david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (08/05/90)
In the August 1990 issue of Start magazine there is an article
called "Multitasking On The ST". In this article Frank Foster
from Atari Corp. is quoted as saying that Micro RTX and MT C-Shell
"[work] but not very well" and that all current multitasking
systems for the ST are "kludges".
Micro RTX and MT C-Shell are products developed and marketed by
Beckemeyer Development. These are multitasking software products
for the Atari ST. They were first released in 1986 and have been
steadily updated and improved upon since that time. Beckemeyer
Development recently released a sharware version of Micro RTX
so that all Atari ST users could have access to true multitasking.
As anyone who uses these programs knows, the statement that
they don't work very well is simply untrue.
Aside from that issue, is this any way to run a business Atari?
Beckemeyer Development released their first Atari ST software product
in 1985. Beckemeyer Development is one of the few vendors that has
been able to survive the turbulent Atari years. Most Atari ST
software developers that existed at the beginning of 1986 are no
longer in the Atari ST business. Many simply couldn't handle
Atari Corp. policies and politics. In fact, it seems like only a
handful of Atari employees were able to stick with Atari all these
years. Frank Foster wasn't at Atari Corp. in 1986. (I think he was
with another company at that time, one that produced Atari ST software,
and I believe, does so no more.)
Do you think this is an appropriate way for Atari to treat their
long-term loyal software developers? Atari expects vendors to
produce software for their system and support it, while at the
same time, they slander those same vendors in offical Atari Corp.
statements to the press.
Personally I am outraged by these comments. I'm asking you to
help support me and write Start Magazine and Atari Corp. expressing
your reaction to these statements. There are only a few Atari ST
developers left, and with practices like these, Atari is going to
lose even more.
Thank you for your support.
--
David Beckemeyer | "To understand ranch lingo all yuh
Beckemeyer Development Tools | have to do is to know in advance what
P.O. Box 21575, Oakland, CA 94620 | the other feller means an' then pay
UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax}!unisoft!bdt!david | no attention to what he says"rosenkra@convex1.convex.com (William Rosencranz) (08/06/90)
In article <4236@bdt.UUCP> david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes: > >[regarding Frank Foster's ill-conceived quote in STart] > >Aside from that issue, is this any way to run a business Atari? business as usual, dave! >Do you think this is an appropriate way for Atari to treat their >long-term loyal software developers? Atari expects vendors to >produce software for their system and support it, while at the >same time, they slander those same vendors in offical Atari Corp. >statements to the press. atari is simply kidding themselves in the long run. but then, it seems they may not be in it for the long run anyway. software is EVERYTHING in their market. the box is just a commodity. look at how people compare platforms: $$$, MHz, MB, # ports, etc. they don't say anything about s/w, which is what all non-programmer users are (or should be) interested in. these buyers far outnumber programmer users, i'd say. if atari could put together a really good 3rd party s/w story (like the "big boys" do) then they could very possibly gain market share. they sell "bang for the buck", however, which has been a good strategy up until now. getting into the unix w/s biz, however, they'll need to point to 1000+ appliacations (like Sun and DEC and ...) to make any impact because joe home user is not going to shell out $4-5k for a computer just to get a VME slot, especially if he has nothing to run on it. and you'll never see the fortune 1000's buying significant volume of atari, either, especially without very good s/w. they'll go to IBM or Sun or DEC first, even if the box costs more because they know there is a s/w base to grow on. actually, i really don't think atari cares much about anything but foreign markets, which is not a bad idea in itself, though it leaves the rest of us in the states somewhat out on a limb. still, i really can't knock atari for this since at least they are helping the balance of trade. i suspect if this was an orchestrated remark, it was meant to draw attention away from the ST and toward the TT possibly. if not, FF was just not thinking... >Personally I am outraged by these comments. you should be. maybe it's time to give up the ghost, dave... -bill rosenkra%c1yankee@convex.com Bill Rosenkranz |UUCP: {uunet,texsun}!convex!c1yankee!rosenkra Convex Computer Corp. |ARPA: rosenkra%c1yankee@convex.com
gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (08/06/90)
In article <104640@convex.convex.com> rosenkra@convex1.convex.com (William Rosencranz) writes: >atari is simply kidding themselves in the long run. but then, it >seems they may not be in it for the long run anyway. software is >EVERYTHING in their market. the box is just a commodity. look at >how people compare platforms: $$$, MHz, MB, # ports, etc. they >don't say anything about s/w, which is what all non-programmer >users are (or should be) interested in. Actually, someone from Atari talked a little about their marketing thoughts and the TT. It has 2 major markets: 1) upgrade for the existing ST "power user". You can run most all ST software on it, so there's your software base. 2) low-end Unix workstation. For many government bids, source-level compatibility is all that's required. For other bids, you don't need to bid lots of software, depending on the niche you're trying to attack. For example, my department only bought 2 pieces of software for our Suns: FORTRAN and IDL. For the rest of the market, they do have a developer's program which requires you to cough up $$ up front but allows you to buy hardware for cheap. I don't have any idea how many software people are taking advantage of this. We'll have to wait until the TT actually hits the shelves. As usual, we aren't going to find out what's really going on until the TT hits the shelves. We can sit around all day guessing about things we don't know, and we won't get anywhere. -- "In fact you should not be involved in IRC." -- Phil Howard
