kar7481@cuphub.cup.edu (Dan Karbowsky;AtariEliteOfPghPa bbs412-384-5609) (12/10/89)
In article <1864@atari.UUCP>, kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: > bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (Buce Szablak) writes: > ...... > I'm not way off base. I may be wrong in your case, and in fact I may be > wrong in the case of every person who reads comp.sys.atari.st! But > active members of online communities aren not by any means > representative samples of ST owners. If the online community were more > ubiquitous, I would grant that your experiences were representative, > but it isn't, so I can't. My opinion is based on my experience working > in a computer store, working with user groups, supporting development > tools, and talking with Atari's user group and developer support people. > Users, by and large, want to use their computers. > > As far as supporting hobbyist programmers, I take a pragmatic stance. > How much PD software comes from where is not directly important to a > computer maker. It is certainly indirectly important, because a wide > variety of PD tools make a computer a lot more attractive to the > informed buyer. But a wide variety of professional products make a > computer more attractive to the market at large. A lot of people buy > the computer that runs the software that they want to run. That is why > it is vital for computer makers to have a broad commercial software > base for their machines. In order for that to happen, strong support > for the companies that produce that software must exist. > > A side effect of having strong support for professional programmers is > that end users get supported as well. More books get written by the > professionals, making more information available to the hobbyist than > the computer maker can hope to provide. A broader base of technically > competent people exist to answer the questions of hobbyist programmers. > All these programmers will be happy because they can get their > questions answered and they can solve their problems without having to > stumble around in the dark too much. > > Every customer is a valued customer. You are an espeically valued > customer, because you take the time to give feedback on how you think > Atari is doing. I'm sorry that my attitude bothers you, but I think > that it's a practical one. I hope that I've clarified where I'm coming > from. > > Please note: the opinions expressed in this article are mine and mine > alone. Atari has its own. > > -- > ||| Ken Badertscher (ames!atari!kbad) > ||| Atari R&D System Software Engine > / | \ #include <disclaimer> -- *** * **** **** **** **** **** *** * **** **** # / ### ### # * * * * * * * * * *___ * * * * *___ #/ #__ # # # * * * * * * * *** *** * * * * *** * #\ # # # # * *** **** **** * * **** * *** ___* **** , # \ ### # ### , BUT HAVEN'T YOU REALIZED THAT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF PERSONS ON THIS NEWSGROUP SEEM TO BE ***QUITE PISSED OFF*** AT ATARI FOR NOT GIVING ANY REALISTIC SUPPORT IN ANY WAY TO ANY ST USERS/PROGRAMMERS/WHATEVERS AND YOU HAVE (in the past 3 weeks since our site has had this newsgroup,anyway) NOT REALLY _STRENGTHENED_ ATARI'S OVERALL PICTURE IN THE EYES OF AT LEAST THIS PROGRAMER/USER/etc... AND MORE THAN LIKELY--A ((FEW)) OTHERS TOO!!! [ hell couldn't be this hot ] +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dan Karbowsky kar7481@pitt!cuphub / S U P P O R T T H E S T ! ! ! | | 102 Lee Drive ___________________/Call the ATARI ELITE of PITTSBURGH'S | | Belle Vernon, PA / BBS (Forem-ST,fnet node 19) at (412) 384-5609 at 300 | | 15012 U.S.A. / thru 19.2k baud 24 hrs./day 7-days/week Mention this | | / message at logon. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
jjung@sal-sun10.usc.edu (John Jung) (12/12/89)
In article <2369@cuphub.cup.edu> kar7481@cuphub.cup.edu (Dan Karbowsky;AtariEliteOfPghPa bbs412-384-5609) writes: >In article <1864@atari.UUCP>, kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: >> I'm not way off base. I may be wrong in your case, and in fact I may be >> wrong in the case of every person who reads comp.sys.atari.st!... [text deleted] >> Users, by and large, want to use their computers. [more text deleted] >["No defense, Ken", deleted] > BUT HAVEN'T YOU REALIZED THAT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF PERSONS ON THIS > NEWSGROUP SEEM TO BE ***QUITE PISSED OFF*** AT ATARI FOR NOT GIVING > ANY REALISTIC SUPPORT IN ANY WAY TO ANY ST USERS/PROGRAMMERS/WHATEVERS > AND YOU HAVE (in the past 3 weeks since our site has had this newsgroup,anyway) > NOT REALLY _STRENGTHENED_ ATARI'S OVERALL PICTURE IN THE EYES OF AT LEAST > THIS PROGRAMER/USER/etc... AND MORE THAN LIKELY--A ((FEW)) OTHERS TOO!!! But why should Atari support the end-users/public domain programmers? Most people who own computers have absolutely no desire whatsoever to program it. They just want to _use_ it and possibly play games one it. _THAT'S_ it. They don't give a damn if Turbo C is available for their machine, they just care that WordPerfect's available for it. All the people who've been sending flames to Ken _are_ way off base. comp.sys.atari.st is by no means an accurate representation of all Atari end-users out there. However, I do wish Atari would make some of the ST's technical specs available for any end-user who wants it, but doesn't have the money to get the Developers' Package. So, I humbly suggest to Atari, to allow us end-users who _want_ to program, but don't have the money, to let us pay for the tech specs, but not get the full fledge Developers' Package. In other words, what I simply want Atari to do, is allow for something similar to De Re Atari for the 8-bits. If we (end-users) really want the technical info on the ST's, we can order them from Atari, without having to become a developer. And for those 90% end-users who don't _care_ about programming, they won't be affected. How about it, Ken? A little extra money to be spent, but it'll sure help out all the public domain authors a lot. John
daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) (12/12/89)
In article <6983@chaph.usc.edu> jjung@sal-sun10.usc.edu (John Jung) writes: >In article <2369@cuphub.cup.edu> kar7481@cuphub.cup.edu (Dan Karbowsky;AtariEliteOfPghPa bbs412-384-5609) writes: >>In article <1864@atari.UUCP>, kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: >>> I'm not way off base. I may be wrong in your case, and in fact I may be >>> wrong in the case of every person who reads comp.sys.atari.st!... [a lot of text deleted] >> BUT HAVEN'T YOU REALIZED THAT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF PERSONS ON THIS >> NEWSGROUP SEEM TO BE ***QUITE PISSED OFF*** AT ATARI FOR NOT GIVING >> ANY REALISTIC SUPPORT IN ANY WAY TO ANY ST USERS/PROGRAMMERS/WHATEVERS > > But why should Atari support the end-users/public domain programmers? Most >people who own computers have absolutely no desire whatsoever to program it. >They just want to _use_ it and possibly play games one it. _THAT'S_ it. They One of the most common _uses_ for any kind of computer IS programming! And the reason for supporting is _very_,_very_ simple: WE, THE END-USERS ARE C U S T O M E R S ! [And The Customer is _always_ right, remember? :-)] What Atari Corp. ]_not_ Ken personally] should care about is keeping their customers satisfied. Rule One in any serious business! > > However, I do wish Atari would make some of the ST's technical specs >available for any end-user who wants it, but doesn't have the money to get the That's what it's all about...
rdr@mdavcr.UUCP (Randolph Roesler) (12/13/89)
> But why should Atari support the end-users/public domain programmers? Most >people who own computers have absolutely no desire whatsoever to program it. >They just want to _use_ it and possibly play games one it. _THAT'S_ it. They >don't give a damn if Turbo C is available for their machine, they just care >that WordPerfect's available for it. All the people who've been sending flames >to Ken _are_ way off base. comp.sys.atari.st is by no means an accurate >representation of all Atari end-users out there. Don: Hello Randy, I am looking for a personal computer for use at home. You know, games, a spreadsheet or two. Randy: Well .... Don: I thought I would ask you about which type of computer to buy, you being a computer person, working for a great big company, you guys must have all kinds of good information. What computer do you have ? Randy: I have an Atari ST Mega 2 and and older IBM. Don: What kind of things can it do. Can it play games, talk to IBMs, can my kid learn to program on it. Randy: Well, to tell you the truth, its hard to program. Harddisks are expensive because no one know how to build the silly things. Public domain games are hard to find, as there are not too many hackers. Programs are reasonable priced, but ... --------------------------------------------------------------------- Not realistic ? Why not ? I am a computer "person", I do not want to program by Mega 2. But I do want to play around with it. I need reasonable technical support, either from Atari or from the book store (like IBMs provide). By not making it fun for us high end users, Atari is creating a lot of bad press for itself. Would I really say those things to Don. No. Would I lie to him. No. What he will hear is what really is. Atari supports only professional developers ! -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's not the size of your signature that Randy Roesler counts - it's how you use it! MacDonald Dettwiler & Assc. email ...!uunet!van-bc!mdavcr!rdr BC Canada 604-278-3411
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/13/89)
Just one question in this discussion... If Atari has such a low opinion of the "end users" who buy their machines, and can assume that 90% of them only want to run programs, not write them, why has Atari traditionally supplied a *programming language* with the computers..? In fact, my ST came with *two* programming languages... BobR
ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) (12/13/89)
