daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) (11/25/89)
I'm still looking for some kind of information about how to program
the new chips in the STe.
Anything would help.
Atari Corp.? Some German user who can translate the article in the latest
number of ST Magazin? (I don't speak german)
If there're any intererest I can post something like a "Programming the STE"
to the net. I'll write one, anyhow.
PLEASE, do comment on this message!
--
Daniel Deimert, Fridstav. 4, S-715 94 Odensbacken, SWEDEN
Internet: daniel@pkmab.se
UUCP: ...{uunet,mcvax}!sunic.sunet.se!kullmar!pkmab!danielkbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) (11/28/89)
daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) writes: | I'm still looking for some kind of information about how to program | the new chips in the STe. Atari Corp. policy is that we offer developer support to registered developers, not to end users. I know how you feel about the issue, and I'm sorry if you feel "left out." It seems to me, though, that it just wouldn't be cost effective for us to offer the level of technical support we give to developers to end users. Incidentally, developers who ask can get STE release notes from Atari. I believe it is a requirement to be "re-registered" under our new nondisclosure policy. This new registration is free of charge for registered developers and will allow us to provide better support to developers actively working on ST products. This is part of the improved developer support program which was announced at COMDEX. US developers can find out more by contacting Gail Johnson at Atari. -- ||| Ken Badertscher (ames!atari!kbad) ||| Atari R&D System Software Engine / | \ #include <disclaimer>
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (11/29/89)
In article <1830@atari.UUCP>, kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: > Atari Corp. policy is that we offer developer support to registered > developers, not to end users. I know how you feel about the issue, > and I'm sorry if you feel "left out." It seems to me, though, that it > just wouldn't be cost effective for us to offer the level of technical > support we give to developers to end users. > > -- > ||| Ken Badertscher (ames!atari!kbad) > ||| Atari R&D System Software Engine > / | \ #include <disclaimer> Ken, I know that you are the wrong person to ask but since you read USENET here goes. I have asked John Townsend on GEnie the same (only yesterday) and I expect him to respond there. I understand that REGISTERED developers can buy Atari hardware at a discount ( I heard 50%). I have been investigating IBM PCs, Amigas, and Macs, and I still feel that GEM/AES/VDI is easier to program on than the systems on the other machines. I own a Mega ST4 (etc) and might be interested in buying a TT/p (even with all of its shortcomings) if I could get it at a Developer's 50% discount. But, while I am writing some ShareWare programs (mainly to support FoReM ST) I haven't tried to develop COMMERICAL programs. So, would my ShareWare programs qualify me as an Atari Developer?? Or would I have to go to the trouble (and expense) of selling my programs?? I make enough money at my fulltime job that the small amount I would make off of my FoReM utilities wouldn't mean much to me. The programs are only of interest to FoReM system operators. But, it would be nice to buy a TT/p at the developer's price. In fact, that is the ONLY way I would buy a TT/p. And maybe I coulf think of some commerical applications for it once I get it. So, what are the requirements for a registered developers?? John Townsend has said on GEnie that RDs need to submit a Business Plan and Products to Atari, or already have sold ST products. That leaves me out, as all I want is to sell some small ShareWare programs. Rich Covert
rogers@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Bob Rogers) (11/29/89)
In article <1830@atari.UUCP> kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: >Atari Corp. policy is that we offer developer support to registered >developers, not to end users. I know how you feel about the issue, >and I'm sorry if you feel "left out." It seems to me, though, that it >just wouldn't be cost effective for us to offer the level of technical >support we give to developers to end users. What happened to Atari's plans to publish and sell professional quality documentation? Earlier this year the Atari spokesman on GEnie said that it was nearly ready to go to the printers. Why is Atari the only maker of mass-market computers that doesn't publish technical info or at least work with publishers preparing such material? -- ---- Bob Rogers rogers@stpaul.ncr.com or rogers@pnet51.cts.com NCR Comten, St. Paul, MN GEnie: R.C.ROGERS
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (11/30/89)
>In article <1830@atari.UUCP> kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: >>Atari Corp. policy is that we offer developer support to registered >>developers, not to end users. I know how you feel about the issue, >>and I'm sorry if you feel "left out." It seems to me, though, that it >>just wouldn't be cost effective for us to offer the level of technical >>support we give to developers to end users. I'm still carping. If the TOS 1.4 documentation is indicative of what Atari documentation is going to be like in the future, it's a gigantic step in a good direction. But I still think that making a listing of ROM contents, as of some major freeze date, with comments, available to registered developers would be a GOOD THING. Extra charges, extra confidentiality agreements and big red warnings "This is provided only as a supplement to <other documents>; Atari guarantees to break any program dependent on OS features not promised elsewhere" would be acceptable. Although I also don't see any need to make such a thing confidential. I do see the need for warnings. Steve J.
