mg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Paul Greelish) (05/17/91)
Ah, STart has gone belly-up. I'm not surprised. The entire Atari market has gone belly-up. It's next to impossible to get *anything* for your Atari (in my experience) without resorting to Atari-specialty stores and mail order (and even they are drying up.) People are deserting Atari left and right: dealers, users, and certainly developers. Software is slowing to a trickle. I hope to god I can sell my 1040ST, monitor, printer, and tons of software for even a third of what I paid for it all. Atari can't come out with a new product that will sell (or even pass FCC approval, it seems.) There is no way in hell I would buy a TT, even if it wasn't ridiculously overpriced. Atari may not go bankrupt, but it'll take a miracle for it to get back anything like the market share it once had. I remember the golden years. I was twelve years old when I got my 48K Atari 800 and tape drive. I was seventeen when I got my 1040ST. Now I'm a starving college student with barely enough money to get a Mac LC if I work my butt off all summer. I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but Atari is on its last legs. No one I know wants anything to do with them or their products. God, this sucks. I was brand loyal and didn't buy an Amiga. I hate IBMs, and Macs still cost a lot. Atari used to have good products at great prices. No more. I'm sorry for the rant and rave. Maybe it's all the Tramiels' fault. Maybe it's a natural economic cycle. Or maybe I've outgrown unreliable companies like Atari. Apple Computer, here I come. *Sigh.* ______________________________________________________________ |\ /| | \/ | ike Greelish Carnegie Mellon U. undergrad, professional writing major quote: "Up against the stick, motherwalkers, this is a fuck-up!"---Unknown disclaimer: The Secretary will disavow any knowledge of my actions.
davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edu (05/17/91)
In article <ccAl5B600Uzx83AuIs@andrew.cmu.edu>, mg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Paul Greelish) writes:
A lot of 'doom-and-gloom', 'woe-is-me' stuff, which I don't actually believe.
Let me tell you a few stories ...
1. I visited the Atari dealer in the Twin Cities area two days ago. They
had an Atari TT on display (which I -hope- they can hold onto long enough
to show off at tonight's user-group meeting). They received their first
TT's a month or two ago, and each time they get a couple of new machines,
they're sold within days. Same thing with the Mega STe and the regular
STe machines. And these sales are not generally to people who already own
an ST. The selling points? Calamus, DynaCADD and a host of other software
available.
2. I received a phone call this morning from a magazine writer in Texas who
wanted to know how folks are using the Atari ST (can't remember the name
of the magazine -- I get calls all of the time from computer survey groups,
and just sort of glaze when they say who they are). I spoke for about
30 minutes, telling her for what manner of things people are using Atari
computers. In brief: professional recording studios use them to control
synths and tape recorders, professional musicians use them on road shows,
amateur musicians use them for any number of things -- including playing
music at -their- speed and speeding the tempo until the song sounds right;
professional publication production, neighborhood newsletter production,
brochure production ... and a host of other DTP functions; Computer-Aided
Design, low-budget graphic demos (for high-budget graphic production),
doodling; word-processing; telecommunications -- including staying at home
while working at the office; playing games; programming (the benevolent
term for hardware and software 'hacking', before the term 'hacking' got
such a disreputable meaning); emulation of computers at work, so that the
user can continue to work at home; the list goes on and on ...
3. People shouldn't purchase computers with the idea that they're ever going
get ANYTHING near what they paid for it in the first place. A computer is
not an investment like gold or art. As the technology advances, as older
technology becomes cheaper, computers lose their value - EXCEPT the value
they have in "Getting The Job Done". I owned an Apple ][+ at one time,
sold it for about 1/3 what I paid for it (after 5 years), because the
technology hadn't advanced far enough in those 5 years ... I owned an
Atari 1040 ST (I have a Mega ST now ... thanks Kent), sold it for about
1/5 of what I paid for it (after 5 years), because the technology had
advanced so far in those 5 years that the newer machines could be sold for
1/3 of the cost of my 1040 ST!
The things I use my Mega ST for haven't changed much over the years. I
still find that my computer is as useful today as it was a year ago, or
two years ago, or three years ago ... no, I find it MORE useful today.
All of this doesn't mean that people like Mike Greelish shouldn't abandon
their Atari ST's and go buy Macintosh computers. If they feel so frustrated,
they should certainly dump their current machine, hang the cost, and go buy
what they think will not frustrate them. I just want to point out that things
are NOT as disappointing for other Atari ST owners as Mike appears to believe.
