covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (11/10/89)
Ok, lets try changing the approach to the TT subject. I own a complete Mega ST4 with TOS 1.4, Turbo16, the SLM804 laser printer, and a dual Seagte 65 meg (total = 130 megs) hard drive from ABCO Computers, both Atari monitors (color and monochrome). I have used STs since 1986. I state these facts to show that I am NOT an Atari Basher, rather that I am disappointed with Atari The Company. Also, I own Calamus and PageStream and Mark Williams C and a host of other EXCELLENT software for the ST. My point all along has been : # # ###### # # # # # ## ##### # # #### ###### #### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ###### # # # # # # # ##### #### # # # # # ###### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## ## # # # # # ###### #### ###### #### ####### ####### ####### # # # ###### # # # # # # # # # ###### ##### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ###### # # ###### # # ##### ##### # # # # # # ## ## ###### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ###### # # # # # # ##### ### ### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ###### #### # # # ###### # # And I mean the TT/Plastic as it is the most likely TT to make it to the USA. I get the following: 1) GDOS with ALL of its WARTS and faults 2) TOS 1.6, with only single tasking 3) An increase in speed 4) A higher rez color mode (640x480 in 16 colors) Except for the higher color rez I don't see anything in the TT that would make me want to dump my investment in my current ST hardware. What would make me buy an Atari computer: 1) A FAST CPU, at least a 25 Mhz 68030, with an option to go to 33 Mhz or even 50 Mhz as Motorola releases the faster cpus. 2) ability to change to a 68040 CPU without buying a whole new computer. That is why I can Atari computers disposable. In order to upgrade to a different CPU you have to "dispose" of your older computer. 3) A true multi-tasking, multi-windowing OS. I mean, heck the Amiga has had multi-tasking since the first A1000 was released. 4) An open buss so that 3rd party vendors can develop boards for the TT. 5) Better Developer support from Atari, with real discounts given to Developers for Atari hardware. 6) Real color graphics ala the Macintosh. 640x480 in 16 colors is a joke, and Atari should be ashamed for introducing a new machine with such limited grpahics?? The TT will be the Atari machine for the early 1990s and should be better then that!! 7) A replacement for GDOS. Something that uses outline fonts. The Mac system beats GDOS all the way to the North Pole!! GDOS is such a memory hog that even 4 megs in my ST is limiting!! Sure these items all add to the cost of a computer but they should at least be options. That way a Power User should spend the extra bucks a Home User wouldn't have to. By the time the 16 Mhz TT/Plastic makes it to the USA Motorola will be selling 50 Mhz 68030 cpus. All in all, everything about the TT says if it had been released in Jan 1989 instead of July 1990 it MIGHT have been an acceptable computer. But by the Summer of 1990, when we can reasonable expect to see the TT on USA shelves, it will already be outdated by the Amiga A3000, and the Mac IIcx, Mac IIci. What has happened to Atari Corp?? why can't they design and produce a new machine as nice as the ST was back in 1985?? The ST beat other computers hands down in 1985. I wish the TT could do the same in 1990!! Richard (Tired of Bashing the TT) Covert
gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (11/10/89)
In article <46bcb82f.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: Gee, Richard, I thought people had been explaining to you in detail exactly what the TT gives you. For the present ST home user, the TT is a fast ST. For the Unix user, the TT is a nice cheap workstation. >And I mean the TT/Plastic as it is the most likely TT to make it >to the USA. Oh, I think it's pretty probable that the TT/X will make it here. >Except for the higher color rez I don't see anything in the TT >that would make me want to dump my investment in my current ST >hardware. So don't. People who NEED the TTs speed will buy it. People who NEED Unix will buy it. People who don't need it won't... >What would make me buy an Atari computer: > >1) A FAST CPU, at least a 25 Mhz 68030, with an option to go to > 33 Mhz or even 50 Mhz as Motorola releases the faster cpus. You don't understand what a 16 mhz 68030 means. The TT has burst-fill mode memory above 2 megs. This means it's faster than the Mac IIcx by as much as 50% for typical applications. Apple just released the Mac IIci which is capable of running burst-fill ram... the TT is very competetive compared to the Mac. When the TT delivers it will be interesting to benchmark it against '386-based Unix boxes. I think you'll find that it won't be that much slower than a "33 mhz 386" because of the burst mode and other reasons. It will not be two times slower, which you would think from the ratio of the "megahertz". Megahertz are relatively meaningless. >2) ability