Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (11/13/89)
"Big Bad Dom" asks: >I am seriously thinking of buying a PC at the moment and I have basically >decided on one of two models, > 1)ATARI ABC > 2)AMSTRAD 2086 >Does anyone have/know of the machine and if so could someone please >offer me advice on buying it? More important than the technical differences between the two machines is the difference between the companies which make the computers. Amstrad is a professional company which produces computers. They have established a world-wide reputation for delivering good, solid computers. Atari Corp is a toy company which has established a reputation for being poorly managed, and for its capricious treatment of its users, dealers and suppliers. While the "Atari ABC" may be the computer of the week now, you may find yourself holding an obsolete system when they go off after the next glittering gizmo and leave you with an unsupported orphan next week. Then again, maybe they won't... it's your gamble... BobR
pi@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Peter J Ikusz) (11/14/89)
>>offer me advice on buying it? > >More important than the technical differences between the two machines is >the difference between the companies which make the computers. > >Amstrad is a professional company which produces computers. They have >established a world-wide reputation for delivering good, solid computers. > >Atari Corp is a toy company which has established a reputation for being >poorly managed, and for its capricious treatment of its users, dealers >and suppliers. While the "Atari ABC" may be the computer of the week now, >you may find yourself holding an obsolete system when they go off after the >next glittering gizmo and leave you with an unsupported orphan next week. Sorry, Bob, I've worked with, sold, and used Amstrads. I wouldn't let my worst enemy buy one. They are junk. If you think Atari is only a toy company go to Europe. You will find out how extensively they are using their 'toys'. Pete I. I'm not an Atari loyalist, I just don't like the other expensive junk in the market. ( Amiga is OK, though, emphasis on OK ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Movie Quotes of the 80's: "I'll buy that for a dollar!": Robocop "What's amatter Colonel Sanders, Chicken?": Dark Helmet "Poachers shooting at rabbits scare the big game away.": D.R.Scoundrels Pete Ikusz : PI@csd4.uwm.csd.edu : University of Wisconsin Milwaukee -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (11/15/89)
Pete Ikusz says: >Sorry, Bob, > I've worked with, sold, and used Amstrads. I wouldn't let my worst enemy > buy one. They are junk. Whew... I've been learning a lot about the way Amstrad is perceived in the U.K. and Europe... Here in the U.S., Amstrad computers seem to be among the "second line" of third-party machines, along with names like Blue Chip and Packard Bell... we don't have Amstrad stereos and other things. Since the original question came from the U.K., I'll have to defer to the experience of those in that marketplace... I think my point was clear though, even if the comparison with Amstrad was flawed... BobR
rjk752@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu (11/16/89)
/* Written 11:34 pm Nov 12, 1989 by Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com in uxf.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.atari.st */
Some text deleted...
Atari Corp is a toy company which has established a reputation for being
poorly managed, and for its capricious treatment of its users, dealers
and suppliers. While the "Atari ABC" may be the computer of the week now,
you may find yourself holding an obsolete system when they go off after the
next glittering gizmo and leave you with an unsupported orphan next week.
/* End of text from uxf.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.atari.st */
Try to control your passion there, Bob. Take a breath...
I am a computer engineer at the U of Illinios
in Urbana / Champaign. I am using an Atari with 2mb internal memory,
50 meg of hard drive, an 8Mhz 68000, and a (Robotics) courier 2400 to
write this note. I also use it for two of my three classes and to access
the Library Computer system. Don't you think "toy" might be an inappropriate
choice of words. This system will out-perform the majority of the IBM hardware
out in the streets today. In fact the IBM emulator on my Atari has a Norton
SI rating between 2.5 and 3.0 because of the power of the 68000 (RISC
architecture). I can also read and format IBM formatted IBM DD/DS 3.5" disks,
and with some software and a couple of chips could emulate a Mac as well.
I am a month from graduation as a computer engineer, and I consider
the Mega ST2 to be a fairly powerful machine (definitely out of the range of
toy). I would further state that it can clearly outperform any IBM in its
price range for the majority of tasks a home user would want. Do you beg to
differ with me ? I got my system for slightly over $2000. What do YOU
own. I'll bet it's 1) more expensive or 2) less powerfull or 3) another
"toy" computer.
On a similar note, Atari doesn't have a history of producing obsolete
equipment. Do you consider the M68000 to be any more obsolete than the
equally new 80286 technology IBM uses? If and when the TT is delivered, it
will use the 68030, which will still run my 68000 programs. My ST software
library will not be wasted. Please give a name to this "unsupported orphan
product".