--
David Paschall-Zimbel davidli@simvax.labmed.umn.edudaryl@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Daryl L. Monge) (05/18/91)
STart deserved to die. Compared to magazines such as Current Notes, the writing and reviews were awful. The demise of such an entity does not indicate doom and gloom. -- Daryl Monge AT&T Bell Labs UUCP: att!ihuxy!daryl VOICE: 708-713-4696 PAPER: Rm 2A-448 P.O. Box 3050, Naperville, Il 60566 -- Daryl Monge AT&T Bell Labs UUCP: att!ihuxy!daryl VOICE: 708-713-4696 PAPER: Rm 2A-448 P.O. Box 3050, Naperville, Il 60566
smiller@bcarh166.bnr.ca (Scott Miller) (05/18/91)
In article <ccAl5B600Uzx83AuIs@andrew.cmu.edu>, mg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Paul Greelish) writes: |> ... Atari may not go bankrupt, |> but it'll take a miracle for it to get back anything like the market |> share it once had. |> |> I remember the golden years. I was twelve years old when I got my 48K |> Atari 800 and tape drive. I was seventeen when I got my 1040ST. |> Atari used to have good products at great prices. No more. |> In the past dozen or so years, (yah, I know, it's not really the same company), Atari seems to have had fits of brilliance followed by... nothing. When the VCS came out, it was a great innovation. A CARTRIDGE based video game, an unlimited number of games in the same machine. The 400/800 was another bold stroke. It had sound and graphics as good as it got in the home computer arena. Then, Atari twiddled it's corporate thumbs and sat on it's Warner-Owned corporate butt and coasted into the Great Video Crash of the early eighties. They relied on their older technology far too long, and it nearly killed them. (The 600XL and 800XL were cheaper versions of the tank-like 400/800. I think the 1200XL had an extra function key. :-( But I still cherish my full-colour spec sheet for the 1450XLD! ) Atari crashed, was bought out, and in an astonishingly short time, had announced the Atari ST. (In 130 and 520 flavours, I think) This time, the computer was positioned differently. The ST was a lean, mean computing machine. (Tm) The other upstart, Amiga, had more bells and whistles, but cost a lot more. IBMs had credibility, but cost a lot more. The 'Jackintosh' had virtually everything the Mac had, and lots more, for much less money. The 'game machine' company was playing in the big leagues again. Then Atari followed the example of the pre-Tramiel Atari, and did diddly. The Mega ST got an onboard clock, a blitter, and a detached keyboard. Yay. MacIntosh got bigger and faster. Amiga got faster and lots of third party add-ons. Most importantly, IBMs and clones got MUCH faster, and MUCH cheaper. As Apple introduced 68020/30 Macs at 16, then 20, then 25Mhz, where was Atari? As 8088s gave way to 80286s, then 80386s. what were they doing? When did the 68020 Amiga come out? Where were the competing STs? Atari was spending it's time and energy building clones and transputers. The flagship machine was allowed to stagnate at 8Mhz and 4MB. Capable, sure. But not very glamourous, or inspirational. Why should a third-party developer work on a machine that the manufacturer doesn't seem to want to support anymore? Why would a neophyte user buy a computer with no real upgrade path? It's my feeling that even OFFERING a top-of-the-line machine increases a companies ability to sell the LOW-end ones. (As the car companies say: Race on Sunday - Sell on Monday) (But what about the transputer, you ask. Surely that was a high end machine! But how many people have actually SEEN one?) Now, perhaps, the situation is changing. Atari seems to have dumped the clones, and the lethargy of the past few years. A TOS upgrade eventually made it out the door. They FINALLY produced a 16Mhz ST, and the semi-33Mhz TT. The 1280x960 monochrome looks as good to me today as the 640x400 did in 1985. (Which was fantastic for the time) With Unix on the way, the TT may find itself back in the pack in terms of technology. (Most certainly not ahead of it, unfortunately. Why a stupid 720k drive?) The Lynx is an amazing little beast, too. It seems to me that PRICE is more of a problem now. At the low end, I can get a 1040STE/mono/no HD (since the price cut) for just a little less than I can get a 286-12/mono/40MB HD clone. (Alternately, the 1040 is about half of what a Mac classic with no HD is.) At the high end, a 386-33/SVGA/100MB HD clone is considerably less than what Atari wants for a TT with 50MB HD and no monitor. Products like Windows largely hide the brain-deadness of the DOS machines, too. Games are even playable. Atari may find itself confined to dangerous niche markets, unless it can produce another POWER WITHOUT THE PRICE trump card. It has to offer benefits that outweigh the risks people take buying an offstream machine. How about a TT040? If NeXt can do it for $5K, Atari should be able to do it for considerably less. Even better, a cheaper TT030. (Which I want) Some creative marketing would be nice. Bundle in a bunch of first-rate programs, in packages like they've had in Europe for years. Cuts piracy, helps the software companies, and gives the consumer a better deal. Package a Lynx with the MegaSTE and TT. (Isn't the most money made from the software?) Go for the throat. Give'm both barrels. Atari has at least one more kick at the cat. (Just remember, I won't buy any Atari that doesn't have a cartridge port!) Geez, what a tirade. Hope nobody minded... -- ***************************************************************************** Scott Miller, in the bowels of Bell-Northern Research Voice:(613) 763-2992 P.O. Box 3511, Station C .signature USES DISCLAIMER; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4H7 *****************************************************************************
carter@cat23.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) (05/18/91)
