STJLHI33@WATSON.BITNET (12/11/89)
This is not directed at Ken or Allen, OK?
My family followed Atari's upgrade path and got a Mega2 after we sold our 1040.
We love it and use it for more than we ever though we would. Now I'm trying to
decide on a computer to take to school with me. I've really been leaning
toward the ST, especially since I have the Spectre 128 (If I get an ST I'll
probably upgrade to the GCR).
*** BUT ***
Now I find out that Atari crippled the Mega2s in an effort to rip off it's
customers. I can stand bad support, but that's outrageous! I'd rather not buy
a computer from a company that does stuff like that. Planned obsolescence was
_supposed_ to be a joke.
Will Atari's support improve?
Will they quit making computers with unnecessary limitations?
Will they be around long enough for me to buy a STACY4? (I've given up on the
ATW)
Will I have to get an Ameoba with A-MAX instead?
stay tuned next week...
--------
Jason Steiner STJLHI33@WOOSTER.BITNET | In my opinion my
"This country ain't got no problems that a few | opinions are
plastic explosives won't cure!" - Steve Taylor | just opinions.cbdougla@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Collin Broadrick Douglas) (12/13/89)
> *** BUT *** >Now I find out that Atari crippled the Mega2s in an effort to rip off it's >customers. I can stand bad support, but that's outrageous! I'd rather not buy >a computer from a company that does stuff like that. Planned obsolescence was >_supposed_ to be a joke. > >Will Atari's support improve? >Will they quit making computers with unnecessary limitations? >Will they be around long enough for me to buy a STACY4? (I've given up on the >ATW) >Will I have to get an Ameoba with A-MAX instead? > >stay tuned next week... >-------- > Jason Steiner STJLHI33@WOOSTER.BITNET | In my opinion my >"This country ain't got no problems that a few | opinions are >plastic explosives won't cure!" - Steve Taylor | just opinions. How has Atari crippled your machine? Collin Douglas cbdougla@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu
kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) (12/16/89)
STJLHI33@WATSON.BITNET writes: | Now I find out that Atari crippled the Mega2s in an effort to rip off it's | customers. Atari did _NOT_ cripple the Mega 2's in an effort to rip off its customers. To clarify what I said in a previous post: due to manufacturing constraints, a VERY FEW Mega 2's have been produced which can not be upgraded. I was cautioning people who want to upgrade their Mega 2 by getting extra RAM installed at a service center that it is _possible_ that it may not be as simple as just installing the extra RAM. Context, people - please! The new machines which we are producing allow easy memory expansion: STE's by adding SIMMs on the motherboard, and TT by memory expansion cards (the "fast" TT RAM cards use SIMMs as well). -- ||| Ken Badertscher (ames!atari!kbad) ||| Atari R&D System Software Engine / | \ #include <disclaimer>
aimd@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Davidson) (12/17/89)
In article <8912120805.AA00886@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> STJLHI33@WATSON.BITNET writes: [stuff deleted] >Now I find out that Atari crippled the Mega2s in an effort to rip off it's >customers. It was probably an effort to save a few pennies. I thought it was just *some* Mega 2's that were crippled. Any-road-up, Frontier Software in the UK offer a 1/2meg or 2meg solderless RAM upgrade which will upgrade any 512k ST to 1meg and, by switching chips at a later date, upgrade a 512k machine to 2.5meg. More to the point, it also claims to upgrade a Mega 2 to a Mega 4. If your MMU and shifter aren't socketed I believe they will fit it for you... I'll send more info if anyone's interested. Cheers, Mark.