On the other hand, you are right about their tendancies to introduce
new ideas into the marketplace before they can back them up with hardware and
also about their lack of support for dealers. Some entities like businesses
who require a full-service shop with personel knowledgeable about the products
would be ill-advised to get an Atari. However, for my personal use, I have
*never* had to bring an Atari in for service. The Atari has made a lot of
sense for me, and I don't regret having purchased it. In the few cases where
there are trouble though, it will be more difficult (not impossible though,
I have a full-service dealer within 5 miles of where I live for example) to
get repairs. Also, if you want to run protected IBM or MacIntosh software,
then an Atari is out. Overall, though, I'll definitely take my Atari.
P.S. I have used IBM's and Macintosh's quite a bit in school. The IBM's are
too expensive and their software isn't nearly as user friendly. The Mac's are
black and white on a too-small screen. The Mac II's are very nice, but too
expensive. There are my opinions. I think most of us are *quite* familiar
with yours by now :)mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) (11/17/89)
A question deserves an answer: /* acf5:comp.sys.atari.st / rjk752@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu / 5:41 am Nov 16, 1989 */ > >I am using an Atari with 2mb internal memory, >50 meg of hard drive, an 8Mhz 68000, and a (Robotics) courier 2400 to >write this note. ... >This system will out-perform the majority of the IBM hardware >out in the streets today. In fact the IBM emulator on my Atari has a Norton >SI rating between 2.5 and 3.0 because of the power of the 68000 (RISC >architecture). ... > >I would further state that it can clearly outperform any IBM in its >price range for the majority of tasks a home user would want. Do you beg to >differ with me ? I got my system for slightly over $2000. What do YOU >own. I'll bet it's 1) more expensive or 2) less powerfull or 3) another >"toy" computer. Allow me to differ with you. A system with: - A 286 at 12Mhz. SI rating 15.3 Landmark rating 15.1 - 4 MB of RAM - 66MB 25ms 1:1 interleave hard drive (should tr. at >400Kbytes/sec) - VGA 640x480 and 16 colors. - 1.2 Mb floppy, 2 serial, 1 parallel, real time clock etc. - 2400 bps modem (no advantage here) - 8 expansion slots (4 available). - runs multiple DOS sessions under desqview. costs (1862+100+50+320) $2332 without looking for great bargains. (advertised items) It is 1) as expensive and 2) much more powerfull and 3) much more professional. BTW I own a 1040 ST which was one of the best choices when I got it. I am using it as a terminal and it is excellent (many thanks Simon!). Send personal mail only if you want more info on the above AT. Thanasis PS Some people remind of the mice dancing when the cat is out. 8-> Remember, silence is not agreement. It may be just boredom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If you pray hard enough, water will run uphill. How Hard? Why, hard enough to make water run uphill, of course!" R. A. Heinlein Internet: mitsolid@csd2.nyu.edu (mitsolid%csd2.nyu.edu@relay.cs.net) UUCP : ...!uunet!cmcl2!csd2!mitsolid -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
suhonen@tukki.jyu.fi (Timo Suhonen) (11/17/89)
In article <46300069@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu> rjk752@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >/* Written 11:34 pm Nov 12, 1989 by Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com in uxf.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.atari.st */ Some text deleted... >SI rating between 2.5 and 3.0 because of the power of the 68000 (RISC >architecture). ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^ The MC68000 is FAR from RISC!!!! It is absolutely a CISC processor! > I am a month from graduation as a computer engineer, and.... If only I where you professor, I'll would kick you out of the University!! Almoust draduated computer engineer, and does not know NOTHING about processors... Where is the word goning to????? Some text deleted... Timo PS: English is not my native lasnguage... -- Timo Suhonen suhonen@tukki.jyu.fi Disclaimer: The text above is from my left brain cell. The right one is for SeX and Drugs and Rock'n Roll. Al K. Hall has eaten the others...
