burman@BRL-TBD.ARPA ("Norbert M. Burman", TBD-PMB-MRL) (03/07/86)
I read the March Byte article on the 1040ST and resulting info-atari16 questions on the future inclusion of a graphics processor with great interest. From the comments made by Shiraz Shivji in the Byte interview and other Atari personnel on info-atari16, I get the impression that we are in for a spate of Atari machines based on the origonal 520ST architecture but incorporating ram and peripheral improvements, built-in and add-on, ad nauseum. The thing that worries me about this is that with all these models stretching into the future how compatible will they all be? How will the software houses write their programs if the target machines are constantly changing. There are now two STs ( all within a few months ) on the market with at least one (with more ram) and/or another (with graphics co-processor) machine(s) in the wings ( that's what Atari have told us about anyway). I believe in progress sure, but every time I go to order an ST there is talk/rumour of a new model, ( Yes I have not purchased an ST yet! ). I am very keen to get my hands on an ST, I would love to get into some real graphics work, but cannot see myself lashing out a hefty $1000 +/- $100 without knowing if I will be able to use the machine for at least a few months before a new improved/updated model appears. Possibly others out there feel the way I do, I gather from some of the info-atari16 mail that I am not alone?? Maybe Atari would tell us how many models the ST family will have by the end of '86? Orders of magnitude will do! Until the whole business stabilizes, just a little, or Atari can convince me it will slow down on the rate of new machine releases, I will hold off and continue to use my old faithfull Z80 machine. Norbert Burman Would-be ST User.
rb@ccivax.UUCP (03/12/86)
In article <8603092319.AA12627@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> burman@BRL-TBD.ARPA ("Norbert M. Burman", TBD-PMB-MRL) writes: > > I read the March Byte article on the 1040ST and resulting info-atari16 >questions on the future inclusion of a graphics processor with great interest. >From the comments made by Shiraz Shivji in the Byte interview and other Atari >personnel on info-atari16, I get the impression that we are in for a spate of >Atari machines based on the origonal 520ST architecture but incorporating ram >and peripheral improvements, built-in and add-on, ad nauseum. > > The thing that worries me about this is that with all these models >stretching into the future how compatible will they all be? How will the >software houses write their programs if the target machines are constantly >changing. Software is the easy part, if programs are written in a kosher Application/OS fashion, the trap vectors will provide transparency between the application and the hardware. These "rumors" are a simple warning, "cute code" is unconditionally unacceptable. If the code tries to "capture" the operating system, it will be obsolete. Drivers might be sold as drivers, but to make them integral to the application (ALA 1-2-3, EA,...) is a good way to exclude new markets as they arrive. >There are now two STs ( all within a few months ) on the market >with at least one (with more ram) and/or another (with graphics co-processor) >machine(s) in the wings ( that's what Atari have told us about anyway). I >believe in progress sure, but every time I go to order an ST there is >talk/rumour of a new model, ( Yes I have not purchased an ST yet! ). My biggest concerns are hardware upgrade path and industry compatibilty. You can do major surgury on a 520 to make it a 1040, but new 520's don't seem to be any easier to expand, and neither have a good clear "Co-processor" interface. The CPU's are still soldered directly into the box. The other concern is the DMA bus. Atari knows about SCSI, supports the protocol, but seems determined to stick with their own bus (Not SCSI compatible). This is the same attitude that Commodore/Atari used on the old machines. I may go ahead and buy a "K-Mart ST" because I like most of what they did, but I don't want to invest in a bunch of "Atari only" peripherals, no matter how cheap they get (well maybe a $100 CD-Rom). I would be willing to "gamble" on a peripheral with a standard interface. If some other company, or Atari for that matter comes up with a better price/performance machine with the same interface, the old ST can go to the kids, but the hard drives are still usable. Some questions of my own: In the interview, a 1024x1024 display was mentioned. The ST seems to have the bandwidth to support this at 70hz interlaced, is it a software hack, or is new hardware required? When is the PC industry gonna "Grow up" and adopt even minimal standards? Does IBM have to do everything??!!!
rosalia@reed.UUCP (Mark Galassi) (03/17/86)
> > >Some questions of my own: >In the interview, a 1024x1024 display was mentioned. The ST seems to have >the bandwidth to support this at 70hz interlaced, is it a software hack, >or is new hardware required? The answer is New Hardware. What limits the resolution on the ST is the amount of video memory (currently 32K). You would need to increase that to get more resolution. >When is the PC industry gonna "Grow up" and adopt even minimal standards? >Does IBM have to do everything??!!! Don't praise IBM. They have not produced "state of the art" personal computers yet. What they have come out with is a family of horrible personal computers for abominable prices. Maybe their new RISC machine will finally be a good product, but that is not an attempt to establish standards. -- Mark Galassi ...!tektronix!reed!rosalia { these opinions are mine and should be everybody else's :-) }
tainter@ihlpg.UUCP (Tainter) (03/18/86)
> >Some questions of my own: > >In the interview, a 1024x1024 display was mentioned. The ST seems to have > >the bandwidth to support this at 70hz interlaced, is it a software hack, > >or is new hardware required? > The answer is New Hardware. What limits the resolution on the ST is the > amount of video memory (currently 32K). You would need to increase that > to get more resolution. > Mark Galassi...!tektronix!reed!rosalia I don't understand this comment. There is nothing special about the video memory. The bitmap is just part of memory, restricted by the refresh hardware to start on a 512 byte boundary. What limits the video memory to 32k at present is the addressing scheme in the refresh. It strikes me as being arbitrary and I hope there are hidden capabilities in that refresh circuitry to support higher res. --j.a.tainter Still can't believe "We are the World", even got NOMINATED.