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/17/89)
Jason Steiner observes: >Now I find out that Atari crippled the Mega2s in an effort to rip off it's >customers. I can stand bad support, but that's outrageous! I'd rather not >a computer from a company that does stuff like that. Consider that the *cheapest* IBM clone board comes *socketed* for easy memory expansion to the maximum RAM the system can utilize... Then consider that Atari could have socketed the Mega ST2 for easy memory expansion for less than $1.00... Then decide for yourself what Atari's reasoning is... BobR
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/17/89)
KenB replies to a previous message: >| Now I find out that Atari crippled the Mega2s in an effort to rip off it's >| customers. >Atari did _NOT_ cripple the Mega 2's in an effort to rip off its customers. >To clarify what I said in a previous post: due to manufacturing >constraints, a VERY FEW Mega 2's have been produced which can not be >upgraded. Ken... can you expand on this, and explain to everyone here on the Net just what those manufacturing constraints were... and why it is that only a very few Mega ST2s can't be upgraded...? The information I've read seems to indicate that it definately WAS an effort on Atari's part to stop the easy upgrading of Megas. Here's your chance to put that rumor to rest... BobR
kclenden@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Kevin Clendenien) (12/18/89)
In article <25128@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >Ken... can you expand on this, and explain to everyone here on the Net just >what those manufacturing constraints were... and why it is that only a >very few Mega ST2s can't be upgraded...? > >The information I've read seems to indicate that it definately WAS an effort >on Atari's part to stop the easy upgrading of Megas. Here's your chance to >put that rumor to rest... Come on Bobbie, lay off. You're reading too many spy novels. Why would Atari only produce a few Megas that couldn't be expanded, if they wanted to prevent people from upgrading? Why not produce a lot of Megas that couldn't be expanded? There are plenty of plausible reasons why some Megas were produced that couldn't be expanded, without it being a conspiracy by Atari. Maybe they started getting their MMU's from a different supplier, and it turned out that the new MMU's were cheaper because they could only handle 2M of memory. As far as the whole memory debate goes, if Atari wanted to make the 520/1040/Mega line nonexpandable, so what. They're not holding a gun to your head making you buy the computer. I don't ever recall hearing Atari say that their computers could easily expand to use more memory (at least not until the STE and TT were announced.) Other manufactures do much the same thing. Oh, sure, you can expand their memory, but why is it that Radio Shack computers need Radio Shack peripherals? Why is it that Apple computers need Apple peripherals? And why is it that Apple and Radio Shack peripherals are always more expensive than comparable Atari peripherals? Every computer has its trade offs. You name any computer, and I'll tell you it's trade offs, compared to an Atari ST. I don't really mind your comments against Atari, though I don't think this newsgroup is always the right place for your complaints. What I do mind is the way you always make it sound as if Atari personnel sit up at night thinking of new ways to screw the public. That's not what happens. They work their butts off producing an affordable machine. Maybe one day they will have enough stock to start really supporting the USA... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- kclenden@silver.bacs.indiana.edu Kevin Clendenien BLoomington Atari ST users group BLAST, President BLAST BBS - (812) 332-0573 FNET node #141 "Of course any opinions or views stated above do not necessarily represent the official position of any person, or organization other that of Kevin Clendenien." --------------------------------------------------------------------------
ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) (12/18/89)
