wilson@mfci.UUCP (Jeff Wilson) (12/08/89)
In article <1854@atari.UUCP> you write: > >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. > Boy, do I hesitate to flame, but..... FLAME ON! I am one of the minority of end-users who DO buy in order to pro- gram. Of course I use computers as tools, too. Several years ago, I bought a Commodore 64 with hopes of enjoy- ing a cheap hack. After living with it for six months, I gave it to a university for a tax break (BTW, don't do that unless you are prepared to receive donation-wheedling letters from the Dean of Development for years thereafter). Why? Because it a) wasn't well documented for development and b) didn't work as claimed in the documentation I could get (serial port inter- rupts weren't handled properly, among other things). What a pleasure to have found sources like "De Re Atari" and the Atari 800 internals manuals (including source code for the O.S. and BASIC ROMs)! I bought an 800XL, followed by two 130XEs that I own today. These products have more than met my expecta- tions, granted that they share a puny processing architecture. Within my library, I am ALWAYS sure to find definitive guidance to the way Atari did things. This has saved me lots of trial- and-error experimentation. It's also allowed me to write smal- ler, faster programs, since I can, for example, see what sorts of argument checks I do/don't have to provide before making O.S. calls. I've read this Newsgroup keenly for a few weeks now. I had hoped to find some encouragement for buying into the ST world. In- stead I've been scared off for the time being. There is too much talk of under-powered bus fan-outs, inconsistent results with this ROM Rev. or that one, worries about loss of dealer support (BTW, it's GONE in 8-bit Land :-( ), flakey laser printers, and concern for obsolescence of currently owned STs as TTs start shipping. (Could be worse, I guess. My brother owns one of those Amiga things, and it's always crashing. I can't imagine why one would attempt to build a multiprogramming environment around insufficient hardware protection!) I'm encouraged that Atari Engineering employees are entering this discussion. As a computer company employee myself, I know that Engineering is the soul of the organization: the Marketing guys think that they are in control, but this is a short-term delusion in a world of technology that changes so quickly (I know: I are a Marketing guy). It is worrisome that Ken B. has taken one of the traditional Marketing positions ("users want solutions, not tools or insight"), for he is an Engineering guy. The problem with this position is that it rationalizes (in my view) short- sighted customer support policies. One wonders how expedient (and ruthless?) the Atari Marketing guys must be! I will watch the unfolding of the TT product line closely. I wonder if Atari Marketing understands in its gut how different the UNIX world's expectations may be from those in place for the ST? MOST UNIX programmers grew up on SOURCE CODE for the O.S. and utilities; they don't bother reading the `man' pages. They learned in University to be very independent and outspoken. They follow a raft of independent UNIX publications (e.g., "UNIX World"), trade shows (Uniforum, UNIX Expo, etc.), and THIS NET. They know how UNIX is "supposed to work" based on their direct prior experience. They view UNIX as an open system, not a propri- etary, hardware-dependent system. This mass market will not view the TT as "power without the price." They will look at it as just another UNIX box, but with some in- teresting sound and graphics capabilities. They will be very at- tentive to what the media channels mentioned above say about it. If it's known as an unsupported turkey early on, it won't get an- other chance in this very competitive marketplace. Never mind how many VARs (value-added resellers of software solutions) may be po- tentially available to Atari. I ramble. The point of this is that a quality company cannot rationalize-away product support. And in the brave new world of computer glut (check the WSJ for DEC and IBM layoff news), no one need buy from a low-quality company. Everyone on this Newsgroup has a vested interest in Atari's suc- cess. Atari, please take care of those who love you (yes, even Richard Covert :-) ), and we'll take care of you at the sharehold- ers' meetings. We'll make the individual buying decisions that add up to considerable revenue and profit. I'll meet Ken B. halfway and agree that for products such as the Portfolio and STacey, the simplifying no-support assumption is appropriate and consistent with the long-term health of Atari's business. So, could there ever be such a thing as a registered ST/TT USER? FLAME OFF! Replies by email encouraged to conserve bandwidth. BTW, I agree heartily with Ken B.'s suggestion to write paper letters. Email is ephemeral, but an in-basket of letters is hard to duck and must be explained to The Boss sooner or later. Jeff