bit Atari, if only because of what >> I know about the, um, "habits" of local Atari users with regard to software >> piracy. >I think that there is as much public domain software out there for the Atari 8 >bitter as there is for IBM. ...um, again, I ask: are you serious? Atari 8 bits may have a lot of software, but nowhere near the about IBM PC/XTs do. There is a book published that lists useable PD software for the IBM, sources, and where to find it. It is 1210 pages of very, very tiny print... > 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! Well, that's true. IBM software has always been *way* out of line, because IBM knows there are a lot of niave people (and business people) who will, and have been, pay for it. >> There's a guy who gets pissed when, for example, Analog states >> that there isn't much Atari software because of piracy, but who has a >I agree that piracy is deplorable, but I doubt that anyone does not have some >pirated software. ...excuse me? > My feeling is that if it is still available at the dealer, >then you should pay for it. (Dealer being anything from your local computer >store, to mailorder, to the publisher of the software). But, and this is a big >but, if it no longer is available anywhere legitimately, then I will used a >socalled "pirated" copy. Yea, and if I want out-of-print books, I usually rip them off from the library, rather than looking for them in used book stores... > This generally applies to games, as they seem to be >the most pirated software. I don't think that I have ever seen real useful >software pirated (ala Syncalc, SynFile, etc.), these are currently available >and are reasonably priced so there is no incentive to pirate them. Or am I >being undully naive? You are undully niave... > >At anyrate, getting back to my original discussion: I have purchased AW+, >SynCalc, SynFile, SynGraph, etc. and they would suit my "business" needs just >as well as the software I have at work for my IBM-XT. 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!] Give me a break! So, try writing/using something where machine precision counts...it should be, for instance, relatively easy for an 8-bit computer to miss connecting the lines of a triangle, because the calculation had a huge precision error in it. Or, in large business applications, how much of a spread sheet do you think you could fit into 64K or 128K? The real world has more uses for a computer than balancing checkbooks... > >> 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. ...sigh... Don't get me wrong, but I have both an IBM XT and an Atari ST. The ST is superior to the XT (even though I have the XT "suped-up") in almost every way, shape and form. But if you believe that any 8 bit machine is every bit as useable as a 16 bit machine, you must not use the machine for anything more than hobby computing... ...and if that sounds snobbish, I apologize...but I think, per chance, that it is true... -- --- Rob DeMillo Madison Academic Computer Center usenet: {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,topaz,decvax}!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo ARPA: demillo@unix.macc.wisc.edu (now isn't that easier?) ---------------------------------------- "I am not so sure what you want me for! 'War Games' Either your machine is a - Crosby, Stills and Nash fool, or me..."
wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) (10/29/86)
In article <423@uwmacc.UUCP>, demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) writes: ===>Much deleted from Rob's previous posting<=== > You just destroyed your original argument: that IBM's were bad things because > you had to buy add-ons all the time, and that you didn't have to do that > for Atari 8 bit machines... > Maybe I was not as clear as I should have been, yes, sometimes you have to buy add-ons for an Atari, or a Commodore or an IBM, etc. (Read open architecture or whatever you want to call it.) Add-ons for Atari are merely cable plugins for the most part. They usually do not involve taking your computer apart to add boards, flip dip switches, etc. Granted the early 400/800 was an exception -- but it was a true open architecture and for the most part all you did was add boards. What I was trying to say was that for the most part what I either had built in in my Atari or could add with a cable type plug in unit, is not true with the IBM XT that I use at work. The IBM requires not only that I add new cards but also that I often must reconfigure it either thru software or more often thru dip switches. Have you ever tried to figure out first of all where the damn dip switches are, secondly which one dip switch you want and thirdly which switch on the dip switch needs to be off and which ones need to be on? Believe me, it's a pain in the ***. > >> But what about the capabilities as a microcomputer, you ask? Well, the > >> IBM has the 8-bit beat here, too. Say you want to hook a standard printer > >> up to your 1200XL; what do you do? Call mail-order place after mail-order > >> place, trying to find somebody who knows what kind of cable you need; then > >> pay $59.95, only to discover that the 1200XL is different somehow than the > >> rest of Atari's 8-bit machines, so you have to go through the whole cycle > >> again. Cables for the Atari line are available in this area as readily or more readily then for the IBM and there is no difference between the 1200XL and any other Atari as far as cabling goes, the only difference is in