In article <4528@bnr-rsc.UUCP> Net writes: >In article <ccAl5B600Uzx83AuIs@andrew.cmu.edu>, mg20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Paul Greelish) writes: >|> ... Atari may not go bankrupt, >|> but it'll take a miracle for it to get back anything like the market >|> share it once had. >|> >|> I remember the golden years. I was twelve years old when I got my 48K >|> Atari 800 and tape drive. I was seventeen when I got my 1040ST. >|> Atari used to have good products at great prices. No more. >|> >In the past dozen or so years, (yah, I know, it's not really the same >company), Atari seems to have had fits of brilliance followed by... nothing. > >When the VCS came out, it was a great innovation. A CARTRIDGE based video >game, an unlimited number of games in the same machine. The 400/800 was >another bold stroke. It had sound and graphics as good as it got in the >home computer arena. Then, Atari twiddled it's corporate thumbs and sat on >it's Warner-Owned corporate butt and coasted into the Great Video Crash of >the early eighties. They relied on their older technology far too long, and >it nearly killed them. (The 600XL and 800XL were cheaper versions of the >tank-like 400/800. I think the 1200XL had an extra function key. :-( >But I still cherish my full-colour spec sheet for the 1450XLD! ) > >Atari crashed, was bought out, and in an astonishingly short time, had >announced the Atari ST. (In 130 and 520 flavours, I think) This time, the >computer was positioned differently. The ST was a lean, mean computing >machine. (Tm) The other upstart, Amiga, had more bells and whistles, but >cost a lot more. IBMs had credibility, but cost a lot more. The >'Jackintosh' had virtually everything the Mac had, and lots more, for much >less money. The 'game machine' company was playing in the big leagues again. > >Then Atari followed the example of the pre-Tramiel Atari, and did diddly. >The Mega ST got an onboard clock, a blitter, and a detached keyboard. Yay. > >MacIntosh got bigger and faster. Amiga got faster and lots of third party >add-ons. Most importantly, IBMs and clones got MUCH faster, and MUCH cheaper. > >As Apple introduced 68020/30 Macs at 16, then 20, then 25Mhz, where was Atari? >As 8088s gave way to 80286s, then 80386s. what were they doing? >When did the 68020 Amiga come out? Where were the competing STs? > >Atari was spending it's time and energy building clones and transputers. >The flagship machine was allowed to stagnate at 8Mhz and 4MB. Capable, sure. >But not very glamourous, or inspirational. Why should a third-party >developer work on a machine that the manufacturer doesn't seem to want to >support anymore? Why would a neophyte user buy a computer with no real >upgrade path? It's my feeling that even OFFERING a top-of-the-line machine >increases a companies ability to sell the LOW-end ones. (As the car companies >say: Race on Sunday - Sell on Monday) (But what about the transputer, you >ask. Surely that was a high end machine! But how many people have actually >SEEN one?) > >Now, perhaps, the situation is changing. Atari seems to have dumped the >clones, and the lethargy of the past few years. A TOS upgrade eventually made >it out the door. They FINALLY produced a 16Mhz ST, and the semi-33Mhz TT. >The 1280x960 monochrome looks as good to me today as the 640x400 did in 1985. >(Which was fantastic for the time) With Unix on the way, the TT may find >itself back in the pack in terms of technology. (Most certainly not ahead of >it, unfortunately. Why a stupid 720k drive?) The Lynx is an amazing little >beast, too. > >It seems to me that PRICE is more of a problem now. At the low end, I can >get a 1040STE/mono/no HD (since the price cut) for just a little less than >I can get a 286-12/mono/40MB HD clone. (Alternately, the 1040 is about half >of what a Mac classic with no HD is.) > >At the high end, a 386-33/SVGA/100MB HD clone is considerably less than what >Atari wants for a TT with 50MB HD and no monitor. Products like Windows >largely hide the brain-deadness of the DOS machines, too. Games are even >playable. > >Atari may find itself confined to dangerous niche markets, unless it can >produce another POWER WITHOUT THE PRICE trump card. It has to offer benefits >that outweigh the risks people take buying an offstream machine. > >How about a TT040? If NeXt can do it for $5K, Atari should be able to do >it for considerably less. Even better, a cheaper TT030. (Which I want) > >Some creative marketing would be nice. Bundle in a bunch of first-rate >programs, in packages like they've had in Europe for years. Cuts piracy, >helps the software companies, and gives the consumer a better deal. >Package a Lynx with the MegaSTE and TT. (Isn't the most money made from >the software?) Go for the throat. Give'm both barrels. > >Atari has at least one more kick at the cat. (Just remember, I won't buy >any Atari that doesn't have a cartridge port!) > >Geez, what a tirade. Hope nobody minded... >-- >***************************************************************************** >Scott Miller, in the bowels of Bell-Northern Research Voice:(613) 763-2992 > P.O. Box 3511, Station C >.signature USES DISCLAIMER; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 4H7 >***************************************************************************** I tend to agree! I think you hit the nail on the head. But I have a slightly different view. I think Atari will survive if they gradually enable their machines to run MAC software at least more easily, so Dave doesn't have to work so hard :). The MEGA STE with the LAN ports for AppleTalk sure helps I can tell everyone right now. They only reason why I bought an atari was: 1) Turbo C 2.0 (I have several personal projects going) 2) Mac Emulation (Which takes care of the serious side of computing) Thats its. I HATE ST application software, except for Turbo C, probably the most ingenious piece of software I have seen for the ST. GEM, God, did anybody preview what kind of REAL DOG MULTI-GEM is? Atari I HOPE will look elsewhere, you people REALLY don't want this, I would take a UNIX command line over MULTI GEM! Hopefully atari will be realistic and go the UNIX/MOTIF route. GEM is brain dead, it never will amount to anything. I wish I could reclaim my ROM space IMMEDIATELY. THANK GOD for Dave Small. I would kiss his hiney if he was here, as I finally managed to pick up a Spectre GCR. All praise Gadgets by Small. Now Dave, I WANT a 68030/040 option for my VME equipped MEGA STE!!! I also want it less than $1000 please. --Gregory
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (05/19/91)
I just did a bit of comparison shopping. Sure enough, in selected applications,
the TT beats the pants off anything based on an Intel chip. In a lot of
other applications, it runs pretty much even with a 25 MHz 80486. And the
price is in the 80386 range. Leaves it a very good hardware buy. But the
software situation stinks. You just don't see the exuberant blossoming of
neat programs to do stuff you wouldn't do with a computer except you wanted to
find another thing to do with it. You see programs in important niches compete
on lack of bugs, rather than neat features. Configurability is a problem too:
not that the other name-manufacturers are any nicer about selling you the
machine the way you want it set up, but Atari is the last holdout for LITTLE
boxes: if the standard configuration doesn't have what you want, you either
hang it outboard, or (in the case of a disk drive, in particular) replace the
one it came with. No room to add stuff. Pizza boxes are great as network
leaves, but for the one-and-only, lots of room to grow is comforting.
For the future, the notebooks look like super-neat machines (I have some
problems figuring out how to market them, but that's not a technical issue).