glk01126@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (11/30/89)
You silly goose, if 50% were taken off the price of a TT, then everyone would send in the $500 to become a registered developer! -Spieu!
daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) (12/02/89)
In article <1830@atari.UUCP>, kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: > daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) writes: > > | I'm still looking for some kind of information about how to program > | the new chips in the STe. > > Atari Corp. policy is that we offer developer support to registered > developers, not to end users. I know how you feel about the issue, > and I'm sorry if you feel "left out." It seems to me, though, that it > just wouldn't be cost effective for us to offer the level of technical > support we give to developers to end users. Except for the fact that I don't give much for Atari Corp. policy, I still think this is an isane behaviour. In short sight, it might not pay off informing end users, but I can assure you -- you won't be able to sell a lot of computers if you don't tell them how to program it! I do understand it is impossible to, for example, send out information to each and every user that bought a ST, but it must be possible to post a minimum of information to some knowledgeable people in the right places. The net, if used right, could be a source of inside information about how to do things [like the posting of ARGV defs! *GREAT*] and what not to do. And there're a lot of developers on the net, too. And people from the net DO forward things to the right places. In a few days, many more than those who read news would know. Interesting information is spread further through FidoNet and by mail, personal contacts and phone calls. Let's say that I tell 15 people how to do. They tell 15 more each, and in a week at least 15^5 persons would know how to do. This is around 760000 people! (To be compared to around 400000 STs in Sweden...) This isn't cost effective? "Who ask"? It should at least be "cost effective" to give this information to developers without them having to ask! It is ATARI that should be trying to get more customers, more developers and more programming done on the ST -- this implicates more STs sold. Right? Not the so called end user trying furiosly to get his computer. Why should I buy a computer I can't use? Like buying a car and when you ask for an explanation of the buttons getting the answer: "Sorry, you have to be a registred driver to get to know this. You shouldn't know about more than the gear and the wheel." A lot of people have been complaining on Atari Corp. lately, and even more people have been complaining about this. Have nobody thought of the possibility that there might be something wrong? Why should we otherwise be bashing Atari? No, we only want to get the most out of the computer. Someone wrote that there must be a lot of people who wanted to take care of one bug each. I would love to, but I don't think this is possible. But we ARE doing our best to help! I have offered to help writing some demonstration programs to be put on the STE language disk. I haven't even got a reply. Atari Corp. was obviosly not interested. I do not want Atari Corp. to die -- I want to have an Atari computer, otherwise I wouldn't have bought a STE. But I do want to be able to program it without paying more money than necessary money for it! [BTW, I will soon post a couple of examples of how to program the STE. A lot of thanks to Ralph Haglund, qralph@dna.lth.se, for the translation from german!] And to those from Atari who're reading this: Wouldn't it have been cost effective posting slightly more than two pages of text to the net? One thing more: Why not give this to the responsible people? I know it isn't your fault, Ken and Allan. Disclaimer: After all, this is *MY* opinion. -- Daniel Deimert, Fridstavagen 4, S-715 94 Odensbacken, SWEDEN Internet: daniel@pkmab.se UUCP: ...{uunet,mcvax}!sunic.sunet.se!kullmar!pkmab!daniel
EESD11O@CALSTATE.BITNET (Ed Krimen) (12/02/89)
Re: Still searching... Spieu! wrote: > You silly goose, if 50% were taken off the price of a TT, then > everyone would send in the $500 to become a registered developer! During Thanksgiving vacation I went to an ST dealer in San Francisco and the technician told me that he ordered two TTs the previous day at $1000 a piece. He said that when he got them at the end of December, he wanted to be locked up in a room for a month to develop on it. He said that the retail price would be $2000. STart magazine said they would be sold for $1500. So, I guess Atari's going to be getting a lot of registered developers, according to Spieu. :~) The tech also ordered an STe, he said. The dealer said his Portfolios were selling like crazy. No word on the STACY.
kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) (12/05/89)
daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) writes: | I can assure you -- you won't be able | to sell a lot of computers if you don't tell them how to program it! I seriously doubt that the _majority_ of people who buy Atari computers, or any other computers for that matter, have the slightest desire to program their machines. The simple fact is, most people who buy computers want to _use_ their computers. They don't want to be bothered with "programming" the things. Where a computer company will lose is if there is no software available for the computers. It is important to make sure that professional programmers know how to program the computers, not end users. | [...] it must be possible to post a minimum of information to some | knowledgeable people in the right places. Who is "knowledgeable"? What is "the right place"? How much information is "a minimum"? And what do you call the information we have been posting? Chopped liver? | And there're a lot of developers on the net, too. In fact, only a tiny percentage of commercial ST developers are active on the net. | And people from the net DO forward things to the right places. It's true that net.info gets spread around quite a bit. It's also true that it gets warped on the way out. People are misquoted. The information may be wrongly interpreted at the far end, with no chance of the person(s) responsible for the original post to clear up the mistakes. [interesting chain letter analogy deleted] | It should at least be "cost effective" to give this information to | developers without them having to ask! Registered developers get a lot of information without having to ask anything more than "Where's my developer kit?" | Why should I buy a computer I can't use? Like buying a car and when | you ask for an explanation of the buttons getting the answer: "Sorry, | you have to be a registred driver to get to know this. You shouldn't | know about more than the gear and the wheel." Why do so many people use this analogy? A computer is not a car. A computer is a computer. But, since you insist, getting technical information (on a level equivalent to "How do I program DMA sound?") from an auto manufacturer isn't all that easy either. Try it some time. | Have nobody thought of the possibility that there might be something | wrong? Why should we otherwise be bashing Atari? Okay, I'm donning my asbestos suit for this one, but here goes: I think the reason that people bash Atari is BECAUSE THEY CAN. Because we are active on the nets answering technical questions, people feel that their input on how Atari should run its operation will be listened to. WRONG. The nets are not the right forum for that kind of communication. I pass on what I can to TPTB (The Powers That Be) at Atari, but a lot more credence is (and should be!) placed in letters. That's right, letters. On paper. Sent in envelopes. Becuause it's all too easy to sit at your computer reading netnews, and fling a flame into an electronic message thread without thinking too hard about it. Most people think a little harder before putting something on paper and mailing it. | I have offered to help writing some demonstration programs to be put | on the STE language disk. I haven't even got a reply. Atari Corp. was | obviosly not interested. This concerns me. To whom did you send the offer? Where did you send your letter? Did you send an example program along with your offer? | I do not want Atari Corp. to die [...] Nor do I. I hope you are able to get the information you want to program your STE soon. But remember, Atari gives registered developers special treatment, and they deserve it, because they write the software that sells Atari computers. -- ||| Ken Badertscher (ames!atari!kbad) ||| Atari R&D System Software Engine / | \ #include <disclaimer>
bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (Buce Szablak) (12/06/89)
In article <1854@atari.UUCP>, kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: > I seriously doubt that the _majority_ of people who buy Atari > computers, or any other computers for that matter, have the slightest > desire to program their machines... While a "_majority_" of ST owners may not want to program their ST, every ST owner I know of does at least some hacking. > It is important to make sure that professional programmers know how to > program the computers, not end users. Sorry, you are way off base here. Most PD software comes from end-users who in reality are "professional programmers" who don't wish/expect to make a dime off of their efforts. BESIDES, aren't I (an end-user who uses his ST to write programs for enjoyment) a valued customer???? Aren't my CUSTOMER needs important??? Your attitude really bothers me. (Someone posted the suggestion that Atari follow Next's example when they introduce the TT, and package GCC and utilities with each machine; that would be a SMART move. I won't hold my breath...)