In article <2391@pkmab.se> daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) writes: >In article <6983@chaph.usc.edu> jjung@sal-sun10.usc.edu (John Jung) writes: >>In article <2369@cuphub.cup.edu> kar7481@cuphub.cup.edu (Dan Karbowsky;AtariEliteOfPghPa bbs412-384-5609) writes: >>>In article <1864@atari.UUCP>, kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: >>>> I'm not way off base. I may be wrong in your case, and in fact I may be >>>> wrong in the case of every person who reads comp.sys.atari.st!... >[a lot of text deleted] >>> BUT HAVEN'T YOU REALIZED THAT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF PERSONS ON THIS >>> NEWSGROUP SEEM TO BE ***QUITE PISSED OFF*** AT ATARI FOR NOT GIVING >>> ANY REALISTIC SUPPORT IN ANY WAY TO ANY ST USERS/PROGRAMMERS/WHATEVERS >> >> But why should Atari support the end-users/public domain programmers? Most >>people who own computers have absolutely no desire whatsoever to program it. >>They just want to _use_ it and possibly play games one it. _THAT'S_ it. They > >One of the most common _uses_ for any kind of computer IS programming! > >And the reason for supporting is _very_,_very_ simple: WE, THE END-USERS >> However, I do wish Atari would make some of the ST's technical specs >>available for any end-user who wants it, but doesn't have the money to get the >> developer' package. When I first ORDERED my 1040ST back in march of '86, I never thought of buying programs. I was feverishly reading forth and LISP and waiting anxiously for my box to arrive at my dealer's. It didn't occur to me that i would BUY software... i figured i was buying a computer that would allow me to write programs for myself. I was very fascinated with the computer's potential and I wanted to learn how to program the thing. Needless to say, I was shocked at how little information was provided when I opened my box. I am certainly NOT the only "end-user" interested in programming the ST.. virtually every person I know who has purchased an ST (or any computer) has expressed a strong interest in programming. I am talking about "end-users". You don't have to have visions of developing commercial or PD software to want to program the ST. I think it would be a great benefit to the ATARI community if ATARI would provide a much improved manual with their systems as well as a package priced reasonably that could be purchased by an "end-user" that would give a clear and accurate image of what's inside the plastic casing. -kevin ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu
gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (12/14/89)
Although people seem to have loud ideas about what Atari should do,
I don't see many concrete suggestions in many of these postings...
In article <4905@blake.acs.washington.edu> ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) writes:
! I was very fascinated with the computer's potential and I wanted to
! learn how to program the thing. Needless to say, I was shocked at how
! little information was provided when I opened my box.
How many PC Clones or Amigas come with lots of programming info out of
the box? Macs? Every wonder why? Market surveys.
! I think it would
!be a great benefit to the ATARI community if ATARI would
!provide a much improved manual with their systems as well
!as a package priced reasonably that could be purchased by
!an "end-user" that would give a clear and accurate image
!of what's inside the plastic casing.
What don't you like about the current 3rd party books about
programming the ST? I don't think they're perfect, but they
were certainly good enough to let me write GEM applications.
------
Greg Lindahlsoohoo@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Ken "nmi" Soohoo) (12/14/89)
In article <24958@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >Just one question in this discussion... > >If Atari has such a low opinion of the "end users" who buy their machines, >and can assume that 90% of them only want to run programs, not write them, >why has Atari traditionally supplied a *programming language* with the >computers..? > >In fact, my ST came with *two* programming languages... > >BobR Bob, It seems to me that supplying a language like Basic fits exactly into the type of support that Atari is capable of providing at the moment -- they'll supply a language to everyone if they don't need to tell them what they're doing wrong when they get bugs using it. Anyone can go out and buy a Basic book and figure it out themselves. Keep in mind that Atari is a _small_ company, the programmers that you see on the net are a _sizable_ portion of their entire programming staff. We all work really hard to give people support, but we've got jobs to do also, and don't read news all day. Atari _has_ a technical support person, for developers, but then again, resources are limited. Now, you're gonna say "why doesn't Atari release all their documentation instead of hiding it, then people would stop clamouring about support." Unfortunately, this ain't true. The more people have documentation from Atari, the more they feel that they can ask Atari about problems with their programs. The staff required to support a book like DE RE ATARI is HUGE, GIGANTIC, and was nice at the time, but the Tramiel's Atari doesn't run on that kinda $$. You _can_ get all the documentation you need to write fine Atari GEM based programs out of MWC's manual, or books like "Programming the Atari ST", which is a fine book... And I like to use the "Programmer's Guide to GEM", although it's also fraught with frustrating translations between IBM and Atari world GEMs, and some things that are just plain wrong. If you want, you can grab the Atari developer's docs for about $100 (last I checked, don't quote me on it ;-)). That's a fine reference manual, as long as you're used to 'man' pages... ;-). Woah, been on a soapbox for a little there... Um, ok, seriously, I know the end user's gonna buy the ST for a little programming work, but the moment they start thinking about _real_ programming, they should go out and buy a good C compiler (or pick your favorite language). Is it _really_ the job of Atari to supply the end user with the