A successor to the ATW could give Atari a visible presence in education and
research. The Mega STe looks kinda lonesome at 16 MHz: if the other STe-s
ran that fast, they'd be real challengers in home and small businesses.
So there are still some sparks. Developing for the ST isn't so terribly
hard, but there isn't a ton of it happening. The hardware is marketable and
marketed, just not as resourcefully as I (we?)'d like to see.
Steveekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May19.035413.14005@chinet.chi.il.us> saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes: >I just did a bit of comparison shopping. Sure enough, in selected applications, >the TT beats the pants off anything based on an Intel chip. In a lot of >other applications, it runs pretty much even with a 25 MHz 80486. And the >price is in the 80386 range. Leaves it a very good hardware buy. But the So you say "speed without the speed price," right? Hold that thought. >software situation stinks. You just don't see the exuberant blossoming of >neat programs to do stuff you wouldn't do with a computer except you wanted to >find another thing to do with it. You see programs in important niches compete The software situation does smell pretty bad. I use Macs a lot for graphics, and I can probably list about 10 packages off the top of my head with plenty more I've never seen. The Atari arena doesn't have this diversity. People always say that there's not much software selection in the ST community. What kinds of stuff would people, not just you Stephen, be interested in? It seems we have a ton of utility packages, but very few applications. >on lack of bugs, rather than neat features. Configurability is a problem too: >not that the other name-manufacturers are any nicer about selling you the >machine the way you want it set up, but Atari is the last holdout for LITTLE >boxes: if the standard configuration doesn't have what you want, you either >hang it outboard, or (in the case of a disk drive, in particular) replace the >one it came with. No room to add stuff. Pizza boxes are great as network >leaves, but for the one-and-only, lots of room to grow is comforting. Here's where the 'speed without the speed price' comes in. One of the ways that Atari keeps the prices of their computers low is by making them unexpandible internally. I don't understand why this is exactly, but adding slots for cards and stuff drastically adds the price to a product. I don't know why making a case a bit bigger with a few ports on the *inside* would raise the price of a product but it does. (This theory doesn't apply in the MS-DOS world because there's so much competition, it lowers the price of the products.) It's not just Atari, but other manufacturers lower their prices for machines that are more unexpandible than others. NeXT cube vs. slab. Amiga 500 vs. 2000. Mac IIsi vs. ci. (Please let me know if you see holes in this theory. :^) > For the future, the notebooks look like super-neat machines (I have some >problems figuring out how to market them, but that's not a technical issue). >A successor to the ATW could give Atari a visible presence in education and >research. The Mega STe looks kinda lonesome at 16 MHz: if the other STe-s >ran that fast, they'd be real challengers in home and small businesses. The STe is fine at 8Mhz. The only thing holding it back is marketing from Atari. A home machine doesn't need to be 16Mhz, although I know everyone would like to have a 16Mhz machine for the same price as their 8Mhz. -- ||| Ed Krimen [ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu or al661@cleveland.freenet.edu] ||| Video Production Major, California State University, Chico / | \ SysOp, Fuji BBS: 916-894-1261 ONE WEEK UNTIL GRADUATION!!
cummins@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (John Cummins) (05/20/91)
Boy do I wish the TT was around when the Mega came out. I was holding my breath for a TT... but couldn't hold it that long. About the TT and Unix... For us (ordinary?) gem/tos users, how close to Unix can we get on a TT running the Unix like packages available? Mint/Bash comes to mind.... All I've used is MSH (Mark Williams Shell from their compiler disk...) Seems to me there's UUCP available, couldn't we run rn, send and msg along with our favorite c compiler? For me... thet's all I need. (I think... Back when the 8-bit came out I thought all I needed ead Atari Basic....) John Cummins cummins@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu
cummins@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu (John Cummins) (05/20/91)
I still want a TT system unit with TOS, no HD, and no Monitor. Don't much care for factory ram expansion either. But I don't want it crippled. I have serious doubts a machine like this is possible, but if it were, it wuold be purchaced(sp?) by me..., and probably a few other 'loyal' Atarians. Sheesh.... It couldn't cost over $1200 to $1400... could it? Possibly less! Neatest thing about this machine is it would activate Atari USA's best advertising network... a bunch of satisfied owners.... who could show anyone a fast low-priced system... John Cummins cummins@unx2.ucc.okstate.edu
Patrick_Devine@resbbs.UUCP (Patrick Devine) (05/20/91)
While it is said that IBM is an MS-DOS computer, it is not actually
true. The majority of IBM/IBM compatible users DO use MS-DOS, but that isn't
to say the machine is bound to the limitations of an outdated piece of
software being pushed well beyond its limitations.
Nay, an IBM can service under many different Operating Systems, infact,
I wouldn't even consider using my IBM to run MS-DOS, what's the point?
Now, I do love my Atari, don't get me wrong, bnt it also has a number of
visable faults which irritate me. For instance, the TOS chips aren't as
accesible as they should be. The 3.5" 720k floppy doesn't have is much
storage as it should. It doesn't multitask (this is a biggy) and it doesn't
have the dazzle of the hi-res sprites/colours of an Amiga.
Unless Atari fixes up the new STE's, turns it into a cheap, affordable
and POWERFUL machine, the company is going nowhere. The TT's and the Mega
STE's are a step in the right direction, but price still detracts buyers and
sends them the IBM way. The consequences to Atari should be crystal clear.
Power without the price. Live up to the motto and support your machines.