chu@acsu.buffalo.edu (john c chu) (08/06/90)
In article <1990Aug6.022523.26967@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: [market for TT:] >1) upgrade for the existing ST "power user". You can run most all ST > software on it, so there's your software base. Hopefully, my name's not recognised as being an "Atari Cheerleader" or "Atari Nay-sayer" (both misnomers IMHO) but... I would love to believe that Atari has the current user base in mind with regard to the TT. An excellent confirmation of this would be to announce an upgrade path for the ST so that ST owners could migrate up to the TT. However, if track record is any indication... (I know, if Atari is changing (or is about to change) to become a better company, then track record can't be any indication because it no longer reflects the attitudes of the company. Also, my view of the track record involves the situation in the US which, as we all know, is not universal.) Still, I can hope. > >As usual, we aren't going to find out what's really going on until the >TT hits the shelves. We can sit around all day guessing about things we >don't know, and we won't get anywhere. Agreed. john chu@autarch.acsu.buffalo.edu
rosenkra@convex1.convex.com (William Rosencranz) (08/07/90)
In article <1990Aug6.022523.26967@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In article <104640@convex.convex.com> rosenkra@convex1.convex.com (William Rosencranz) writes: > >>[i mentioned that alot of comparisons of micros are based on numbers, not >> software] > >Actually, someone from Atari talked a little about their marketing >thoughts and the TT. It has 2 major markets: > >1) upgrade for the existing ST "power user". You can run most all ST > software on it, so there's your software base. absolutely true, though based on the prices and performace i have seen here, which are RUMORS until the machine comes out, as greg correctly points out below, i don't think i'll plunk down $3-5k for 2-3x performance boost unless i really needed VME or some other attribute on the TT that the ST otherwise lacks. >2) low-end Unix workstation. For many government bids, source-level > compatibility is all that's required. For other bids, you don't > need to bid lots of software, depending on the niche you're > trying to attack. For example, my department only bought 2 > pieces of software for our Suns: FORTRAN and IDL. true again. often these contracts go to the lowest bidder and atari could have a shot here, depending on perceived quality of the company doing the bid. often this includes training, maintenance, etc, and to my knowledge, atari does not have the chops here that say an ibm or a sun or a dec would have, though for that very reason they could offer a low bid. > For the rest of the market, they do have a developer's program > which requires you to cough up $$ up front but allows you to buy > hardware for cheap. I don't have any idea how many software > people are taking advantage of this. i have, and in general have been satisfied with the support and certainly the price of equipment. i can't complain. i have gotten upgrades, access to private areas on GEnie and CIS, some documentation upgrades, etc. the squeaky wheel gets the grease :-) >As usual, we aren't going to find out what's really going on until the >TT hits the shelves. We can sit around all day guessing about things we >don't know, and we won't get anywhere. bingo... -bill rosenkra%c1yankee@convex.com Bill Rosenkranz |UUCP: {uunet,texsun}!convex!c1yankee!rosenkra Convex Computer Corp. |ARPA: rosenkra%c1yankee@convex.com
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (08/07/90)
I spoke with Frank Foster at the San Jose World of Atari show this
past weekend, and he admitted to me that he has never actually seen
Micro RTX nor MT C-Shell and that he doesn't really know anything
about them. He also said the he is "just a marketing guy".
Well we all know it's really good marketing strategy to tell the
world your own possibly someday to be released product that doesn't
actually exist for sale yet is better than sliced toast and anything
that already exists which might be mentioned as possible competition
to your own product is a "kludge" and doesn't work very well, even
if you don't know anything about it!
Well of course, this clears the whole thing up! I don't remember
seeing a disclaimer that "Frank Foster doesn't really know what he's
talking about" in the Start article. I guess they're assuming that
this will be perfectly clear to anyone who reads the article.
I don't think so. Some people might just read that article and assume
that Frank Foster, the Atari Corp. representative, is the expert and
that he would know what works and what doesn't work.
It must be nice to have the power to blast any product you want, and
get it published in the largest ST magazine in the USA and get away
with it.
--
David Beckemeyer (david@bdt.UUCP) | "Lester Moore - Four slugs from a .44
Beckemeyer Development Tools | no Les, no more."