In article <31738@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> kclenden@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (Kevin Clendenien) writes: >but why is it that Radio Shack computers need Radio Shack peripherals? >Why is it that Apple computers need Apple peripherals? And why is it >that Apple and Radio Shack peripherals are always more expensive than >comparable Atari peripherals? Every computer has its trade offs. You Peripherals for the machines mentioned above are NOT ALWAYS more expensive than comparable Atari peripherals. To wit: I paid a total of $1,050 for my Quantum 80S drive with case and power, adaptor etc... the same drive can be bought from the same distributor for internal use with a mac for $699.00. My 1040ST won't take an internal drive. A friend of mine bought an HP laser for under $1200.00.. you don't NEED to buy the Apple Laser. He also has a full page monochrome monitor he bought for $500.00 There's a full 2 page monochrome monitor with software et al available for the MAC for a LIST price of $899.00. COmpare $899.00 with $1900.00 for the MONITERM which only runs on the megas. These are only a few examples. Fortunately, the TT looks like a machine that will allow a greater freedom of choice in the peripherals market... Let's hope we all get to see one soon. >happens. They work their butts off producing an affordable machine. >Maybe one day they will have enough stock to start really supporting >the USA... It's a two-way street with lots of traffic lights. kevin ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu
dat_08@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Jared Brennan) (12/19/89)
In article <25128@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >KenB replies to a previous message: > >Atari did _NOT_ cripple the Mega 2's in an effort to rip off its customers. > >To clarify what I said in a previous post: due to manufacturing > >constraints, a VERY FEW Mega 2's have been produced which can not be > >upgraded. >Ken... can you expand on this, and explain to everyone here on the Net just >what those manufacturing constraints were... and why it is that only a >very few Mega ST2s can't be upgraded...? >BobR Look, you certainly weren't complaining when you found out that certain Mega ST2's actually already had 4 Mbytes of RAM, so why are you complaining when certain Mega ST2's are locked at 2 Mbytes? I personally don't recall internal memory expansion being an advertised option on any of the Mega ST computers. And there are real world problems which can crop up and leave Atari stuck with strange components which make it impossible to make those upgradable Mega ST2's. So stop hassling Ken B., who has no responsibility for any of this, and find something better to do. Thanks. -- Another shallow and badly thought out opinion from . . . Jared Brennan <dat_08@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> BITNET: JHEDDY@JHUVMS ARPA: dat_08%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: allegra!hopkins!jhunix!dat_08
danscott@atari.UUCP (Dan Scott) (12/19/89)
in article <25126@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com says: > > Consider that the *cheapest* IBM clone board comes *socketed* for easy memory > expansion to the maximum RAM the system can utilize... However, the *cheapest* IBM clone still only knows about 640K of memory max (8086 based here). Without an *EXPENSIVE* memory board in one of the card slots and some driver software 640K is all you'll ever get to use. Of course even on a 80286 computer w/ say 10Megs of RAM MS-DOS still sees only 640K (we tested one under windows once for memory use)... Dan
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/19/89)
Kevin Clendenien makes some observations about my comments about Atari Corp's redesigning their printed circuit boards... Kevin.. if you can think of a reason why Atari Corp would pay circuit board designers to redesign the Mega ST motherboard to eliminate the extra RAM positions, and pay extra to have *TWO* different motherboards produced, instead of ONE, and have to inventory TWO different motherboards instead of ONE, as they used to, ... I'd like to hear your thoughts... It's always been my understanding of "business" that making one part serve several purposes is more economical... unless you're trying to "force" customers into paying your price for your product... Why would Atari Corp make *TWO* different PC boards, when it would cost them] more to do it that way...? Still wondering... BobR
gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (12/20/89)
In article <25185@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes:
!It's always been my understanding of "business" that making one part serve
!several purposes is more economical... unless you're trying to "force"
!customers into paying your price for your product...
!
!Why would Atari Corp make *TWO* different PC boards, when it would cost them]
!more to do it that way...?
Maybe it doesn't cost them more? Do you know anything about manufacturing?
I sure don't. And so I try to avoid showing my ignorance in public by
bashing Atari on topics that I don't know anything about.