the OS. > > And how many companies do you think make/support serial (RS232) printers > as opposed to Centronix style parallel printers...? This comment loses me, I use a centronix parallel style cable/printer port on my Tek 4107, IBM-XT and all Atari's. Granted for about $150 you can add a board to an Epson to make it serial. What is your point? > > Are you serious? The Centronix parallel cable with a DB25 connector has > got to be *the* most common cabling connection available... Probably should be, but except for authorized IBM dealers, it is not that common in the Portland area. Admittedly, the most uncommon cable to find is centronix to centronix. Recently tried to obtain 5 of them for some Tek 4107's and ended up having Egghead Software custom make some for us. > > >> 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, but frankly, I would not even *think* of trying > >> to market a serious program for the 8-bit Atari, if only because of what > >> I know about the, um, "habits" of local Atari users with regard to software > >> piracy. I won't comment on this as more informed persons on the net have already been countering this argument. There is some concern of quantity vs quality, and most User groups have a lot of each (Atari, or IBM user groups). > ...um, again, I ask: are you serious? Atari 8 bits may have a lot of software, > but nowhere near the about IBM PC/XTs do. There is a book published that lists > useable PD software for the IBM, sources, and where to find it. It is 1210 > pages of very, very tiny print... Again, I only am aware of what the various user groups have available, believe me in the PNW we have a lot of PD software available thru the user groups. land Atari Club, Seattle Puget-Sound Atari Computer Enthusiasts, etc.) > >I agree that piracy is deplorable, but I doubt that anyone does not have some > >pirated software. > ...excuse me? > Yea, and if I want out-of-print books, I usually rip them off from > the library, rather than looking for them in used book stores... I hate to push the issue, but where do you find "used software stores" and isn't it just as illegal to sell software as it is to copy it? I do not go out of my way to obtain illegal software, I try buying it first. In fact I do not ever deliberately obtain illegal software, but I am sure that I have downloaded software from a BBS that was. I just have no idea how to identify it as such. Software does not have a tag saying, this software is illegal copied software. How do you decide that what you have downloaded from a BBS is pirated and should not be used, but erased? My crystal ball does not read software for illegality. And again, I have never heard of pirated business type software, but am aware that many, many games are copied illegally. So I generally stay clear of games, but for my kids, I have downloaded games from BBSs and I have absolutely no idea what is pirated and what is legitimate. None of the game titles are familar from the software that I have seen at my local computer store. So before you get on your soap box about using pirated software, tell me how you figure out what is nice and what is pirated? > > Don't get me wrong, but I have both an IBM XT and an Atari ST. The ST is > superior to the XT (even though I have the XT "suped-up") in almost > every way, shape and form. But if you believe that any 8 bit machine > is every bit as useable as a 16 bit machine, you must not use the machine > for anything more than hobby computing... > > ...and if that sounds snobbish, I apologize...but I think, per chance, that > it is true... > > -- > --- Rob DeMillo My last comment is that I wish that Rob would go to one of the Atari Computer Faires now being organized on the West Coast (San Jose and Portland have occurred, but more are coming including Seattle). There is a form of Pascal for the 8 bit (Turbo Pascal) that supposedly is a full set (or whatever the term is) and there are CAD programs available now that work, look nice and do not have the mathematical errors in them that Rob seems to think. As for the ST, try looking at Real CADD from Generic Software (what a company name!)--it is exceptional for use on either the IBM or the ST, but the ST is super looking. One other comment, since when is the IBM PC a 16 bit machine? I always thought of IBM PC (and XT) as being 8 bitters, also. I believe that the IBM AT is a 16 bitter, albeit not a 68000 chip. --Bill Dippert-- Disclaimer: I do not have stock in Atari, Commodore or IBM, my opinions expressed are my own and do not represent Tektronix, or any computer vendor, manufacturer or supplier. And I definitely support the viewpoint of ADAPSO. > Madison Academic Computer Center > > usenet: {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,topaz,decvax}!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo > ARPA: demillo@unix.macc.wisc.edu (now isn't that easier?) > > ---------------------------------------- > "I am not so sure > what you want me for! 'War Games' > Either your machine is a - Crosby, Stills and Nash > fool, or me..."
wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) (10/29/86)
Somehow my great IBM XT lost a line or two in my previous transmission. The user groups that I referenced were: Portland Atari Club, Portland Oregon; Eugene (Oregon) Atari Computer Enthusiasts; and SPACE which I believe stands for Seattle Puget-Sound Atari Computer Enthusiasts. There probably are others also in the PNW, but these are the big three. --Bill--