greg@sj.ate.slb.com (Greg Wageman) (11/15/89)
Opinions expressed are the responsibility of the author. In article <23996@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >Anthony Lapadula states: > >>(1) I do resent being told in late '85 that my 1040ST would indeed >>be able to use the Blitter, which, of course, was due out RSN. Don't >>know if I should blame my dealer or Atari, but the example stands. > >Sam Tramiel, President of Atari Corp promised, on a TV show called something >like "the Computer Show" that all STs would have a blitter upgrade made >available... something like a year later, Atari finally admitted the lie, >and made the excuse that the FCC wouldn't let them do it... I'm getting really disgusted with the endless stream of message like this one appearing in this group. I've seen hardly a single message with anything like technical content, tips, hints, programming help, etc. Perhaps it's time to creat comp.sys.atari.gripes or comp.sys.atari.flames... There is quite a long way between a company stating an intention to (attempt to) provide something, and an actual product offering. If you've any experience in the Real World (tm), Mr. Retelle, you'd know that in this imperfect world we must work in, sometimes things prove technically infeasable. Sam Tramiel isn't an engineer. The only thing he could be faulted for is making a statement before checking with his technical people about its feasability. Even then, he might have been told it was technically possible, but his engineers didn't think of the FCC certification issue. Atari isn't the first, and won't be the last corporation to have sales or marketing promise something that engineering couldn't deliver for reasons that didn't become evident until later. The 520 and 1040 case designs are very RF-leaky. It was because of this that they were sold in the US without the RF modulator: they simply couldn't pass the FCC Certification test with a modulator. My understanding is that the 1040 is very close to violating the emissions standard. Adding a blitter to the design would require re-certification, and would not pass. It is not surprising to anyone with a little bit of electronics knowledge that retrofitting another processor into a design may cause that design to exceed some parameter like RF emissions. Atari addressed this problem when they designed the Mega STs. The sealed case design allows much better control of RF emissions than does the vented design of the 520's and 1040's. The Megas are FCC certified with 4 megabytes of RAM, and with blitters. If you want a blitter, Mr. Retelle, buy a Mega ST, which were engineered with them in mind. Is it just me, or are others in this group tired of reading postings that sound like little children throwing tantrums because mommy didn't give the toy she promised? "But you SAAAAAID I could have it! You PROMMMISED! Waaaah!" Grow up, will you? Copyright 1989 Greg Wageman DOMAIN: greg@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!greg San Jose, CA 95110-1397 BIX: gwage CIS: 74016,352 GEnie: G.WAGEMAN Permission granted for not-for-profit reproduction only.
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (11/16/89)
Greg Wageman makes some marginally interesting comments about my posting concerning the "blitter fraud". In the "Real World (tm)", there are things known as Warranties of Merchantability and Fittness for Purpose. There are also things known as Truth in Advertising, and Fraud. Both Commodore Business Machines and Atari Corp. have been forced by law to produce products they had promised, but which for their own reasons they didn't want to actually produce. The Commodore-64 CP/M module and the Atari XF-551 Disk Drive are two examples. If Greg Wageman had been one of the people who had bought an Atari ST based on the promises of the Chief Executive Officer of the company, I'm willing to wager he too would be more than a little upset when the implied contract was broken. As far as technical details, the "blitter upgrade" had been promised by many different Atari Corp people over a span of several years. It was not something that a stupid executive just happened to blurt out on a TV "talk show". There had been upgrades/daughter boards/motherboard swaps discussed by Atari for years. This created an expectation of performance for those who invested in Atari equipment. Atari obviously expected that a blitter equipped "vented case" 1040 would pass FCC certification because they redesigned the motherboard with a blitter socket position. "Do It Yourself" blitter upgrades are possible *if* you have the right motherboard. That leaves us with the question of why Atari didn't do it themselves... I'm left wondering how the STE with its "vented case" design can add video enhancements and SIMM memory to 4 Megs and still pass FCC certification if the Blitter would have pushed it over the line. Sorry if I've exceeded my message allowance by posting this reply, and I'm further sorry if anyone reading this is annoyed that it's not an Atari cheerleader message. I don't much care about a blitter chip and I don't plan to say anything more about the subject. Atari Corp lied to their customers, and that annoys *me* I *would* be interested to see what would happen if a group of dissatisfied Atari customers decided to challenge Atari in court over this issue. BobR
greg@sj.ate.slb.com (Greg Wageman) (11/21/89)