------
Greg Lindahlqralph@dna.lth.se (Ralph Haglund) (12/20/89)
Why ATARI would make TWO motherboards to produce unexpandable Megas??? Weellll - as far as I have heard, the MEGA1 is intentionally made VERY hard to expand. Is that true someone??? |-------------------------------------------------------------| | Want to talk to me? Try: | | QRALPH@SELDC51 || QRALPH@SELDC52 || qralph@dna.lth.se | | My name? In official Sweden it is: 4.901.185.654 (secret) | | Anywhere else: Ralph Haglund | | Disclaimer: If it works, it's out of date. | |_____________________________________________________________|
mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) (12/21/89)
>/* acf5:comp.sys.atari.st / danscott@atari.UUCP (Dan Scott) / 7:17 pm Dec 18, 1989 */ >in article <25126@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com says: >> >> Consider that the *cheapest* IBM clone board comes *socketed* for easy memory >> expansion to the maximum RAM the system can utilize... > >Of course even on a 80286 computer w/ say 10Megs of RAM MS-DOS still sees >only 640K (we tested one under windows once for memory use)... Why do people assume that PCs are DOS-ONLY-FOR-EVER-AND-EVER systems? One can run UNIX and X11 any time of the day. (and call DOS in a window, if necessary). Ever heard of DOS Extenders? A 386SX motherboard (20Mhz) that costs $311 comes with sockets for 8Mb. (and 6 expantion slots :-) Thanasis
mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) (12/21/89)
>/* acf5:comp.sys.atari.st / gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) / 2:32 pm Dec 19, 1989 */ >In article <25185@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: > >!It's always been my understanding of "business" that making one part serve >!several purposes is more economical... unless you're trying to "force" >!customers into paying your price for your product... >! >!Why would Atari Corp make *TWO* different PC boards, when it would cost them] >!more to do it that way...? > >Maybe it doesn't cost them more? Do you know anything about manufacturing? I believe that you are right Greg. Probably it will not cost them more... Eventually! Since Mega2s can not be expanded, more people would be *forced* to pay the unreasonably more expensive Mega4s. (now, 1Mbyte costs $90) So, more money for Atari, less for its loyal followers. Thus, they can afford the extra cost of manufacturing and keeping double inventory. Thanasis
gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (12/21/89)
In article <370007@acf5.NYU.EDU> mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) writes: >> [ me ] >>Maybe it doesn't cost them more? Do you know anything about manufacturing? > >I believe that you are right Greg. >Probably it will not cost them more... Eventually! > >Since Mega2s can not be expanded, more people would be *forced* to pay >the unreasonably more expensive Mega4s. (now, 1Mbyte costs $90) You are obviously wrong on 2 counts: 1) Then Atari would have not put SIMMs onto the STE 2) Then Atari would have not taken a $40 million charge against earnings for losses because they paid too much for components in those same Mega2's and 4's. I think you'll find that soon Mega2's will disappear and Mega4's will drop in price, reflecting lower component prices. Atari has inventory, and when component prices drop they get left behind if they aren't careful. Leave your silly conspiracy theories at home. >Thus, they can afford the extra cost of manufacturing and keeping >double inventory. Oh, so YOU claim enough knowledge of manufacturing to know that Atari is spending more money. Gosh. I never knew you were an expert. ------ Greg Lindahl
mark@rpp386.cactus.org (Mark Lehmann) (12/21/89)
>Why do people assume that PCs are DOS-ONLY-FOR-EVER-AND-EVER systems? >One can run UNIX and X11 any time of the day. > (and call DOS in a window, if necessary). >Ever heard of DOS Extenders? > >A 386SX motherboard (20Mhz) that costs $311 comes with sockets for 8Mb. > (and 6 expantion slots :-) Thank you. Now I know that every one in this world does not assume that DOS is the only operating system for an Intel xxx86 machine. In fact from my experience, I have seen AT&T's UNIX, SCO's Xenix, IBM's AIX, Microsoft OS/2, IBM's OS/2, CP/M, and I think PICK's operating system on an IBM family Intel machine. Now, what about for Atari. I hardly see people refer to much other than TOS. But, at least we don't have the TOS only stereo type. I have seen TOS, DOS, MINIX, OS/9, C-SH, Apple MAC OS, and CP/M run on the ST, and do it well. Kind of interesting trivia. Does anyone have any other operating systems to add to the list? Mark Lehmann -- +------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Mark Lehmann | | | mark@rpp386.cactus.org | | | {bigtex|texbell}!rpp386!mark | |
mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) (12/22/89)