rjk752@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu (11/18/89)
Written Nov 17, 1989 by mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU A system with: - A 286 at 12Mhz. SI rating 15.3 Landmark rating 15.1 - 4 MB of RAM - 66MB 25ms 1:1 interleave hard drive (should tr. at >400Kbytes/sec) - VGA 640x480 and 16 colors. - 1.2 Mb floppy, 2 serial, 1 parallel, real time clock etc. - 2400 bps modem (no advantage here) - 8 expansion slots (4 available). - runs multiple DOS sessions under desqview. costs (1862+100+50+320) $2332 without looking for great bargains. (advertised items) It is 1) as expensive and 2) much more powerfull and 3) much more professional. /* End of text from mitsolid */ Yes, but do you have MIDI ? Just kidding. I certainly do stand corrected about my presumptions concerning the Atari MegaST being more powerful for the price than any comparible computer. I'm afraid all I can plead is ignorance. I had no idea the price of 286 computers had dropped to such a reasonable level. It's a welcome development, even though I am somewhat of an Atari loyalist (because I liked their philosophy or not ripping the consumer off every chance they get). It seems that I have fallen behind, and times are changing rapidly. Atari has done a couple of things recently that may be loosing them some of their loyalty base now. I like to think I have an open mind, and I have to admit that factual arguments like yours are very convincing. I hope Atari believes enough in PR to refute your (implied) claim that their power/price ratio is down (with a market announcement that actually comes true or something), but intuition tells me they won't. I'll stop here because I would hate to become an Atari-basher. I still have hope for them. I'll always welcome reasonable arguments and facts, though. So thanks. Bob Krieter
rjk752@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu (11/20/89)
/* Written by suhonen@tukki.jyu.fi in uxf.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.atari.st */ Much text deleted intermittently >The MC68000 is FAR from RISC!!!! It is absolutely a CISC processor! Not true. See below. < I am a month from graduation as a computer engineer, and.... >if only I where you professor, I'll would kick you out of the University!! >Almoust draduated computer engineer, and does not know NOTHING about >processors... Where is the word goning to????? Isn't there some sort of error in logic there ? Because I haven't programmed the 68000 and one of my statements about it was technically incorrect, I know NOTHING about processors. I know quite a bit about processors (I won't bore everyone by putting it in). The University of Illinois is in fact one of the best Colleges in the United states in the field of Computer Engineering, and I will graduate in December. However, they tend to concentrate on theory. I have had little experience with the hardware currently on the market. I don't see any smiles in your text. If you want to get personal with colorful insults, then please use mail. Your message is in very poor taste. There is enough bashing going on here, we don't need to start flame wars as well, do we ? I heard about the 68000 architecture from a friend at the University here (I haven't actually programmed it myself). Here is what he said: (Note that I now admit the 68000 is considered CISC) "Actually, the 68000 is considered CISC, because of the fact that YOU, the USER cannot write programs in its "basic" set. I am *quite* sure that at the very *heart* of the 68000 is a RISC ALU which executes a VERY small program (which is stored in the on-chip memory) which reads the instructions from memory and decodes them. So overall, the 68000 is in fact CISC, but it is run by a RISC heart. And yes, I am quite sure of this. I got this info from a (very informative) article on CPU architecture in Byte magazine (a special issue on architecture sometime in the last 14 months or so) -- they were doing a specific comparison of the basic operation differences between the 80x86 and the 680x0 families." Hopefully that will clear up any confusion that you or I created.
ignac@electro.UUCP (Ignac Kolenko) (11/20/89)
In article <46300069@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu> rjk752@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > In fact the IBM emulator on my Atari has a Norton >SI rating between 2.5 and 3.0 because of the power of the 68000 (RISC >architecture). your posting is an excellent defence of the power and versatility of the atari st line of computers, but you, especially as a computer engineer, should realize that the 68000 is nowhere near being RISC architecture. the 68000 has a very complex instruction set, with very complex addressing modes. (the 020 and 030 have even better addressing modes, but that's another story). a RISC architecture means the processor has a limited set of addressing modes, mainly loading into a register and saving from a register, and they usually have a better file of general purpose registers than what the 68000 offers. anyways, thanx for actually standing up for the atari st. it's a real shame that so many people in north america are ignorant to the power of this machine. i guess it will never die in europe, though, which makes me feel a little bettter. -- =====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
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (11/21/89)