P.O. Box 21575, Oakland, CA 94620 | - Headstone at Boot Hill
UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax}!unisoft!bdt!david | Tombstone, AZmuts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers /100000) (08/07/90)
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes: >Personally I am outraged by these comments. I'm asking you to >help support me and write Start Magazine and Atari Corp. expressing >your reaction to these statements. There are only a few Atari ST >developers left, and with practices like these, Atari is going to >lose even more. I've seen some stupid remarks in START magazine quite regularely. For example lately it was stated that Turbo C's new object format was no improvement because 'noone needs external references of 32 characters' as opposed to the 8 characters digital research's object format has. I guess these people have no idea what they talk about, and have never tried to port a source that consists of more than one file to the ST. About RTX: I don't have the C-shell, but the RTX kernel is very nice and about the best multi tasking possible on a machine like the ST. Minix with it's shadowing is too heavy for the ST. -- Peter Mutsaers email: muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl Rijksuniversiteit Utrecht nmutsaer@ruunsa.fys.ruu.nl Princetonplein 5 tel: (+31)-(0)30-533880 3584 CG Utrecht, Netherlands
ericco@stew.ssl.berkeley.edu (Eric C. Olson) (08/07/90)
In article <1990Aug6.022523.26967@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >Actually, someone from Atari talked a little about their marketing >thoughts and the TT. It has 2 major markets: >... >2) low-end Unix workstation. ... Atari should market from its only position of strength -- bang for the buck. Atari should not develop software -- they not have the will. My thought for the day is that they should market a low-end sparc machine. Let Sun write the OS and make the market. Atari should wrap the sparc in plastic, throw in a keyboard, offer a black & white monitor or an 8 bit color monitor (adding the Atari label to 3rd party suppliers). Offer the system with an ethernet card OR a 100MB hard disk. This would merge the pc and workstation markets. I'm sure Atari can enter and surpass the Xterm market. I suppose this position is too aggresive for Atari. BTW, would some create the c.s.a.s.tech newsgroup again. I still don't get it. The S/N here has dropped dramatically. Eric Eric ericco@ssl.berkeley.edu
cr1@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Anubis) (08/07/90)
In article <1391@ruunsa.fys.ruu.nl> muts@fysaj.fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers /100000) writes: >david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes: > >>Personally I am outraged by these comments. I'm asking you to >>help support me and write Start Magazine and Atari Corp. expressing >>your reaction to these statements. There are only a few Atari ST >>developers left, and with practices like these, Atari is going to >>lose even more. > I don't blame you for being sore, Dave. Not only was it a bad move on Foster's part to say ANYTHING about RTX when he has never used it, but it is just plain bad journalism for START to allow that sort of thing in their publication. I think both parties should offer a published appology. >I've seen some stupid remarks in START magazine quite regularely. For >example lately it was stated that Turbo C's new object format was no >improvement because 'noone needs external references of 32 characters' >as opposed to the 8 characters digital research's object format has. >I guess these people have no idea what they talk about, and >have never tried to port a source that consists of more than one file >to the ST. Didn't see that one. Was it an opinion piece, a review? I've found Start to be a pretty good magazine overall. > >About RTX: I don't have the C-shell, but the RTX kernel is very nice >and about the best multi tasking possible on a machine like the ST. >Minix with it's shadowing is too heavy for the ST. I don't have RTX at at all. Can someone give me some information on it? Is there a demo anywhere to look at? An address to buy it/contribute towards it should I see it to be the most awesome thing since sliced toast? Also, where do we send our gripe mail to Atari? -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=That is not dead which may eternal lie-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= * Christoper Roth * "Machines have no * InterNet : cr1@beach.cis.ufl.edu * Conscience..." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Yet with strange eons even death may die-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
ge@phoibos.cs.kun.nl (Ge Weijers) (08/08/90)
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes: >In the August 1990 issue of Start magazine there is an article >called "Multitasking On The ST". In this article Frank Foster >from Atari Corp. is quoted as saying that Micro RTX and MT C-Shell >"[work] but not very well" and that all current multitasking >systems for the ST are "kludges". Cheer up. The same can be (and is) said about TOS. TOS is the biggest kludge I've seen to date. If TOS had not been in ROM somebody would have written a better replacement long ago. A little more staff for an essential part of the product would not hurt. Adding multitasking as an afterthough is necessarily a "kludge". That does not mean it does not work well. (I've written some multitasking code for the beast myself, and it's tricky. But it runs on every version of TOS I've seen, so it must be a fairly clean kludge.) Ge' Weijers Ge' Weijers Internet/UUCP: ge@cs.kun.nl Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, (uunet.uu.net!cs.kun.nl!ge) University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1 tel. +3180612483 (UTC+1, 6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands UTC+2 march/september