-- Via DLG Pro v0.97b
==============================================================================
patrick_devine@resbbs - ignorance is a way of life
==============================================================================saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May20.024743.12954@ecst.csuchico.edu> ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) writes: >In article <1991May19.035413.14005@chinet.chi.il.us> saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes: > >People always say that there's not much software selection in the ST community. >What kinds of stuff would people, not just you Stephen, be interested in? It >seems we have a ton of utility packages, but very few applications. That's exactly the problem. In the inexpensive utility field, people will buy several similar products and use the one that suits them best. For applications, the prices tend to be higher, and people tend to get just one of each kind. This makes the competition more serious. So we have the potentially interesting spreadsheet and database markets dominated by one or two maximally PC-compatible products. Native ST products don't generate the cash to support much 'market presence'. The exceptions are in the fields where the ST really shines: MIDI, CAD and DTP. But in general, the ST market doesn't presently support 'secondary' applications in big markets (that means something like Ami or Professional Write in PC word processing), and doesn't support any commercial products in minor markets. Consider me as part of the problem. As I endlessly repeat, I have a Stacy- specific application ready to go. But it probably won't appeal to many musicians. There aren't enough Stacys out there to justify the effort of publishing the thing. I guess the moral of this part is that the ST family needs *SUPER-KILLER* applications to make the whole thing big enough to support the ordinary applications. It may happen. It's more likely to happen as the machines get better. > >>one it came with. No room to add stuff. Pizza boxes are great as network >>leaves, but for the one-and-only, lots of room to grow is comforting. > >Here's where the 'speed without the speed price' comes in. One of the ways >that Atari keeps the prices of their computers low is by making them >unexpandible internally. I don't understand why this is exactly, but >adding slots for cards and stuff drastically adds the price to a product. >I don't know why making a case a bit bigger with a few ports on the *inside* >would raise the price of a product but it does. (This theory doesn't apply >in the MS-DOS world because there's so much competition, it lowers the > >(Please let me know if you see holes in this theory. :^) > The hole in the theory is that 'PC boxes' have become commodity items. You can put anything you like inside of one. How about 'office models' added to the Atari line: the same electronics, but in a 'PC box', with an Atari nameplate, for a mere $100 or so extra. Define a bus for expansion cards using the ISA-type connectors. Don't get me wrong: Atari has some of the nicest industrial design work around, but sometimes it's necessary to go with a clunker to get functionality for the dollar (don't jump on me: sure, a good design saves money when you're going from scratch: these are COMMODITY clunks) > >The STe is fine at 8Mhz. The only thing holding it back is marketing from >Atari. A home machine doesn't need to be 16Mhz, although I know everyone >would like to have a 16Mhz machine for the same price as their 8Mhz. No. Just no. The potential killer application for the ST series is desktop publishing (I think, anyway). It gobbles cycles like Gargantua. And the potential 'nose of the camel' to get Atari boxes into 'respectable' places is transparent network connectivity, which also gobbles cycles. I sure hope those faster STe-s are already breadboarded somewhere. Steve saj@chinet.chi.il.us
csbrod@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod) (05/21/91)
carter@cat23.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) writes: >Thats its. I HATE ST application software, except for Turbo C, probably the >most ingenious piece of software I have seen for the ST. So you've probably not seen much yet. >GEM, God, did anybody preview what kind of REAL DOG MULTI-GEM is? Atari >I HOPE will look elsewhere, you people REALLY don't want this, I would take >a UNIX command line over MULTI GEM! Hopefully atari will be realistic and >go the UNIX/MOTIF route. I like GEM. I _need_ MultiGEM. GEM does almost anything the MacOS will do for you. MultiGEM will do almost anything a Mac with MultiFinder does for you. So how can you tell us nobody wants a multitasking TOS? >GEM is brain dead, it never will amount to anything. I wish I could reclaim >my ROM space IMMEDIATELY. It's not brain dead. It works. It's quite fast, if you compare it with Windows. It's easy to program. And I like it. Please don't think ATARI must be a bunch of fools just because they don't follow your way of thinking. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Claus Brod, Am Felsenkeller 2, Things. Take. Time. D-8772 Marktheidenfeld, Germany (Piet Hein) csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de Claus Brod@wue.maus.de ----------------------------------------------------------------------
ONM07@DMSWWU1A.BITNET (Julian F. Reschke) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May18.024738.571@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>, carter@cat23.cs.wisc.edu (Gregory Carter) says: >I think Atari will survive if they gradually enable their machines to run >MAC software at least more easily, so Dave doesn't have to work so hard :). >The MEGA STE with the LAN ports for AppleTalk sure helps > I disagree totally. Why should someone buy an Atari when he really wants to run MAC software. Atari will only survive, if their own operating system can compete. With things like FSMGDOS and a multitasking TOS in development.. Don't forget: TOS is 32 bit clean NOW, and you can easily run TOS software on a 16MB machine.This is really nice for image processing and DTP. >I can tell everyone right now. They only reason why I bought an atari was: > >1) Turbo C 2.0 (I have several personal projects going) >2) Mac Emulation (Which takes care of the serious side of computing) > >Thats its. I HATE ST application software, except for Turbo C, probably the >most ingenious piece of software I have seen for the ST. > I like Turbo C, too. But it's just an absolutely normal GEM application, just a SciGraph, Gemini, Rufus, Interface, Script and many other fine GEM based programs. >GEM, God, did anybody preview what kind of REAL DOG MULTI-GEM is? Atari >I HOPE will look elsewhere, you people REALLY don't want this, I would take >a UNIX command line over MULTI GEM! Hopefully atari will be realistic and >go the UNIX/MOTIF route. > What's the problem with Multi-GEM? >GEM is brain dead, it never will amount to anything. I wish I could reclaim >my ROM space IMMEDIATELY. If you say things like that, you have to give reasons. Comparing GEM with Windows or Motif, there are a lot of good things both VDI and AES, and it will someday more than one GEM program at once, I see no problems at all. Note: as far as I know, with Motif you simpla don't have a _virtual_ device concept: you simply can NOT redirect screen output to metafiles or printers. > >THANK GOD for Dave Small. I would kiss his hiney if he was here, as I finally >managed to pick up a Spectre GCR. > >All praise Gadgets by Small. > >Now Dave, I WANT a 68030/040 option for my VME equipped MEGA STE!!! > >I also want it less than $1000 please. > >--Gregory All I hear is: `I want'. Sure: a TT/040 with multitasking TOS, able to run all MAC programs (what about SunOS and NextStep) would be a fine thing...