>/* acf5:comp.sys.atari.st / mark@rpp386.cactus.org (Mark Lehmann) / 10:12 pm Dec 20, 1989 */ >>Why do people assume that... > >Thank you. Now I know that every one... I appologize, my English are not good enough to avoid this kind of mistakes. Of course I just meant "some people". Sorry, Thanasis
mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) (12/22/89)
>/* acf5:comp.sys.atari.st / gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) / 4:59 pm Dec 20, 1989 */ >You are obviously wrong on 2 counts: Ts ts... Let us not get emotional, shall we? >1) Then Atari would have not put SIMMs onto the STE There is such a think like "trying another method when the first one fails" >Leave your silly conspiracy theories at home. I believe that ATARI is out there to make money. That, I think, is called bussiness. Do you call it a conspiracy?! Thanasis
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/25/89)
Sorry, this isn't "pick on Dan Scott" week, really... but... >in article <25126@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com says: > >> Consider that the *cheapest* IBM clone board comes *socketed* for easy mem >> expansion to the maximum RAM the system can utilize... >However, the *cheapest* IBM clone still only knows about 640K of memory >max (8086 based here). Without an *EXPENSIVE* memory board in one of the >card slots and some driver software 640K is all you'll ever get to use. Missed the point again, Dan... The point is, even a $59 IBM clone board can afford to provide you with the sockets to add RAM up to *its* maximum capacity, while Atari Corp is too cheap to install the $1.00 worth of sockets to give Atari owners expandabilit to the maximum RAM capacity of their systems. Maybe that's changing, now that we're seeing the promise of the use of SIMMs for expansion... if it happens, that could be one of the best things Atari has done in five years... BobR
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/25/89)
Greg Lindahl says, about Atari's making two different Mega PC boards.. >Maybe it doesn't cost them more? Do you know anything about manufacturing? >I sure don't... About PC board manufacturing..? Yes, I do know about PC board manufacturing. > ... And so I try to avoid showing my ignorance in public by >bashing Atari on topics that I don't know anything about. Oh well, guess we won't be hearing from Greg anymore on this topic.. how about anyone else who's been involved in designing PC boards, or etching them, or the processes of automated drilling and parts insertion.. can anyone think of a reason why it would be more cost effective to take ONE part which serves an identical purpose in TWO products, and redesign it so it only works in one of them, thus requiring TWO separate parts, lower production volumes on each, and separate inventories..? BobR
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/25/89)
Sigh... Greg Lindahl says, about Atari forcing customers into deadend machines.. >You are obviously wrong on 2 counts: >1) Then Atari would have not put SIMMs onto the STE Wake up, Greg... Atari made the changes to the Mega ST2, to enforce their policy of non-expandability something like *TWO YEARS* ago.. Putting SIMMs into STEs has nothing to do with a business decision made that long ago (and incidentally won't help Mega owners at all). >Leave your silly conspiracy theories at home. Did I call it a "conspiracy"..? I call it "business"... Atari's way of enforcing their brand of short-term greed on their customer base. Their stated policy on memory upgrading makes it clear why they did it. Again, maybe the use of SIMMs in *new* products heralds a new era in Atari/ customer relations... we'll see... BobR
mfolivo@sactoh0.UUCP (Mark F. Newton) (12/26/89)
With all the discussion (to me, whining) about how "easy" it is to expand IBM memory as opposed to the Mega, (blah blah blah), I have one thing to say. Why do you need megabytes upon megabytes of memory, if you use a computer in a home environment? Do you really need 93 Terabytes to do word processing? I have a Mega 4, and for home purposes, it is sufficient. And even for small business use, 4Mb is certainly enough to drive laser printers. Do some people really know how much memory 4Mb is? Most small businesses get by with 640k, maybe even 1Mb (which most IBMs only use less than 640k in their programs). I mean, 4000kb is not enough? About not being able to expand the Mega 2, has someone from Atari responded to my posting about the 2Mb expansion kit from Atari? To reiterate, I once worked at an Atari dealer, and we had a couple of these 2Mb expansion boards that plugged into the expansion bus. Since I had a Mega 4, you couldn't plug it in, but we never sold one to any Mega 2 owners. With all this talk about more memory, is this expansion board still available from Atari? For home use, and small business use 4Mb is certainly enough. And if you *really* need more capacity, then the TT is for you. (Although you need to go to Europe to get one) Mata ne da-cha, Shinobu -- Sakura-mento, CA mmsac!sactoh0!mfolivo mfolivo@sactoh0 pacbell!sactoh0!mfolivo (they're worth a try...)
