mc4c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Mark Choi) (03/30/91)
Warning: The following may be regarded as a complete waste of bandwidth. Stop reading now or don't blame me. > Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.atari.st: 29-Mar-91 Re: Response to Mr. > Choi re.. Steve Yelvington@thelake (788) > MARK: KNOCK IT OFF, MR. KNOW-IT-ALL COLLEGE BOY. > A representative of Atari Corp. ought to be able to disclose information > about a new machine here without being rudely berated. YOU BIG BABY. If you read my post, I find it hard to see how you can think anything I say berated TRH, let alone rudely (can one do otherwise?). > Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.atari.st: 29-Mar-91 Re: Response to Mr. > Choi re.. Steve Yelvington@thelake (788) > It doesn't help > when you go out of your way to make Atari folks feel unwelcome when they > do participate here. You're doing the longtime readers of this newsgroup > a > serious disservice. I did nothing of the kind. I merely pointed out what I saw to be the good points and bad points of this machine, based on a lot more than just "let's compare it to the 520ST" attitude so many people have. I have occasion to work with just about every major platform out there, including the ST (Stacy4 and MEGA4, so don't say I do not have an "interest in Atari", as TRH proposes!), Amiga 500 and 2500, 80x86 DOS machines, DECstation 3100's, NeXTstations, every mac ever put out, from the 128 to the IIfx, VAX under VMS, VAX under Unix, PDP xx's, sun SPARCstations, and even a Silicon Graphics station and a LISP machine from time to time. So what? I am not trying to show off my digital omniscience? In fact most of the people on this net have more knowledge about computers in their removed appendixes than I do! But I do know what is out there, what has succeeded in the market, what has not, and I have a pretty good track record in predictions in this regard. What is Atari's track record? If it comes right down to it, the only success they ever had was the 2600. That is not to say that their machines were not fantastic, but they had no market share. And who the hell cares how long you have been reading messages on this board? What the hell difference does that make. Do you own it, due to your old-timer status? And how am I doing anyone a disservice? They may disagree with me, but am I stealing the food from their mouths, am I killing their first born, give me a break. If you don't like what I say, then don't read it. Geez, you'd think this was soc.women or something :^). Oh, so I suppose now, because of what I said, Atari is going to cancel the notebook, and start making PC-clones! My responses were amicable and polite in reference to all individuals involved. If I insult Atari Corp., and that is a crime, then most of the people on this board are criminals as well. Atari has cried wolf way to often for me to just jump when they say so. > Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.atari.st: 28-Mar-91 Response to Mr. Choi > re: No.. T R Hall@atari.UUCP (4289) > Could it be, Mr. Choi, that you haven't the faintest idea > what-in-the-fuck you are talking about? > *stuff deleted* > You talk about note-books equipped with hard-drives, floppies, ISA > bus'es etc. How many NOTEBOOK (NOT laptop/luggables) machines any ALL of > these, > or even more than ONE of these... . > We need to make an actual machine, not constantly change to > add in the latest pipe-dream. 1) No this could not be :^). It was just an idle speculation, No need to jump down my throat. It was hardly as large a leap of logic as you have made. 2)Look at the adds in Computer Shopper, babe. The VAST majority of notebooks (which means smaller that 10x15, usually much so, less than 8x10, and weighing less than 6 or 7 pounds) do have 1.44 meg floppy drives, 20 meg hard disks, AND external VGA support. Some even have an ISA slot. Granted, they have a battery life of only 3.5 - 4 hours, but they DO have these things. These *are* actual machines. Your above contentions are both misinformed, and misinforming. I expected better. And you think you know the market. You scare me. > Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.atari.st: 28-Mar-91 Response to Mr. Choi > re: No.. T R Hall@atari.UUCP (4289) > G) US availablility > This machine was ALWAYS designed for the US market. It was NOT > designed to REPLACE a desktop machine; it is designed to COMPLEMENT a > desktop > machine, for most people. Circuitry, layout, housing are all being > designed to > help with FCC regulations. This is what they said about every single machine they have ever put out. How many were actually released in the US first? Is the Stacy debacle all that far behind us. Remember that TT thing? > Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.atari.st: 28-Mar-91 Response to Mr. Choi > re: No.. T R Hall@atari.UUCP (4289) > In case you haven't guessed, I am REALLY annoyed with Mr. Choi's > whinings. He doesn't take the time to find out what the machine actually > is, > yet is prepared to tear apart it's design. He doesn't take time to even > understand our market, yet is prepared to tear apart HIS SUPPOSITIONS of > our > marketing strategy. > Mr. Choi, if you know so much about what would be the perfect machine > (as you appear to think) GO AHEAD, MAKE IT, AND MAKE LOTS OF MONEY. I > ENCOURAGE IT. IT IS THE WAY CAPITALISM WORKS. Where did I make one incorrect statement about the machines designs? You have not yet pointed to one error I made in this regard. I disagree with parts of the concept. This is not the same thing. I did take time to find out what the machine was. Why else did I post you looking for more info? I did not tear apart it's design, only aspects thereof. And you claim I do not understand your market. Where is your proof of this. Meanwhile I could find pooploads of evidence that Atari and the Tramiels do not understand the computer market. As far as your last barrage is concerned, I am a socialist so there :^). Actually, this is very annoying. It is the same stupid argument made by bad actors to defend against bad reviews. If the critic could act, (s)he would be acting, (s)he would not be a critic. I do not need to have the necessary background in engineering or the capital to start a entrepreneurial venture to be able to use a machine, or to suggest improvements thereto. IS THIS NOT WHAT THE ST WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT, ON BOTH COUNTS. I also do not need to be able to build a machine to know what this machine would have to be. Are you offering me a job in you R&D think tank? I, along with a number of other *frequent* posters here COULD make you a machine that would sell, IMHO. > .Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.atari.st: 28-Mar-91 Response to Mr. Choi > re: No.. T R Hall@atari.UUCP (4289) > Otherwise, why not be a reasonable human being, and make CONSTRUCTIVE > criticism, based on (gasp!) actual knowledge? This does NOT mean "say > only > nice things", be as critical as you like, but do so to try to improve the > product. How was what I said non-constructive? Are you a bit to emotionally involved to get an objective view, here? If you look at my posts, it is obvious that what I said was to improve the product, I even stated as much. This last little bit seems more like a burst of hot air to make you seem more open minded than you are, than a real response to anything I wrote. > Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.atari.st: 28-Mar-91 Response to Mr. Choi > re: No.. T R Hall@atari.UUCP (4289) > Maybe you just enjoy being nasty? Who was nasty? Read YOUR post. I just legitimately believe that the machine would be a huge success, both in the Atari world and without, if the things I suggested were done. Without them, I think it will be a small fish in a very small pond, and not live up to it's potential. You disagree, fine. This is Usenet, and we are entitled to our thoughts and opinions. You, however, seem to think that you are more entitled to yours than I am to mine. I do not like to rant and rave on the net over personal affronts, but too many misstatements and assinine remarks were made in both the Steve Yelvington and TRHall letters to let slide. I am sorry for this bandwidth explosion, but that is going to happen every now and then on a pseudo free net. In closing I would like to remind Steve Y. and TRHall, assuming they ever even read all of what I wrote, that I said repeatedly that I liked this machine and that I wanted one. I just wished it were a bit more functional, and useful. How many people do you really believe are going to plop down 2 grand for this baby, and another $700-$2000 for another desk machine, with a lot of duplicated functionality. You seem to claim that one can not get a desk machine into a notebook, but the editors of various PC mags seem to disagree with you, putting out a large amount of articles about how notebooks now can be your only machine, are as powerful as desktops, etc.. If you wish to make personal disparaging remarks, shoot them with all due haste into me e-mailbox. If you want to make constructive comments, post to the net. Why do you have to vent your personal poop in front of an audience? TRHall, if your attitude is exemplary of the rest of Atari engineering, and management, then I think I may have made a bad purchase 5 years ago when I got my ST, a bad purchase 3 years ago when I got my MEGA 4, and the biggest blunder of a life time, when I mortgaged my soul to get a STacy 4. I should have waited, put my money in bonds, and used the earnings from everything I put into Atari to get a NeXT. If your attitude, and you crass display of emotionalism is a reflection of the company for which you work, then you suck, and deserve every loss in market share you have gotten, and will get. If not, I wish Atari all the luck in the world. I will stay loyal till I am told by enough of those in Atari such as yourself to go ahead and leave. Then, anyone want a STacy? This is supposed to be a good stance for a computer company to take to its users? No wonder your marketing stinks!
bright@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Bob Bright) (04/01/91)
In article <gbx1FEm00WAw48BY40@andrew.cmu.edu> mc4c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Mark Choi) writes: [...] >annoying. It is the same stupid argument made by bad actors to defend >against bad reviews. If the critic could act, (s)he would be acting, >(s)he would not be a critic. I do not need to have the necessary >background in engineering or the capital to start a entrepreneurial >venture to be able to use a machine, or to suggest improvements thereto. Nice analogy; I've always thought art critics were a pretty useless bunch. :-) [...] >bit more functional, and useful. How many people do you really believe >are going to plop down 2 grand for this baby, and another $700-$2000 for >another desk machine, with a lot of duplicated functionality. You seem >to claim that one can not get a desk machine into a notebook, but the >editors of various PC mags seem to disagree with you, putting out a >large amount of articles about how notebooks now can be your only >machine, are as powerful as desktops, etc.. If you wish to make personal Well, I can't speak for others, but I haven't been the least tempted to plop down 3 grand for a 386 "notebook" (heavy emphasis on the sneer quotes) that weighs 3 pounds more than it should and requires lugging around an extra 3 pounds of battery packs in order to extend the pitifully short battery life. If doing without removable media is the price for having a really light and useful machine, I'll be happy to pay it. (You're not suggesting, are you, that we rely on the opinions of the brain-dead editors of various PC mags as an indication of what a good machine is? That's about as sensible as listening to art critics.) BBB -- Bob Bright <bright@ccu.umanitoba.ca> Dept. of Philosophy University of Manitoba Winnipeg, Man R3T 2N2 (204) 474-9105