jerry@talos.npri.com (Jerry Gitomer) (05/23/91)
Patrick_Devine@resbbs.UUCP (Patrick Devine) writes:
: While it is said that IBM is an MS-DOS computer, it is not actually
:true. The majority of IBM/IBM compatible users DO use MS-DOS, but that isn't
:to say the machine is bound to the limitations of an outdated piece of
:software being pushed well beyond its limitations.
: Nay, an IBM can service under many different Operating Systems, infact,
:I wouldn't even consider using my IBM to run MS-DOS, what's the point?
As someone who runs OS-9 (really OS-9 68000), MINIX, and (on rare
occasions) PC-DOS on my ST in addition to GEM I don't see the basis
for your comment.
--
Jerry Gitomer at National Political Resources Inc, Alexandria, VA USA
I am apolitical, have no resources, and speak only for myself.
Ma Bell (703)683-9090 (UUCP: ...uunet!uupsi!npri6!jerry )jerry@polygen.uucp (Jerry Shekhel) (05/23/91)
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes: > >Sure enough, in selected applications, >the TT beats the pants off anything based on an Intel chip. In a lot of >other applications, it runs pretty much even with a 25 MHz 80486. And the >price is in the 80386 range. > Not to flame you or anything, but I seriously doubt all three claims. Perhaps you could provide some numbers to substantiate them? -- +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | JERRY J. SHEKHEL | POLYGEN CORPORATION | When I was young, I had to walk | | Drummers do it... | Waltham, MA USA | to school and back every day -- | | ... In rhythm! | (617) 890-2175 | 20 miles, uphill both ways. | +-------------------+----------------------+---------------------------------+ | ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry | | jerry@polygen.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Patrick_Devine@resbbs.UUCP (Patrick Devine) (05/24/91)
The point of my argument was that you were refering to all IBM's as MS-DOS machines. While that is true for the most part, a lot of IBM users (like myself) wouldn't hear of using MS-DOS. -- Via DLG Pro v0.97b ============================================================================== patrick_devine@resbbs - ignorance is a way of life ==============================================================================
ONM07@DMSWWU1A.BITNET (Julian F. Reschke) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May23.114538.29270@qut.edu.au>, lunnon@qut.edu.au says: >I would have to echo this, last I heard a TT (whenever they get around to >selling them) will be about $5000 with HD 4 MB etc. _I_ want a TT with _NO_ >disk (I have a big disk already) and minimal ram. It will be cheaper if I >plug in the simms rather than Atari. This will allow me to upgrade at a >resonable price. If not then I guess I will buy a decstation 2000 at >EDU discount instead (It will be cheaper). Here in Germany you can get a TT equipped with 8MB RAM, a TTM194 and a nice quantum drive (52 mb) for ~6500 DM. Most dealers sell you TT's with any SCSI drive they have. ___________________________ cut here _____________________________________ Julian F. Reschke, Hensenstr. 142, D-4400 Muenster, Phone: ++49 251 861241 fast eMail: ONM07@DMSWWU1A.BITNET, slow: jr@ms.maus.de (++49 251 77216) ____________________ correct me if I'm wrong _____________________________
data3d@aahs.no (Karl Anders 0ygard) (05/25/91)
Y. Tsuji writes: [stuff deleted..] >Quite. If your favourite programs run comfortably on your TT, it's no one's >business saying other machines are better. But if one simply compare the >raw muscle of Intel chips and Motorola 68K series, Motorola is an obvious >loser. I can program on 68K faster than on Intel chips so I use 68K because [**FLAME ON**] Seriously, this guy has *got* to be kidding! I've programmed both Intel and Motorola processors and quite honestly it's a world apart. When I converted from the Z80 to the MC68000 way back in '88, I was shocked at the power and the ease of use with which this processor was programmed (I've been a M/C fan ever since). As a lesser knowing lifeform, I went around in the belief that PC's were the top notch, and I got myself one eager to program its i8088 processor. But shock and horror: I found myself playing with something that was hardly more powerful than the Z80. I soon learned that while the MC68000 is a 16/32 bits processor, the i8088 is a 8/16-bits processor. While mr. Y. Tsuji gets off comparing the ST/MC68000 with Fujitsu's fastest supercomputers, I would like to quote Personal Computer World upon reviewing the MC68040 and comparing it to the i80486: 'Motorola is the future. No sane hardware engineer would build a computer around a i80x86 unless he would want it to be MS-DOS compatible.' Yeah, and the MC68040 has a execution time of 1.2 clockcycles per instruction, compared to the i80486's 1.7 clockcycles per instruction. And you did yourself say that the 68k series are programmed faster. [flame off] Thanks! =============================================================================== Karl Anders 0ygard More & Romsdal Highschool of Engineering, Norway 'I ache, therefore I am.' Email: Karl A Oygard <data3d@aahs.no> - Marvin, the paranoid android
ytsuji@wucc.waseda.ac.jp (Y.Tsuji) (05/25/91)
I don't like to offend people who believe their machines are the best. These people are everywhere. I thought Atarians were rather disillusioned. For non-programming people, the sheer power of CPU may be everything but for myself, speed means the time from the design stage, coding, debugging, hundreds of times of debugging and rethinking to the end of a successful execution. 68K is fast for me because I know it very well. Otherwise I'll be reading the manuals all the time instead of concentrating on the program itself. If someone gives me a 386 machine that runs perfect BSD4.2, I'll be faster with it than on ATARI. (For us Japanese, 'atari' is a rather annoying name; it's like calling 'bingo!')