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (12/06/89)
In article <1854@atari.UUCP>, kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: > > daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) writes: > | I can assure you -- you won't be able > | to sell a lot of computers if you don't tell them how to program it! > > I seriously doubt that the _majority_ of people who buy Atari > computers, or any other computers for that matter, have the slightest > desire to program their machines. The simple fact is, most people who > buy computers want to _use_ their computers. They don't want to be > bothered with "programming" the things. Where a computer company > will lose is if there is no software available for the computers. It > is important to make sure that professional programmers know how to > program the computers, not end users. Ken, that just isn't so!! *ALL* STers are hackers and coders! The ST is soo much easier to program than an IBM PC or a Mac that naturally *ALL* Real Programmers Program on STs!! > | And there're a lot of developers on the net, too. See, STers are programmers!! > > -- > ||| Ken Badertscher (ames!atari!kbad) > ||| Atari R&D System Software Engine > / | \ #include <disclaimer> . . . . . . . . . . -- Richard E. Covert (covertr@gtephx) (602) - 581-4652 | AG Communications Systems, Phoenix AZ | UUCP: {ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!covertr
gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (12/06/89)
In article <874@lzaz.ATT.COM> bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (Buce Szablak) writes: >(Someone posted the suggestion that Atari follow Next's example when they >introduce the TT, and package GCC and utilities with each machine; that would >be a SMART move. I won't hold my breath...) Actually, it seems kind of silly to me. MOST ST's don't have the memory or disk needed to run GCC, and MOST ST buyers don't know C. NeXT puts GCC with their machine because it's a workstation. Can you only imagine the confusion of buyers who receive 10 disks of software, with no instructions, that they have no idea how to use, and that they probably don't have the resources to run? Now what Atari ought to do is make sure we PD developers can purchase reasonably-priced documentation somewhere. I don't need phone support, but I sure could use docs. The ST docs eventually became available from 3rd party sources, but I'd like to see STe and TT docs before 1991... ------ Greg Lindahl
mark@rpp386.cactus.org (Mark Lehmann) (12/06/89)
>I seriously doubt that the _majority_ of people who buy Atari >computers, or any other computers for that matter, have the slightest >desire to program their machines. The simple fact is, most people who >buy computers want to _use_ their computers. They don't want to be >bothered with "programming" the things. Where a computer company >will lose is if there is no software available for the computers. It >is important to make sure that professional programmers know how to >program the computers, not end users. Ken, Not to dispute your argument about the reason most people buy their Atari ST's (to use pre-written code), but I bought my ST in my senior year of high school to learn how to program. I came from a back ground of an Epson QX-10 using CP/M and I basically had to write any software that I wanted to use (uncluding a word processor, network printer server, music composer programs - all in CP/M using a variety of high level languages: C and Pascal). When I first got my Atari, I was greatly disappointed at the availability of software (mainly due to my location) also in the general desgin of the ST (I have a 1040ST and the keys are a little akward and the 9 pin ports are in a stange spot.) My point is, for home users like me (maybe 10%) the thrill in having the computer is programming to solve problems, and have a lot of fun in doing it. And, in my programming of this machine that I have low expectations of, I have really learned to like it allot. In fact, since I had low expecatations, the ST has done nothing but impress my since I bought it. Maybe this is just my view point, but I bet there are allot of other people out their that also have allot of fun just programming their ST to solve problems or solve mathematical puzzles, and sometimes that means knowing how to interface with the operating system. Maybe Atari could offer a smaller public version of operating system technical references for people like me. (This is not a complaint, I like my ST and Atari.) Sorry for making this sooooo long. Mark Lehmann bigtex!rpp386.cactus.org!mark -- +------------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | Mark Lehmann | | | mark@rpp386.cactus.org | | | {bigtex|texbell}!rpp386!mark | |
ignac@electro.UUCP (Ignac Kolenko) (12/06/89)