mfolivo@sactoh0.UUCP (Mark F. Newton) (12/26/89)
Gee whiz... All this bashing (will it ever end? Do they have this on c.s.amiga??) Let's see, business can change a design anytime they want, due to a number of reasons, like perhaps a better design, less expensive to make, etc. So what if Atari uses two separate board designs? Who care? Why waste our time (and money) crying about the little things? SIMMs? Maybe again, Atari has gotten better pricing on memory chips with SIMMS rather than DRAMS. **WHO CARES???** Why are you crying about why someone uses a particular type of memory chip? Does it *really, really* matter that my 4 Megabytes are DRAMS, and an STE uses 1Mb in SIMMs??? Sore ja da-cha, Shinobu -- Sakura-mento, CA mmsac!sactoh0!mfolivo mfolivo@sactoh0 pacbell!sactoh0!mfolivo (they're worth a try...)
R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com (12/26/89)
In Article: 17472@rpp386.cactus.org mark@rpp386.UUCP (Mark Lehmann) Writes: > >Now, what about for Atari. I hardly see people refer to much other than TOS. >But, at least we don't have the TOS only stereo type. > >I have seen TOS, DOS, MINIX, OS/9, C-SH, Apple MAC OS, and CP/M run on the >ST, and do it well. > >Kind of interesting trivia. Does anyone have any other operating systems to >add to the list? Yes, I would like to add the UCSD p-System (or as its current vendor, Pecan Software, prefers to call it the "Power System"). I run it all the time (under NeoDesk), and am in the process of developing GEM libraries for UCSD Pascal. Last I heard they had even developed a NEW p-machine interpreter for it that will permit access to the entire memory space (not just 64K + codepool as the old one did). But I don't know for sure... I am still using the old one. R. Tim Coslet Usenet: R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com BIX: r.tim_coslet
STJLHI33@WATSON.BITNET (12/27/89)
> Date: 26 Dec 89 08:36:42 GMT > From: pacbell!sactoh0!mfolivo@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mark F. Newton) > Subject: Unexpandable megas > Why do you need megabytes upon megabytes of memory, if you use a > computer in a home environment? Do you really need 93 Terabytes to > do word processing? Gee, I wasn't aware that home use was synonymous with word processing. My 'home computer' does DTP, CAD & half a dozen other fun & serious things. As soon as I can snarf a color monitor you can add image processing and animation to the list. 93 Terabytes doesn't sound too bad. > I have a Mega 4, and for home purposes, it is sufficient. And even > for small business use, 4Mb is certainly enough to drive laser > printers. Nobody said anything about going beyond 4 megs. I'd like to get there in the first place. > Do some people really know how much memory 4Mb is? [stuff deleted] > I mean, 4000kb is not enough? Hmm. Seems to me that not too long ago 1/2 meg was considered 'wopping'. Could it be that in another 4 years even 4 megs will seem small? You betcha. > About not being able to expand the Mega 2, has someone from Atari > responded to my posting about the 2Mb expansion kit from Atari? > To reiterate, I once worked at an Atari dealer, and we had a couple > of these 2Mb expansion boards that plugged into the expansion bus. > Since I had a Mega 4, you couldn't plug it in, but we never sold > one to any Mega 2 owners. With all this talk about more memory, is > this expansion board still available from Atari? 'Someone from Atari' has responded. It seems that the kit isn't made by Atari but a 3rd party. Details anyone? > For home use, and small business use 4Mb is certainly enough. For now perhaps. What happens when huge displays, long animations, digitized sound and multitasking become the norm? > And if you *really* need more capacity, then the TT is for you. > (Although you need to go to Europe to get one) Oh, the old 'buy another computer' upgrade. 8-P Only now we have to go to Europe to get it. I wonder how many Atari owners are that dedicated? Fortunately, I don't think that's the way it's going to turn out (at least I hope not). > Mata ne da-cha, > Shinobu > Sakura-mento, CA > mmsac!sactoh0!mfolivo mfolivo@sactoh0 > pacbell!sactoh0!mfolivo (they're worth a try...) -------- Jason Steiner STJLHI33@WOOSTER.BITNET | In my opinion my "I stood up on my van, I yelled 'Excuse me, sir! This | opinions are just country ain't got no problems a few plastic explosives | my opinions won't cure!'" - Steve Taylor, i PREDiCT 1990