RJK (not otherwise identified) says: What do YOU own. I'll bet it's 1) more expensive or 2) less powerfull or 3) another "toy" computer. Sorry.. .my computer of choice, out of the 14 or so that I own, is my Atari 520ST... It's (painfully) upgraded to 1 Meg of RAM, and running 20 Megs of hard disk. It's far more useful to me than any of the other brands of computers I own. What we have to do is distinguish between the computer itself and the company that produces it. Atari Corp doesn't seem to be able to realize what a powerful computer they have in the ST. Instead, they run off in all directions, trying to sell toy IBM compatible (somewhat compatible) "computers", and promoting unavailable handheld "video games" ... do either of these activities benefit _you_..? I'm glad you decided to make your opinions known. Maybe if more Atari owners would make their feelings known, Atari Corp would deal more honestly with _all_ of us... BobR
dnewton@carroll1.UUCP (Dave 'Post No Nicknames' Newton) (11/21/89)
In article <46300077@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu> rjk752@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >However, >they tend to concentrate on theory. I have had little experience with the >hardware currently on the market. That's too bad... >"Actually, the 68000 is considered CISC, because of the fact that YOU, the USER >cannot write programs in its "basic" set. I am *quite* sure that at the very >*heart* of the 68000 is a RISC ALU which executes a VERY small program (which >is stored in the on-chip memory) which reads the instructions from memory and >decodes them. So overall, the 68000 is in fact CISC, but it is run by a RISC >heart. Well, by this definition, I would suppose that every micro-programmed CPU is considered RISC, as microcode only has a limitied amount of instructions. What makes a CPU a RISCy one, in my mind, is one where the _user_ has few instructions, and instead of micro-coded, it's hardwired. -- David L. Newton | uunet!marque!carroll1!dnewton | The Raging Apostle-- (414) 524-7343 (work) | dnewton@carroll1.cc.edu | for the future-- (414) 524-6809 (home) | 100 NE Ave, Waukesha WI 53186 | for the world. "Isn't it fun to take two unrelated sentences and mix the batter lightly?" -me
rjk752@uxf.cso.uiuc.edu (11/23/89)
If you don't care about 68000 architecture skip this .... This is an excerpt from some mail I got about my offhand comment to the effect that the 68000 was a RISC chip at heart. I found it to be interesting and thought that an addition to this notestring involving something other than Atari-bashing wouldn't hurt. So I decided to post it. I think the author sent it E-mail to avoid embarrassing me, but I didn't include his name in case he's bashful or something. Maybe he will take credit for it if he see's it, in case somebody wants to know something more about this subject. I also felt compelled to post it because I was wrong about the 68000 being RISC, and I would hate to think I had left somebody confused because of my lack of 68000 experience. I know it's very frustrating for me when people give information involving things they know little about. I hope this fixes it. I guess the moral is to use information you read or learn yourself, not what your hear from co-workers or friends. This guy has some experience, so I think it's likely to be valid. My thanks to the author for responding with intellect and good manners to my mistake. Note that I still don't claim any 68000 experience and I didn't write this. For that reason, any flames sent will most likely be re-routed to /dev/null without much parsing. Note: Timo said (correctly) that the 68000 is much more CISC that RISC. **************** Here's the 68000 info ************************ I happen to be an undergraduate in Computer Science with a strong background in Electrical Engineering. From my independent research into the subject and class work on the subject, I have to agree more with Timo. The RISC archetecture inside of a 68000 that you speak of is the microcode processor. While it is a very simplistic language to work in, you definately do not want to program in it. It deals with basic dataflow within the processor between registers, ALU and memory access ports. On the 68000 and the 8086, the microcode in tucked away within the chip and is not accessible. However, this is not always the case, the VAX processor is most definately a CISC processor, but the first thing it does when it boots is load the micro-code into its internal memory. But even micro-code can be hairy. Often, the simplest and most effective method to create a microcode is to use one bit per register and other parts of the logic. The whole string of bits could conceivably be longer than the instructions of the processor itself. In fact, a micro-code which is larger than the "machine code" is not infrequent in the world of processor design. But this is all beside the point. The designations of RISC and CISC refer to its outward construction. The microcode does not enter into the picture making this determination. In fact some argue that micro-coded processors are not really RISC. Never-the-less, an example of a RISC design would be the transputer processors from Inmos. While they are micro-coded, they have a very reduced instruction set. Every instruction fits into a single byte! The processor has only 3 (or some small number of) registers. In comparison, the 68000 encodes all command within a single word (32 bits). There are considerably more instructions which may be encoded in 32 bits for 16 registers total. From this, we conclude that the 68000 is not a RISC processor. The 8086 is even worse. Based on an old 8bit processor, the 8086 remains totally compatible with the older design. The design of the instruction set for the 8086 is, as a result, a big mess. Rest of text deleted