rb@ccivax.UUCP (03/19/86)
In article <2807@reed.UUCP> rosalia@reed.UUCP (Mark Galassi) writes: >>When is the PC industry gonna "Grow up" and adopt even minimal standards? >>Does IBM have to do everything??!!! > >Don't praise IBM. Who's praising IBM??? >Maybe their new RISC machine >will finally be a good product, but that is not an attempt to establish >standards. I haven't heard much good about the RISC machine. Who cares, this is Atari group anyway right? :-). What I am upset about is the appearant contempt for even minimal standards between Atari, Commodore, and Apple. This appears to be changing, Apple is putting SCSI on the Mac, Commodore is considering adopting NAPLPS as a file storage/transfer format. What is Atari doing??? The sooner some simple standards for peripherals, software, and data formats are adopted, the better. In most other Consumer Electronics industries, standards have made it possible for each company to capitalize on their particular strengths. Atari makes some good computers, but on the 800 line, only Atari peripherals can be used. Even a "generic" modem required the 850 interface box. To be fair, the main reason I like the Atari 520-ST is because they DID attempt to put some very good standards in their machine. DRI wrote the operating system (better than CP/M68K), they built in the RS-232 and Centronics (with adapter cable) interface, and used a well vectored OS rather than leaving people to go poking and jumping into strange ROM vectors. Good job Atari!!!:-) What has me concerned is the "Upgrade Path" for this and future machines. Another concern is that I might get tied to Atari's trade-off choices. If Atari comes out with a fully supported SCSI interface, we'll have the choice of over 100 mass storage devices, including removable, winchester, and tape drives. Maybe the SCSI command set isn't complete enough to be truly generic yet? I can't say I'm thrilled at the prospect of buying a 520 only to discover that the 1040 makes the 520 obsolete, or that the TT series will make the ST series obsolete. In the Byte interview the guy said that upgrading the 1040 to 4 meg would be "Trivial". Yes it will be trivial to add the extra two pins to the design and manufacture process, but don't expect to be able to simply plug in 1 meg chips and have 2 or 4 meg. Expect to have to buy a NEW MACHINE :-(. Don't expect software vendors to stick to 512K either, unless Atari starts making concurrency available, along with a real MMU, the applications will grow to fit the available memory. In other words, unless you upgrade, your 520 may be obsolete in another 6 months. According to some reports, the ST is really only the TERMINAL for their "Real" "Personal Mini" TT computer. Is that another $1000? Notice the CPU is soldered in? Ever tried de-soldering a 64 pin chip? Notice the RAM is also soldered in? Notice there is no header for a Piggy-Back RAM board? I would hope that these were oversights rather than deliberate choices. All of these choices together might have added $100 to the purchase price. It would have been worth it considering the alternative is either a lot of manual "hot wiring" or buying a new computer every six months. Even adding a few address lines to the DMA ports would have helped. I've said before, I like the Atari, but I'd like to make sure that "Cheap Computer" doesn't mean "Disposable Computer". What plans are in the works NOW that will keep this from happening? I would definately like to see a socket compatible MMU, and a 68010 upgrade path. Also, higher resolution (1024X1024?) if the 70HZ is to be justified. Disclaimer: All opinions subject to change without notice.
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (03/20/86)
> >When is the PC industry gonna "Grow up" and adopt even minimal standards? > >Does IBM have to do everything??!!! > > Don't praise IBM. They have not produced "state of the art" personal > computers yet. What they have come out with is a family of horrible > personal computers for abominable prices. Maybe their new RISC machine > will finally be a good product, but that is not an attempt to establish > standards. > > Mark Galassi > ...!tektronix!reed!rosalia This attitude really bothers me. Why does one camp of computer user feel that they have to put down another camp? Or feel that "our" computer is better than "theirs?" I own both an IBM XT (well, "portable," but close enough...same motherboard) and an Atari 520ST. They are both nice computers...one can do some things the other can't, and visa versa. (For example, the Atari has a faster processor and obviously better graphics than the IBM, but I like the programming environment in the IBM better than that of the Atari.) When are computer users gonna "Grow up"? -- --- Rob DeMillo Madison Academic Computer Center ...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo "...I suppose you find the concept of a robot with an artificial leg amusing?" -- Marvin, the Paranoid Android
freed@aum.UUCP (Erik Freed) (03/21/86)
I will not quote all the retoric about what the ST should have and about
upgrade paths....
I feel that the ST is quite a good deal and that is all it is. It is not
realistic to expect that it have SCSI, expandability, be compatable
forever, have unix, have a better keyboard, have built in 4 meg expandability,
plug in coprocessors, etc... Anyone who is involved in hardware development
where time and expense are major factors has to just be amazed that it exists
at all. It seems that an awful lot of good things are there and that if you
wanted all the feature that a more expensive computer affords then by all means
by a more expensive computer. In a computer selling for as little as the Atari
sells for *EVERY LITTLE BIT COUNTS*. a penny saved here and there will make
or break a cheap computer. In my opinion we have a lot to be happy about and
can certainly get around the limitations. Lets not use up the net bandwidth
by complaining about what could/should have been. Even though I would like
an expansion bus etc, Personnally, if it wasn't for the low price I would not
have anything at all...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik James Freed
Aurora Systems
San Francisco, CA
{dual,ptsfa}!aum!freed