mrose@ic.sunysb.edu (Michael Rose) (08/09/90)
In article <2080@wn1.sci.kun.nl> ge@phoibos.cs.kun.nl (Ge Weijers) writes: >david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes: > >>In the August 1990 issue of Start magazine there is an article >>called "Multitasking On The ST". In this article Frank Foster >>from Atari Corp. is quoted as saying that Micro RTX and MT C-Shell >>"[work] but not very well" and that all current multitasking >>systems for the ST are "kludges". > >Cheer up. The same can be (and is) said about TOS. TOS is the biggest kludge >I've seen to date. If TOS had not been in ROM somebody would have written a >better replacement long ago. A little more staff for an essential part of the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Why doesn't a third party company make a replacement TOS? I wouldn't mind loading up a new ROM from disk, it would be a lot better than loading a whole bunch of patchs and little improvement programs. Micro RTX should be built in standard. Neodesk should be the standard desktop. Why doesn't Atari just hire some of the third party developers to work on the ROMs. We could have the Code Heads optimizing it and put in a new version of G+Plus that supports ultrascript fonts. If people want the OS to be on ROM, burn it into a Cartridge. It holds 128k, and I am pretty sure that if the ROMs were optimized a bit they could fit it all in there, if not it could bank select the extra memory. Atari should get off there butt and give us some decent ROMs! The TT better come with a really improved TOS, but it will most likely be the same old ROMs just modified to run on a 030. Oh, well. :( [ stuff deleted ] > >Ge' Weijers >Ge' Weijers Internet/UUCP: ge@cs.kun.nl >Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, (uunet.uu.net!cs.kun.nl!ge) >University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1 tel. +3180612483 (UTC+1, >6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands UTC+2 march/september take care! Michael Rose
pen@ugum01.uucp (penner) (08/09/90)
> I don't have RTX at at all. Can someone give me some information on it? > Is there a demo anywhere to look at? An address to buy it/contribute > towards it should I see it to be the most awesome thing since sliced > toast? Ask uunet!panarthea.ebay.sun.com!archive-server.usenet for micrortx. ---- MfG/Regards Heinrich Penner ____________________________________ Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring, D-4790 Paderborn / Europe: unido!nixpbe!penner.pad Tel: [49]-(05251)-104659 / USA: linus!nixbur!penner.pad _____________________________________/
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) (08/10/90)
In article <4236@bdt.UUCP> david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes: > >In the August 1990 issue of Start magazine there is an article >called "Multitasking On The ST". In this article Frank Foster >from Atari Corp. is quoted as saying that Micro RTX and MT C-Shell >"[work] but not very well" and that all current multitasking >systems for the ST are "kludges". >they don't work very well is simply untrue. > >Aside from that issue, is this any way to run a business Atari? > >Do you think this is an appropriate way for Atari to treat their >long-term loyal software developers? Atari expects vendors to >produce software for their system and support it, while at the >same time, they slander those same vendors in offical Atari Corp. >statements to the press. > >Personally I am outraged by these comments. I'm asking you to >help support me and write Start Magazine and Atari Corp. expressing >your reaction to these statements. There are only a few Atari ST >developers left, and with practices like these, Atari is going to >lose even more. If you would be kind enough to provide me with the appropriate addresses, I'd be more than happy to send a letter of support. It is patently obvious that this company has no idea how to run a business. A simply look at their profit record for the last 5 years confirms this. > >Thank you for your support. No problem. You deserve it. >-- >David Beckemeyer | "To understand ranch lingo all yuh >Beckemeyer Development Tools | have to do is to know in advance what >P.O. Box 21575, Oakland, CA 94620 | the other feller means an' then pay >UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax}!unisoft!bdt!david | no attention to what he says" Chris ------------------------------+--------------------------- Chris Mauritz |D{r det finns en |l, finns cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |det en plan! (c)All rights reserved. | Send flames to /dev/null | ------------------------------+---------------------------
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (08/10/90)
In article <24045@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> cr1@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Chris Roth) writes: >I don't have RTX at at all. Can someone give me some information on it? >Is there a demo anywhere to look at? An address to buy it/contribute >towards it should I see it to be the most awesome thing since sliced >toast? The shareware Micro RTX has been posted to comp.binaries.atari.st, it's on Genie and Compuserve, and it is available from the Beckemeyer BBS at (415) 530-9682. >Also, where do we send our gripe mail to Atari? There are number of names. Sam Tramiel is the President (last I heard). The address is: Atari Corp. 1196 Borregas Ave Sunnyvale, CA 94086 >* Christoper Roth * "Machines have no >* InterNet : cr1@beach.cis.ufl.edu * Conscience..." -- David Beckemeyer | "To understand ranch lingo all yuh Beckemeyer Development Tools | have to do is to know in advance what P.O. Box 21575, Oakland, CA 94620 | the other feller means an' then pay UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax}!unisoft!bdt!david | no attention to what he says"