In article <1854@atari.UUCP> kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: >daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) writes: >| I have offered to help writing some demonstration programs to be put >| on the STE language disk. I haven't even got a reply. Atari Corp. was >| obviosly not interested. > >This concerns me. To whom did you send the offer? Where did you send >your letter? Did you send an example program along with your offer? that's interesting hearing this from daniel. i've had the same thing \ happen here in good old canada. almost 2 1/2 months ago, i got a call here at work from atari canada (i think the guy i talked to was named rotenburg, or something like that) about doing some graphics/sound demos for the STE. at the time i said, "sure, why not". he then said that it would be a couple of days before he could clear with his superiors this idea so that he could ship an STE unit to me at electrohome. well, its been 2 1/2 months and i have yet to see hide nor hair of the STE, or any call of explanation from atari canada. its too bad because at the time of their initial offer, i had the spare time to actually try to do some useful stuff on the STE. now i don't. oh well ... life goes on. -- =====Ignac A. Kolenko (The Ig) watmath!watcgl!electro!ignac===== co-author of QuickST, and the entire line of Quick Shareware!!!! "I don't care if I don't win, 'cause I don't care if I fail" from 'Youth Of Today' by SUBURBAN DISTORTION
kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) (12/07/89)
bds@lzaz.ATT.COM (Buce Szablak) writes: | > It is important to make sure that professional programmers know how to | > program the computers, not end users. | Sorry, you are way off base here. Most PD software comes from end-users [...] 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. | BESIDES, aren't I (an end-user who uses | his ST to write programs for enjoyment) a valued customer???? | Aren't my CUSTOMER needs important??? Your attitude really bothers me. 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>
daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) (12/07/89)
In article <1854@atari.UUCP>, kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: > > daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) writes: > | I can assure you -- you won't be able > | to sell a lot of computers if you don't tell them how to program it! > > I seriously doubt that the _majority_ of people who buy Atari > computers, or any other computers for that matter, have the slightest > desire to program their machines. The simple fact is, most people who You might be right there - but what about the so well-known PD/SW programs? There are a lot of goodies among these, like the Quick ST etc. The programmers who make these programs are considered "end users", or..? > buy computers want to _use_ their computers. They don't want to be Yes. Of course. But _MANY_ of those have bought a computer to be able to program it as well as use it! Otherwise they would have bought a video game. The percentage who bought it as a business computer? Well, I guess you can count it out. You haven't got a great reputation, you know. The STE isn't going to do it any good either, nor the LYNX. > | [...] it must be possible to post a minimum of information to some > | knowledgeable people in the right places. > > Who is "knowledgeable"? What is "the right place"? How much > information is "a minimum"? "Knowledgeable" is for example the people who wrote Quick ST. And there are more people on the net (for example). And the journalists of a computer magazine such as the swedish one, "AtariSTen". And that is the right place, too. It's not YOUR business -- but it is Atari Scandinavia's. "A minimum" of information is, in this case, a list of adresses to the new chips/enhanced chips and a _short_ explanation of what to put there. I know you did this with early STs: They got some kind of addendum with a list of adresses to the PSG (complete with waweform diagrams!) and such. That's the kind of information I want. Not internal TOS behaviour. But the most important stuff, of course stripped compared to the dev. docs. That doesn't matter. Like now, how easier everything would have been for me if the source-code (in Turbo-C, I know.) to the demonstration programns would have been there, right on the language disk. I do think you had some spare space, huh? Not of interest to all, no. But of great importance to others. > And what do you call the information we have been posting? > Chopped liver? No, I don't. And I think I mentioned the fact that I thought this was the way to handle things. (Like the ARGV defs -- wonderful!) I refer to my earlier postings. > | And there're a lot of developers on the net, too. > > In fact, only a tiny percentage of commercial ST developers are active > on the net. But it just MIGHT be "cost effective" to post it to the net, then? Fine. > | And people from the net DO forward things to the right places. > > It's true that net.info gets spread