chuck@richsun.reuter.com (Chuck Menard) (05/26/91)
In article <91144.113322ONM07@DMSWWU1A.BITNET> ONM07@DMSWWU1A.BITNET (Julian F. Reschke) writes: >In article <1991May23.114538.29270@qut.edu.au>, lunnon@qut.edu.au says: >>I would have to echo this, last I heard a TT (whenever they get around to >>selling them) will be about $5000 with HD 4 MB etc. _I_ want a TT with _NO_ >>disk (I have a big disk already) and minimal ram. It will be cheaper if I >>plug in the simms rather than Atari. This will allow me to upgrade at a >>resonable price. If not then I guess I will buy a decstation 2000 at >>EDU discount instead (It will be cheaper). > >Here in Germany you can get a TT equipped with 8MB RAM, a TTM194 and a >nice quantum drive (52 mb) for ~6500 DM. Most dealers sell you TT's with >any SCSI drive they have. >___________________________ cut here _____________________________________ >Julian F. Reschke, Hensenstr. 142, D-4400 Muenster, Phone: ++49 251 861241 >fast eMail: ONM07@DMSWWU1A.BITNET, slow: jr@ms.maus.de (++49 251 77216) >____________________ correct me if I'm wrong _____________________________ How's this: TT030, 4M, 50M HD, with Color Monitor - $2680 Subtract about $500 without Color Monitor. I believe that you can also get the 2M TT030 for just under $2000. A 4M model includes 2M of ST RAM on the motherboard plus another daughterboard with 2 more Meg. One can expand this ST RAM daughterboard to 10 M. The fast TT RAM includes another daughterboard with 1M Sims to add another 4M to make a TT030 8M model. Remove the 1M Sims from this TT daughterboard and replace them with 4M Sims to expand TT RAM to 16M. Result total RAM = 10 + 16 = 26M. I was told today from a dealer here in the Chicago area that these RAM expansion boards will be ready for sale around mid June here. CUL, Chuck
chuj@horton.Colorado.EDU (CHU JEFFREY) (05/29/91)
In article <1111@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes: >> >>Sure enough, in selected applications, >>the TT beats the pants off anything based on an Intel chip. In a lot of >>other applications, it runs pretty much even with a 25 MHz 80486. And the >>price is in the 80386 range. >> > >Not to flame you or anything, but I seriously doubt all three claims. Perhaps >you could provide some numbers to substantiate them? I doubt it too, there was a demo of the TT here by an ATARI club, the representative said the TT 68030 was equal to a 386-20 machine and only 2 MIPS, I found this hard to believe since there was so much talk of it, I still think it does close to 8MIPS, but since there is so much people disagreeing with the performance of the TT, I don't know what the real MIPS on it. Also does anyone know how many MFLOPS the TT does? Like I said the TT is not equivalent to the i486 and probably not the new 386-40. The 386-33 is running 7.92 MIPS and the i486-25 is 11.1 MIPS. THIS IS NOT A FLAME (I am a ATARIAN and probably always will be) Jeff
ytsuji@wucc.waseda.ac.jp (Y.Tsuji) (05/29/91)
It is really off the point talking about what is the _maximum_ MIPs of a 030 machine. TT is likely to be less than 2.0 MIPs. Even if the CPU got a vast cache memory, the access time to the actual DRAM is often the decisive factor. Good CPU boards usually have 80-ns-4-MEGAbit DRAMs and when successive addresses are accessed the Column Address Strobe is repeated, reducing the access time dramatically. If these modern techniques are missing, the instructions already on the cache memory may be executed very fast, but the overall performance will be deadly slow. I once used a 020 machine at 10 MHz but it was actually much slower than our ST because it had to be swapping memory to/from disks as it was a virtual memory machine! The actual performance can be measured only by using a typical application program on them: I think my ST at 8 MHz is fast enough for my need. Cheers, Tsuji
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (05/29/91)
In article <1991May28.180143.4644@colorado.edu> chuj@horton.Colorado.EDU (CHU JEFFREY) writes: >In article <1111@stewart.UUCP> jerry@stewart.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel) writes: >>saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes: >>> >>>Sure enough, in selected applications, >>>the TT beats the pants off anything based on an Intel chip. In a lot of >>>other applications, it runs pretty much even with a 25 MHz 80486. And the >>>price is in the 80386 range. >>> >> >>Not to flame you or anything, but I seriously doubt all three claims. Perhaps >>you could provide some numbers to substantiate them? > >I doubt it too, there was a demo of the TT here by an ATARI club, the >representative said the TT 68030 was equal to a 386-20 machine and only >2 MIPS, I found this hard to believe since there was so much talk of it, >I still think it does close to 8MIPS, but since there is so much people >disagreeing with the performance of the TT, I don't know what the real >MIPS on it. Also does anyone know how many MFLOPS the TT does? Like I >said the TT is not equivalent to the i486 and probably not the new 386-40. >The 386-33 is running 7.92 MIPS and the i486-25 is 11.1 MIPS. >THIS IS NOT A FLAME (I am a ATARIAN and probably always will be) > > > Jeff Some particulars. Dynacadd ($1000 list, but available for about $550) handles drawings as well as Auto CAD. On a TT with a math coprocessor, it does an arbitrary rotation of the semi-standard space shuttle drawing in essentially human reaction time (not quite, but too fast to time conveniently). Last I heard, a '486 running Auto CAD took about 2 seconds. Pagestream and Calamus run at practical speeds on the TT; they are highly usable (I use Pagestream on a Mega, myself, and