language(s) and documentation for the price they charge you for the computer? Ok, I don't think so. I think it's _perfectly reasonable_ to charge for that kind of software and docs, which you'll note, Apple does too ;-). It's a service, just like anything else in the computer world, and you're gonna have to pay. Developers _do_ get discounts on hardware... They _do_ have someone to call when they've got problems... You gotta pay. Atari doesn't have a low opinion of the end user, it has simply reduced what it ships with the machine to what it deems is the lowest common denominator among the buyers of the machine -- what _everyone_ is gonna find useful. Thus the prices remain low, and you get something neato. If you want more, ok, you'll have to buy it, but _what_ you buy is now up to _you_, and not Atari. They don't spend your money _for_ you. --Kenneth "kens" Soohoo (soohoo@cory.Berkeley.Edu) Atari Hacker (Atari's Hacker...) "It could be worse, you could get hit by a bus..." My opinions are my OWN, _not_ necessarily Atari's. But "hey", who knows?
towns@atari.UUCP (John Townsend) (12/15/89)
in article <24958@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com says: > > Just one question in this discussion... > > If Atari has such a low opinion of the "end users" who buy their machines, > and can assume that 90% of them only want to run programs, not write them, > why has Atari traditionally supplied a *programming language* with the > computers..? > > In fact, my ST came with *two* programming languages... > > BobR And there are manuals available for programming in ST BASIC available from Customer Relations and your local Atari Dealer. So, what's the problem? -- John Townsend ames!atari!towns Atari Corp, Systems Test
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/15/89)
Greg Lindahl asks: >What don't you like about the current 3rd party books about >programming the ST? I don't think they're perfect, but they >were certainly good enough to let me write GEM applications. Most of the third party books about the ST were "reverse engineered" and based on information that was discovered by disassembling code from the machine, or by experimentation, or I suspect from "illicit" passing on of information from registered developers. Much of it was translated (in many cases very poorly) from German, and much of it contained bugs, misinformation and outright errors. If Atari Corp is concerned, as KenB mentioned, about people passing on bugs, misinformation and outright errors, why doesn't *Atari* publish the "right stuff" and be sure it's passed on correctly? BobR
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/15/89)
Actually I agree with Ken Soohoo about the languages supplied by Atari with the ST... my Atari 800 didn't come with anything at all.. the BASIC cartridge was an option, so it was a nice surprise to have both ST BASIC and LOGO supplied with the machine. (Not that they ever got much use, but it was nice anyway...) The point is though, that I think (my opinion, based on long experience of contact with a wide range of Atari owners) that most computer owners DO want to learn to do some programming. By supplying the languages with the machines, Atari seems to be recognizing that fact (and actually the manuals that came with ST BASIC and LOGO were surprisingly complete and well written.. they weren't some quick hack, just thrown together as a "freebie") In actual fact, probably most of those "programmers" won't go very far, and will end up becoming "users", but at least they'll have the feeling of having learned to do something original with their expensive new toys.. Those that want to continue though, should have a good, "official" source of information to proceed. The third-party books are good, but I'd much rather have an official document from the manufacturer to go by. My Atari "Technical Reference Notes" for my Atari 800 were probably the most used set of documentation I had, and I think I have just about EVERY book ever written by anyone on the 800. Actually, much of this discussion is moot though, as Atari seems to be workin right now on providing a way for "non-professional" programmers to have acces to this kind of support. It's a really encouraging move, and I hope it ends up benefitting both the Atari owners who want to get more out of their machines without "going Pro", and Atari Corp themselves... BobR
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/17/89)
John Townsend answers my question: >> If Atari has such a low opinion of the "end users" who buy their machines, >> and can assume that 90% of them only want to run programs, not write them, >> why has Atari traditionally supplied a *programming language* with the >> computers..? With a question: >And there are manuals available for programming in ST BASIC available from >Customer Relations and your local Atari Dealer. So, what's the problem? Well, the problem is not manuals for ST BASIC... the problem is that KenB has just told everone on the Net that they aren't worth Atari's time or effort, since they aren't "professional programmers", and besides, Atari knows they don't want to program their computers, only "use" them... So why does Atari hand out a programming language, if they "know" that no one wants to program their computers..? I haven't seen a manual for the new version of ST BASIC, but the manual that came with my original version of ST BASIC was actually quite complete and well written... and seemed to be aimed at encouraging the new computer owner to learn to program his ST. So why are we now told that only "professional" programmers are worthy of effort on Atari's part..? BobR
gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (12/17/89)
In article <25039@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >Greg Lindahl asks: > >>What don't you like about the current 3rd party books about >>programming the ST? > >Most of the third party books about the ST were "reverse engineered" and >based on information that was discovered by disassembling code from the >machine, or by experimentation, or I suspect from "illicit" passing on of >information from registered developers. The Abacus GEM book seems to have been done that way. However, the Sybex GEM programming book is quite good, was written in English and not translated. I've never seen the other GEM tutorial book recently mentioned, but I doubt it's just a bad copy of the Atari development docs. Which of these 3 have you looked at? Also, I haven't read the Mark Williams C or Laser C manuals, but the are reputed to be pretty good. ------ Greg Lindahl
danscott@atari.UUCP (Dan Scott) (12/19/89)
in article <24958@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com says: > > Just one question in this discussion... > > If Atari has such a low opinion of the "end users" who buy their machines, > and can assume that 90% of them only want to run programs, not write them, > why has Atari traditionally supplied a *programming language* with the > computers..? > > In fact, my ST came with *two* programming languages... You call LOGO and ST BASIC *REAL* programming languages? Dan
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/19/89)
The Mark Williams C manual "Lexicon" is VERY good.. probably one of the most useful references to the ST... also the Compute! Books series by Sheldon Leemon on the AES/VDI is worth tracking down... The Sybex book on the GEM interface was also very good... I just wish Atari Corp. had easily available documentation that was anywhere as good... BobR
MBERNAR@ERENJ.BITNET (mb) (12/21/89)
fox!portal!cup.portal.com!Bob_BobR_Retelle@apple.com mentioned that the ST comes with ST Basic, Logo and documentation. I don't think this is true at the present. When I bought my ST in April, it didn't come with Logo or any manual for ST Basic. It did come with a short list of ST Basic system calls which is useless without the manual since the arguments are not explained. I'm not complaining. I wouldn't have used them anyway (I prefer compiled languages). So why should I pay for it. Besides, those people who really want to use ST Basic can buy it.
cr1@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Christopher Roth) (12/22/89)
In article <8912210817.AA06313@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> MBERNAR@ERENJ.BITNET (mb) writes: > >fox!portal!cup.portal.com!Bob_BobR_Retelle@apple.com mentioned that the ST >comes with ST Basic, Logo and documentation. I don't think this is true >at the present. When I bought my ST in April, it didn't come with Logo or >any manual for ST Basic. I just purchased my 1040 ST , oh, about a year ago, and I can affirm that it only came with Atari BASIC. Now, I hesitate to call Atari basic an actual language, but I suppose you can technically call it that. As for paying for such a thing...Ick! Anyone who wants to program on their computer is bound to go and purchase a programming language of their own, so when you get right down to it, it isn't necessary to include a programming language with the computer. I would have liked to have received a little bit more documentation on the machine then I got, though. That little tan booklet they give you covers the basics rather lightly, it would be nice to know more about the machine without having to buy a book somewhere else. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= * Christoper Roth * This message is NOT for * InterNet : cr1@beach.cis.ufl.edu * GENIE's use! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Post No Bills-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (12/25/89)
Dan Scott says:
>You call LOGO and ST BASIC *REAL* programming languages?
That's not the point...
Atari has told us, in so many words, that they KNOW that owners of Atari
computers don't want to program them.
So why do they hand out programming languages then..?
(Why do I keep getting questions in answer to my questions from Atari folks,
instead of answers..? Still wondering...)
BobRroland@cochise (12/27/89)
cr1@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Christopher Roth) writes: >MBERNAR@ERENJ.BITNET (mb) writes: >>fox!portal!cup.portal.com!Bob_BobR_Retelle@apple.com mentioned that the ST >>comes with ST Basic, Logo and documentation. >>When I bought my ST in April, it didn't come with Logo or >>any manual for ST Basic. >I just purchased my 1040 ST , oh, about a year ago, and I can affirm >that it only came with Atari BASIC. Ok, when I bought my 520 ST+ in November 1985, it came bundled with - RAM TOS ( free ROM TOS was promised, but never delivered ) - Logo - Basic - GEM-Write - GEM-Draw The last two item where incomplete but usable prereleases which never got finished, so we got 1st-Word and Degas as a replacement ( the buying contract only specified 'some text- and some graphic-package' ). I am astonished by Allan's