around quite a bit. It's also > true that it gets warped on the way out. People are misquoted. The > information may be wrongly interpreted at the far end, with no chance > of the person(s) responsible for the original post to clear up the > mistakes. Mostly it's correct. KERMIT don't missquote things, I think. Nor do ZMODEM. Maybe XMODEM does, I don't know :-) This is no reason. If you post something of any importance (like a program or the ARGV stuff) it's not rewritten -- it's just sent further by file transmission. No missquoting there... > [interesting chain letter analogy deleted] Oh... :-) > > | It should at least be "cost effective" to give this information to > | developers without them having to ask! > > Registered developers get a lot of information without having to ask > anything more than "Where's my developer kit?" This was your words. "Just them having to ask", or something like that. Look in you article. Reading all the messages from developers (the LOW percentage, remember?) who aren't satisfied with the information, I can't agree with you. But I don't really have inside information. We better leave the subject. > | Why should I buy a computer I can't use? Like buying a car and when > | you ask for an explanation of the buttons getting the answer: "Sorry, > | you have to be a registred driver to get to know this. You shouldn't > | know about more than the gear and the wheel." > > Why do so many people use this analogy? Maybe because it's a good one? > A computer is not a car. A computer is a computer. True, but you want to use your computer, just as you want to use your car. And you want to program it, to drive it. At least some of us. :-) > But, since you insist, getting technical > information (on a level equivalent to "How do I program DMA sound?") > from an auto manufacturer isn't all that easy either. Try it some time. Maybe not, but I do think the auto man. would answer the question: "Where are the ---SOMETHING---"? ("At what adress is ---?") And the car company cooperates with people writing books about "do it yourself". But since you're not comfortable with this analogy, we'll leave that too. > | Have nobody thought of the possibility that there might be something > | wrong? Why should we otherwise be bashing Atari? > > Okay, I'm donning my asbestos suit for this one, but here goes: I think > the reason that people bash Atari is BECAUSE THEY CAN. Because we are > active on the nets answering technical questions, people feel that > their input on how Atari should run its operation will be listened to. Oh? Since when have you been answering tech. questions from net people? (Low end users?) Not in this case, at least. (But again, I KNOW, I KNOW, you have done that sometimes - that's why I got surprised of these negative answers to my humble questions!) > | I have offered to help writing some demonstration programs to be put > | on the STE language disk. I haven't even got a reply. Atari Corp. was > | obviosly not interested.> > This concerns me. To whom did you send the offer? Where did you send > your letter? Did you send an example program along with your offer? I sent it by electronic mail to kbad@atari.UUCP, that is YOU. (Message dated Fri Nov 24 12:26:13 1989, subject: Questions about the STE) And NO, I did not send an example program -- I had still got no information about how to program the STE, remember? Since my english is a bit strange and foreign, after all -- you might not have understood me. But now you have, and the offer is still there. If I write something that is better than the existing programs, is it possible to get it distributed on the language disks? Is it possible to write some kind of "dealer demo" that could be sent out to dealers from Atari Corp. with a lot of stunning graphics and sound, as they say? I can do a lot of this myself, and I know more people who would be pleased to help. If it's possible, well my mail adress is below. > > | I do not want Atari Corp. to die [...] > > Nor do I. I hope you are able to get the information you want to program > your STE soon. But remember, Atari gives registered developers special > treatment, and they deserve it, because they write the software that > sells Atari computers. I think you're absolutely right in giving the developers HIGHER support than end users, but I do think you could give us end users a little more support than you do. We're not asking for much (are we?). And, this is of course my opinion, and if it "awakens the beast within you", it's not my fault. You shouldn't have read this... --- Daniel Deimert, Fridstavagen 4, S-715 94 Odensbacken, SWEDEN Internet: daniel@pkmab.se UUCP: ...{uunet,mcvax}!sunic.sunet.se!kullmar!pkmab!daniel
matthews@umd5.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) (12/09/89)
