S61304@PRIME-A.POLY-SOUTH-WEST.AC.UK (Rat) (12/12/89)
(From "The Masked Rat Fink" "Computing and Informatics Yr4") This is mostly in reply to Ken.B's comments but is also available for the rest of you to comment upon. Ken, I would like to say that just because a large number of users do not want to program on their ST's this is no reason to provide almost zero information with them. When I bought my ST I was expecting to get a nice user manual with it, but instead I find a flimsy pamphlet which almost but not quite describes the use of the desktop. The only technical information supplied is in the manual for ST BASIC and if my memory serves correctly, the actual quantity of hard facts or system information is the square root of nothing! I don't know whether you non-British folks have heard of the BBC Micro manufactured by Acorn (of Archimedies fame!) but this came supplied with one of the best manuals that I have ever seen for a micro computer. It had loads of system information, by which I mean things like memory maps, and system call vector addresses. They even put a small paragraph in the manual about the system routines, saying that they were not trying to hide the OS from the programmer, infact they were being as open as they could be, whilst allowing for future expansion. The use of vectors allowing the OS authors to completely change the inside of the ROM anytime they liked without affecting well written software! This meant that BBC Micro software was very robust, and that no one really worried too much about OS versions, unless they specifically wanted the extra facilities offered by it. If a BBC Micro developer wanted to get all the information they could about the machine there were (still are! :-) three other manuals available at about 20 pounds each (translate to dollars yourself). One for advanced programmers, one for basic disk drive information and one for advanced disk information. That was it! You didn't need anything else! My point is that if that much information can be supplied for a machine that was in its day what the ST is now, why was no technical information supplied with the ST? Sure teach someone to use the desktop, but after that they are locked into just using packages. Alright so packages are important, but they don't all get written by professional developers. Many of the ST programmers are like me, enthusiastic amateurs (sp?) who develop software for pleasure/ fun/the_hell_of_it ! I can't afford to pay the developers license inorder to get the docs, but I would like a few basic facts about my machine! I personally think that the attitude you take as far as non-professional programmers is concerned is arrogant (sp?) and not what I would expect from an engineer. Heck, most engineers (software or otherwise!) can't shut up when you ask them about their 'baby' and they can never go to too much trouble to be of assitance. To use your least-favorate analogy, it's like a car salesman telling you that you can't find out what's under the bonnet until you get your advanced drivers certificate! This not really a flame, as I don't hate anybody, just an observation on a lamentable ommision! However, constructive debate on this matter would serve a useful purpose. And if Ken would be so kind as to tell me an address I could write to, then I will write another version of the above and send by Snail Mail in order to make my feelings know to Atari UK/USA. As a parting shot, I intend to stick with the ST, despite the lack of support, because it is a good machine, but it doesn't mean that I have to like having no docs. If DEC or IBM tried to sell a machine without docs they'd be laughed out of the business! <Gets off soapbox before audience gets bored> TMRF (who just _LOVES_ the heat! :-) | Simon Chappell (The Masked Rat Fink) | Computing and Informatics (Final Year), Polytechnic South West (Plymouth) | |"Better the pride that resides, in a citizen of the world, | than the pride that divides, when a colourful rag is unfurled." - RUSH | | JANET S61304@uk.ac.psw.pa BITNET S61304@pa.psw.ac.uk | INTERNET S61304%uk.ac.psw.pa@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk | | Disclaimer: 'And you believed ME?' <falls on floor laughing>
rcc9885@ultb.isc.rit.edu (R.C. Costello) (12/13/89)
In article <8912120806.AA00934@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> S61304@PRIME-A.POLY-SOUTH-WEST.AC.UK (Rat) writes: >(From "The Masked Rat Fink" "Computing and Informatics Yr4") > >This is mostly in reply to Ken.B's comments but is also available for >the rest of you to comment upon. > [Long message deleted explaining why Atari should have included Technical documentation with the ST.] >| Simon Chappell (The Masked Rat Fink) >| Computing and Informatics (Final Year), Polytechnic South West (Plymouth) >| First off, I agree, the manual that comes with the ST isn't all that great, but it is good enough to learn how to use the desktop (although several things are ommited). HOWEVER, when I compare this documentation to the documentation you get with one of them fruity computers, its not even close. Apple gives your more manuals than you know what to do with. BUT wait a minute! How come my the Mac costs so much more (something we ALL want to know!)? Good manuals? Maybe. So, would you be willing to spend another $50-$60 to get technical documentation? You should be, you would be paying ATLEAST that much more if you bought ANY other computer. And YOU CAN get ONLY the developer documentation, although I don't remember how much off hand. (Approx. $100) Hmm.. Sounds fair to me.. I know MANY people who WOULD NEVER use this documentation, and THEY would be unhappy if they were FORCED to pay for it. Just think of it as one of the few add ons you can get from Atari. ;-) +-----------------+-----------------------------------------------------------+ | Where Am I? |X| "Of course I made a backup copy, actually I made two, the_| +-----------------+--------+ first one was too light." - typical IBM user |X| | rcc9885@ultb.isc.rit.edu +--------------------------------------------------+ | rcc9885@ultb.edu _| | | | Atari ST: The BIGGEST and FASTEST and | | rcc9885@ritvax.BITNET |X| | | | most POWERFUL computer in the whole _| +--------------------------+ / | \ entire ... Well, um, I still like it.|X| | I don't work for anyone, +-------------------------------------------+------+ | so, it doesn' matter _| NOTE: Now if I could only have this many_| | what I think. |X| windows open under GEM! |X| +--------------------------+-------------------------------------------+
chen@digital.sps.mot.com (Jinfu Chen) (12/15/89)
In article <8912120806.AA00934@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> S61304@PRIME-A.POLY-SOUTH-WEST.AC.UK (Rat) writes: >(From "The Masked Rat Fink" "Computing and Informatics Yr4") > >I don't know whether you non-British folks have heard of the BBC Micro >manufactured by Acorn (of Archimedies fame!) but this came supplied with one >of the best manuals that I have ever seen for a micro computer. It had loads >of system information, by which I mean things like memory maps, and system >call vector addresses. They even put a small paragraph in the manual about the >system routines, saying that they were not trying to hide the OS from the >programmer, infact they were being as open as they could be, whilst allowing >for future expansion. The use of vectors allowing the OS authors to >completely change the inside of the ROM anytime they liked without affecting >well written software! This meant that BBC Micro software was very robust, and >that no one really worried too much about OS versions, unless they specifically >wanted the extra facilities offered by it. If making money is not the goal of Atari Corp., I am very sure Atari will give you that as well. Would you expect a user who just wants a computer to do non- programming tasks to pay for the extra costs? Please, memory map and interrupt vector address, etc have no bussiness in a user manual. What all these documentations crap really comes down to the fact that Atari hasn't been publish a decent "Atari ST Programming Manual", and they did promise (not sure legally commited to it though). I don't know if Atari Corp. still sells the documentation-only Developer Package, maybe this may stop some of these amateur programmers moaning.
kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) (12/16/89)
Atari Corp. 1196 Borregas Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA (from the back of the "flimsy pamphlet which almost but not quite describes the use of the desktop"... right after the diagrams with pinouts for all the ports - sorry... I couldn't resist ;) -- ||| Ken Badertscher (ames!atari!kbad) ||| Atari R&D System Software Engine / | \ #include <disclaimer>