mjv@iris.brown.edu (Marshall Vale) (12/28/89)
In article <25353@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: > Atari made the changes to the Mega ST2, to enforce their > policy of non-expandability something like *TWO YEARS* ago.. Just this past week, I finally got my Mega2 upgraded to 4megs and TOS 1.4. My mega2 was bought in April of this year and according to my dealer(who's now out of business *sigh*), was a part of the first shipment with the kludgy blitter fix and the more IBM compatible internal drive. My board had all the lines to the empty ram sockets intact. I just want to say to everyone that there is hope for us Mega2'ers and lets just check ours first before we get too scared. I also want to add thanks to Andy Cassino for the ls373 warning, Greg Lindahl for pointing me to a person who could do the upgrade, KenB for TOS 1.4 (there are so many little things that make all worth it) and BobR for all those Dungeon Master hints... ps. Why does it feel like defeating Lord Chaos was a happier achievement than getting my diploma??? -- mjv@iris.brown.edu "And, oh! Father Christmas, if you love me at all, Bring me a big, red india-rubber ball." A.A. Milne "Now We are Six"
") (12/28/89)
Regarding board changes. It is probably quite common for manufacturers to change the physical board designs in products. I know (have seen with my own two eyes) that there were at least two totally different versions (in terms of layout of chips etc) of 520/1040STf(m) motherboards -- and I've heard of at least one more version. The two boards were totally different - RAM and ROM location, CPU location, etc. I doubt Atari changed the Mega 2 layout to purposely cripple it. That makes no sense at all. The Mega 2 layout was probably changed to fix something, to make use of different but functionally same parts, or to decrease manufacturing costs. Chad DEC has no opinions ---------------------------------------------------
mfolivo@sactoh0.UUCP (Mark F. Newton) (12/29/89)
In article <8912280804.AA16948@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, STJLHI33@WATSON.BITNET writes: > 'Someone from Atari' has responded. It seems that the kit isn't made by Atari > but a 3rd party. Details anyone? > A third party, eh? The box had the Atari logos and the board itself had "Atari" etched into it... > > And if you *really* need more capacity, then the TT is for you. > > (Although you need to go to Europe to get one) > > Oh, the old 'buy another computer' upgrade. 8-P Only now we have to go to > Europe to get it. I wonder how many Atari owners are that dedicated? > Fortunately, I don't think that's the way it's going to turn out (at least > I hope not). > Oh, but I am not wrong in my opinion that if you really need that kind of computer, you should get one (TT). I distinctly remember hearing that attitude about "why should I get an ST, when I expanded my 800XL to 1Mb..." Similar arguments, in regards to "I can do about what an ST does..." or something like that. Not to denigrate the 8bit owners, but the ST can do alot more, faster, better than an 8bit, and I am sure the same holds true that a TT or ATW can do alot more faster, better than even my Mega 4. I mean, it would sure look nice, but at the moment, I don't need, say, multitasking. I just run a Mega 4 and 1040 side by side. Not to mention my 800XL churning away on the side. (All I need is a network) Even now, the Macintosh has been pretty much eclipsed by the Macintosh II family, and 286 machines have given way to 386 machines, that are about to be pushed aside by 486 jobbies... (My opinion, on the surface) If only Atari could get the ball rolling with the STE and TT here in the US, I feel that they would replace the current ST line in a couple of years. (or would they, considering the fierce devotion of American Atari ST owners?) Mata ne da-cha, Shinobu -- Sakura-mento, CA mmsac!sactoh0!mfolivo mfolivo@sactoh0 pacbell!sactoh0!mfolivo (they're worth a try...)
gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (12/30/89)
In article <25352@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >Greg Lindahl says, about Atari's making two different Mega PC boards.. > >> ... And so I try to avoid showing my ignorance in public by >>bashing Atari on topics that I don't know anything about. > >Oh well, guess we won't be hearing from Greg anymore on this topic.. how >about anyone else who's been involved in designing PC boards, or etching >them, or the processes of automated drilling and parts insertion.. can >anyone think of a reason why it would be more cost effective to take ONE >part which serves an identical purpose in TWO products, and redesign it >so it only works in one of them, thus requiring TWO separate parts, lower >production volumes on each, and separate inventories..? Gosh, well I have designed PC boards and etched them. But the reason that I'm not claiming an expert opinion is this: Maybe the second design was so much cheaper that it saved money despite the lower production volume and separate inventories? If you have an expert answer for this question, you must be an accountant that works for Atari. Since you aren't... ------ Greg Lindahl
dclemans@mentor.com (Dave Clemans @ APD x1292) (01/04/90)
In the systems I've seen, the "unexpandable" Mega 2 board does not look like a new PCB layout. Instead it looks like the original layout artwork with the second memory bank covered up so that that area stayed all copper. My theory is that they ended up with a run of memory controller chips that would not reliably drive a 4mb system. Rather than throw those away, they decided it was cheaper to do a kludge run of "unexpandable" Mega-2 boards, stuffing the "bad" memory controller chips into them. dgc
ya16@mrcu (Ian Powell) (01/05/90)
In article <1431@castle.ed.ac.uk>, aimd@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Davidson) writes: > In article <8912120805.AA00886@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> STJLHI33@WATSON.BITNET writes: > > I thought it was just *some* Mega 2's that were crippled. Any-road-up, > Frontier Software in the UK offer a 1/2meg or 2meg solderless RAM > upgrade which will upgrade any 512k ST to 1meg and, by switching chips > at a later date, upgrade a 512k machine to 2.5meg. More to the point, it > also claims to upgrade a Mega 2 to a Mega 4. I have a Mega 2 which has been upgraded to 4 Mb using Frontier's hardware and it works fine. And whats more the installation was relatively painless.
mfolivo@sactoh0.UUCP (Mark F. Newton) (01/06/90)
In article <1990Jan3.220110.409@mentor.com>, dclemans@mentor.com (Dave Clemans @ APD x1292) writes: > In the systems I've seen, the "unexpandable" Mega 2 board does not > look like a new PCB layout. Instead it looks like the original > layout artwork with the second memory bank covered up so that that > area stayed all copper. > > My theory is that they ended up with a run of memory controller > chips that would not reliably drive a 4mb system. Rather than > throw those away, they decided it was cheaper to do a kludge > run of "unexpandable" Mega-2 boards, stuffing the "bad" memory > controller chips into them. > > dgc I certainly hope that no one thinks that is a reason, if any, why Atari decided to use a particular board. A kludge? Bad chips? Are you certain? Because you use the words "my theory", it is just speculation on your part, and I'd like to make that clear to the other users here. Maybe you're right, but maybe not. Ja ne da-cha, Shinobu -- -- (ames att sun)!pacbell! \ Sakura-mendo, CA ucdavis!csusac! - sactoh0!mfolivo uunet!mmsac! / the good guys!