while it's highly functional, some text operations are slower than I'd like). The comparable programs for Intel chips, whatever their merits, just don't seem to get used. Similarly, because of the Atari-MIDI connection, there are good heavy-duty MIDI programs for the TT; in the 'mainstream', the word seems to be that for MIDI you get a Mac. Pricing: we just saw a quote of $2100 for a stripped TT. That's '386 pricing. Similarly, the full configuration prices for the TT seem to be in the low $3000 range. Same comment. Routine applications: my big routine application is chromatographic data processing. Big disk files going through once. Anything faster than a '386 25 runs i/o bound on this one, so all fast machines look the same. Any big math operation that has an inner loop that takes up residence in on-chip cache (and that's a lot of the market for cycles right there) is going to turn over amazing numbers of MIPS on any fast processor. The relative amazingness is going to depend on machine cycles per instruction (slight advantage to the '486 I believe) and efficiency of data addressing (slight advantage to the '030). About that 2 MIPS for a 32 MHz '030 box: the TT needs some configuring to work at its best. This is new for Atari machines, but is old hat for other micros (and minis). Run a program with bad locality of addressing entirely out of RAM shared with video, maybe you can make it run that slowly. Unfortunately, unless someone tells the system not to, that's the RAM the program will use. And locality just wasn't the issue in 68000 programming that it is in 68030 programming, so lots of existing programs aren't ideal for the TT. Which comes to the old lament that the only real benchmark is YOUR application. The BIG problem with the TT (and all machines Atari) is that the VARIETY of applications just isn't out there. The big applications are covered, but not with a whole lot of different choices. And Atari doesn't make it easy to develop for their newer machines (although they try to make up for it with their help once an application is developed). I hate to argue in public. I'd have done this in email, but I think maybe this discussion might be worth keeping going. Steve
Patrick_Devine@resbbs.UUCP (Patrick Devine) (05/31/91)
Here, in Vancouver, $3000 is in the 486/386-33 range. Of course, that's with an 80Mb Hard Drive, VGA 1024X768 1Mb Ram video card, and 1-4Mb's or RAM. The TT on the other hand costs just as much for a lot less. A 386-22 w/VGA, 100+Mb hard disk, etc. is now $1900. All prices are in Canadian dollars aswell, so that would be around $1650US. It looks as if Atari is cutting itself short .. again. patrick_devine -- Via DLG Pro v0.97b <eof>
chuj@horton.Colorado.EDU (CHU JEFFREY) (05/31/91)
In article <Patrick_Devine.3646@resbbs.UUCP> Patrick_Devine@resbbs.UUCP (Patrick Devine) writes: > > Here, in Vancouver, $3000 is in the 486/386-33 range. Of course, that's >with an 80Mb Hard Drive, VGA 1024X768 1Mb Ram video card, and 1-4Mb's or RAM. >The TT on the other hand costs just as much for a lot less. A 386-22 w/VGA, >100+Mb hard disk, etc. is now $1900. All prices are in Canadian dollars >aswell, so that would be around $1650US. It looks as if Atari is cutting >itself short .. again. > >patrick_devine > >-- Via DLG Pro v0.97b > ATARI is not cheap anymore "POWER WITHOUT THE PRICE" now it should be said "PRICE WITHOUT THE POWER". In my store I sell the 486-33 for alot cheaper than that. My 486 systems start at $2275 with HD and monitor, and I seen them alot cheaper in mags., you just have to look for them. By the way what is 386-22? or do you mean 386-33. Jeff
chuj@horton.Colorado.EDU (CHU JEFFREY) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May31.052951.13342@colorado.edu> chuj@horton.Colorado.EDU (CHU JEFFREY) writes: >In article <Patrick_Devine.3646@resbbs.UUCP> Patrick_Devine@resbbs.UUCP (Patrick Devine) writes: >ATARI is not cheap anymore "POWER WITHOUT THE PRICE" now it should be said >"PRICE WITHOUT THE POWER". In my store I sell the 486-33 for alot cheaper >than that. My 486 systems start at $2275 with HD and monitor, and I seen them >alot cheaper in mags., you just have to look for them. By the way what is >386-22? or do you mean 386-33. I wanted to state that the following was mine opinion, this is not to cause any flames. After posting this I realize perhaps people may get the wrong idea. Someone has already sent mail stating how I am against ATARI, WRONG, I am interested in purchasing a TT and this is how I can learn from people posting the reasons and why the TT is worth purchasing. I don't plan on spending close to 3000 on a system in which I am unaware of things. I must know all point of views and try to get ATARIANS to respond. AS for against ATARI I have been in flame wars before in defense of ATARI against many other system users, but only to get involved when I see someone stating incorrect claims. (TT = i486-25 for example). Jeff
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (06/01/91)
I hope Jeff won't object to my disclosing a specific issue he mentioned to me
in email; it will help people identify what might interest him.
One of his major applications is animated graphics, for which he is prepared to
write his own code. To me, that sounds like a set-up in favor of the TT. If
anyone has benchmarks or pointers to tools directly relating to animated
graphics, this might be a good time to mention them.
What I'll mention is that there's said to be an awesome TT demo (about an
hour's download time worth of it) recently put up on GEnie by Bob Brodie. I
won't see it myself for a while, but perhaps someone has more to say about it?
Steve saj@chinet.chi.il.us