Opinions expressed are the responsibility of the author. In article <24111@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >In the "Real World (tm)", there are things known as Warranties of >Merchantability and Fittness for Purpose. There are also things known >as Truth in Advertising, and Fraud. So what? Atari's products are certainly "Merchantable" and "Fit for Purpose". Their computers are salable, they sell, and they work. I don't know why you even mentioned those terms, except perhaps in a grandstanding attempt to impress. Please, spare us. As for "Truth in Advertising" and "Fraud", if you can demonstrate that Atari has *ever* advertised a blitter chip as being available for the 512 or 1040, then you'd have a case. All you can point to are rumors and endlessly-repeated and misquoted off-hand remarks. And you are getting dangerously close to libel by implying Atari is guilty of fraud. Innuendo works both ways. >Both Commodore Business Machines and Atari Corp. have been forced by >law to produce products they had promised, but which for their own >reasons they didn't want to actually produce. The Commodore-64 CP/M >module and the Atari XF-551 Disk Drive are two examples. I remember this; this is a completely different situation. The items in question had been *advertised* as available. They generated so little response, that the respective companies involved decided they'd be unprofitable. When they cancelled them, they were sued by some of the few people who wanted them. A case of shooting themselves in the foot, or a lack of Market Research. >If Greg Wageman had been one of the people who had bought an Atari ST >based on the promises of the Chief Executive Officer of the company, I'm >willing to wager he too would be more than a little upset when the >implied contract was broken. CEO's of major corporations don't generally make promises to me about anything, except perhaps as a stockholder. In any event, hearing a CEO saying "Product X is in development" is worlds away from a Press Release for a new product. The latter represents a commitment to deliver a real product, the former represents R&D. Every corporation persues some product in R&D that never gets to market (that's why it's called "research"). You only get sued over them if you *formally* announce them and don't ship, and even then only if the plaintiff can prove that the announcement generated sales. >As far as technical details, the "blitter upgrade" had been promised by >many different Atari Corp people over a span of several years. It was not >something that a stupid executive just happened to blurt out on a TV >"talk show". There had been upgrades/daughter boards/motherboard swaps >discussed by Atari for years. This created an expectation of performance >for those who invested in Atari equipment. Atari obviously expected that >a blitter equipped "vented case" 1040 would pass FCC certification because >they redesigned the motherboard with a blitter socket position. "Do It >Yourself" blitter upgrades are possible *if* you have the right motherboard. >That leaves us with the question of why Atari didn't do it themselves... Correction: it had been *mentioned*, not *promised*. Any "expectation of performance" was created in your own mind. A product isn't real until delivery date and price are quoted. Atari has done neither for the blitter "upgrade". They didn't do it because they couldn't make them FCC compliant. That doesn't mean that they couldn't sell them elsewhere, where RF emissions standards aren't as strict, just like the RF modulators which are not available in the US, but have a space on the motherboard. Atari, as we are now all painfully aware, has numerous markets outside the US. Assuming that Atari's technical decisions are driven by the US market is your mistake, not theirs. >I'm left wondering how the STE with its "vented case" design can add >video enhancements and SIMM memory to 4 Megs and still pass FCC certification >if the Blitter would have pushed it over the line. Not having compared the internal design of the STe with a 1040, I can't comment. No doubt based on their previous experience they knew where all the weak spots were, and corrected the design. Since the STe is a new product, they could design with lower RF emissions in mind from the start, same as they did with the Mega line. >Sorry if I've exceeded my message allowance by posting this reply, and I'm >further sorry if anyone reading this is annoyed that it's not an Atari >cheerleader message. I don't much care about a blitter chip and I don't >plan to say anything more about the subject. Atari Corp lied to their >customers, and that annoys *me* Look, I'm an Atari customer too, but I don't consider myself as having been lied to. You have only yourself to blame for reading way too much into comments made about *possible* future products. This is precisely why the folks at Atari are getting so close-mouthed about new developments. We in the Atari user community want to know that they're developing new products and expanding the product line, but because of attitudes like yours, where a "We're looking into..." becomes a commitment, we must now wait until products are shipping before we get word of them; so now people become discouraged because "Atari isn't doing anything new". Give them a break! Copyright 1989 Greg Wageman DOMAIN: greg@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!greg San Jose, CA 95110-1397 BIX: gwage CIS: 74016,352 GEnie: G.WAGEMAN Permission granted for not-for-profit reproduction only.