In article <474003ce.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: >Ken, that just isn't so!! *ALL* STers are hackers and coders! >The ST is soo much easier to program than an IBM PC or a Mac that naturally >*ALL* Real Programmers Program on STs!! > > >-- > Richard E. Covert (covertr@gtephx) I know of several ST owners who have no desire to even THINK about programming their STs. The fact that the ST is easy to program does not mean people will always program it. And, PLEASE, do not assume your limited experience (this is not a flame; I have limited experience in this matter also, as does just about everybody) on people who own STs represents the whole. Sure, the ST might have a larger percentage of programmers, but percentages don't count -- numbers do. Mike
clubok@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (Ken "The Snake" Clubok) (12/10/89)
Ken B. says: >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. >-- Sorry Ken, but I can't accept this. Mostly, I've avoided getting involved with the flame wars against Atari, since a lot of the comments have been overly negative if not inaccurate. Also, I really appreciate your taking the time to participate in the net, and the other Atari employees as well. But this last comment of yours makes no sense when you consider that developers must sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents developers from legally releasing a good deal of important information contained in the developers' kit. It seems as if Atari is intentionally trying to restrict the flow of information, although I could hardly guess why. Before I can believe that Atari intends for developers to take its role in educating the hobbyist, it will have to change this unexplicable policy. > ||| Ken Badertscher (ames!atari!kbad) > ||| Atari R&D System Software Engine > / | \ #include <disclaimer> Ken Clubok Clubok@husc4.bitnet Clubok@husc4.harvard.edu
daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) (12/11/89)
In article <1864@atari.UUCP> kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: > [...] 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. OK. I have to tell you that my opinion differ from yours (You didn't know that, did you? :-) a great deal. I'm working in a TOY STORE right now, selling computers (Amigas! They won't sell the ST: They can't get any help from Atari, then - why bother? The amigas sells better.) If Atari continues doing like this, that's the way it will be. And not only here in Sweden... The impression I have of people buying computers is that they want to learn programming, if they don't know how to do already. People who just want's to USE software (games in my case) simly buy a video game (ie sega or nintendo). But, the situation MIGHT be different in the US; I don't know. >Please note: the opinions expressed in this article are mine and mine >alone. Atari has its own. Fine. Where can we learn ATARI's so called opinion, then? By ordinary mail to whom, say?
markr@seqp4.ORG (Mark Roddy) (12/12/89)
And furthermore, Atari's new developers program appears to cut off the PD/shareware community from access to internal documentation. If the "non-professional" developers had to rely on the wealth of information available from book publishers on programming the ST we would all be out buying Macs, Amigas or (gasp) IBM clones. Why don't you guys just cut your own throats and get it over with :-? -- -Mark Roddy seqp4!markr@m2c.org m2c!seqp4!markr
bane@mimsy.umd.edu (John R. Bane) (12/16/89)
In article <1854@atari.UUCP> kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: > >daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) writes: >| Why should I buy a computer I can't use? Like buying a car and when >| you ask for an explanation of the buttons getting the answer: "Sorry, >| you have to be a registred driver to get to know this. You shouldn't >| know about more than the gear and the wheel." > >Why do so many people use this analogy? A computer is not a car. >A computer is a computer. But, since you insist, getting technical >information (on a level equivalent to "How do I program DMA sound?") >from an auto manufacturer isn't all that easy either. Try it some time. > I can walk into any decent auto shop and purchase a repair manual for most cars available in America. I can walk into any computer book store and purchase cubic yards of books on how to program an IBM PC or a Macintosh. In both these cases at least one version of this information is published by the manufacturer, and can be purchased for less than $30. The only Atari-approved source of this information is the developer's kit, which is over $100 last I heard. The alternatives are reverse-engineering exercises like Abacus books and the documentation supplied with various compilers. I don't require this information to be free, but I would like it to be available from Atari for a price that meets my need for it (generalized hacking around, little possibility of commercial success). -- ARPAnet: bane@mimsy.umd.edu UUCP:...umcp-cs!bane