to change to a 68040 CPU without buying a whole new > computer. That is why I can Atari computers disposable. In order > to upgrade to a different CPU you have to "dispose" of your older > computer. Few if any other vendors supply this sort of capability. It costs extra money up front. >3) A true multi-tasking, multi-windowing OS. I mean, heck the Amiga > has had multi-tasking since the first A1000 was released. Unix plus X windows (or your favorite windowing system, I happen to be partial to mgr ;-) gives you this. It's clear that GEMDOS will NOT become a multi-tasking multi-windowing OS in the near future, not only because it's a lot of $$ to write, but also because current GEM programs are incompatible with multi-tasking in all sorts of little ways. Asking for things which can't be delivered is a bit strange. Unix is the future, Richard. >4) An open buss so that 3rd party vendors can develop boards for the TT. Every TT announcement so far has said the TT/X and TT/P have this. >6) Real color graphics ala the Macintosh. 640x480 in 16 colors is a joke, > and Atari should be ashamed for introducing a new machine with such > limited grpahics?? The TT will be the Atari machine for the early 1990s > and should be better then that!! Monitors that show resolutions greater than 640x480 in color are very expensive. Not very suitable for a small-business machine. You can always buy some PC Klone with one if you want it. Price high resolution monitors for the Mac. Note that they require a card. Note that the TT/P has a card slot. >7) A replacement for GDOS. Something that uses outline fonts. The Mac system > beats GDOS all the way to the North Pole!! GDOS is such a memory hog that > even 4 megs in my ST is limiting!! A third party could do that... it would sell and probably make money. >All in all, everything about the TT says if it had been released in Jan 1989 >instead of July 1990 it MIGHT have been an acceptable computer. But by the >Summer of 1990, when we can reasonable expect to see the TT on USA shelves, >it will already be outdated by the Amiga A3000, and the Mac IIcx, Mac IIci. The Mac IIcx and Mac IIci hardly outdate the TT, especially since it seems that they cost a lot more money (assuming the TT arrives, of course.) Looks like Atari has a very interesting product, if they do bring out Unix for it and ship both in a timely fashion. And to repeat: WHY DON'T YOU JUST SHUT UP AND LET THE MARKET DECIDE IF THE TT IS A GOOD MACHINE INSTEAD OF FLOODING COMP.SYS.ATARI.ST WITH MESSAGES ABOUT SOMETHING YOU'VE NEVER SEEN? >What has happened to Atari Corp?? They are making money selling computers. ------ Greg Lindahl gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA.
rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) (11/11/89)
In article <46bcb82f.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: [ "Why buy a TT/P?" ] >What has happened to Atari Corp?? why can't they design and produce a new >machine as nice as the ST was back in 1985?? The ST beat other computers >hands down in 1985. I wish the TT could do the same in 1990!! Richard, I humbly suggest that what you seem to want, and what I myself wouldn't mind having, is an ST emulator for the Amiga. Think about it. You want plug-in CPU upgrades (Amiga can do). You want multitasking (Amiga can do). You want slots & a more standard bus (A2000 can do; didn't C= design the A2000 with some slots that accept PC cards?). You want better graphics (well, C= continues to improve their graphics chips, and with an A2000 you can buy a PC Targa board if you need something better). Outline screen fonts? Well, I don't know of any box in the general ST/Amiga/Mac price-range that does that (though I'm sure I'll be "gently corrected" if I'm wrong ;-). I don't own an Amiga, so please abort any "Oh gawd, another Amigoid who thinks his machine is better" followups. I'm not trying to start or perpetuate another stupid flame war. I own a 520ST, and have since '85. It does useful things, but I'd like something better and for various reasons I'm reluctant to consider buying another Atari box (and can't afford a NeXT, Sun, Apollo, MacIIci or any similar machine with the features I want). As far as I can tell from your many previous postings, the only real reason you have (or that any of us have, probably) for wanting to stick with an Atari-brand machine is the (possibly substantial) investment you've made in software. Perhaps we should undertake to write one? I have access to an A2000 and (obviously) an ST. What do you say? Anyone else interested? Is it easy? Probably far from it. Perhaps impossible to do (legally, anyway -- I'm not contemplating making a disk-copy of my TOS ROMs ;-P ). But at least it would give us something constructive to do with our dissatisfaction, and everyone else could go back to sleep. ;-) -- >>"Aaiiyeeee! Death from above!"<< | Steve Rehrauer, rehrauer@apollo.hp.com "Flee, lest we be trod upon!" | The Apollo Computer Division of H.P.
mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) (11/11/89)
/* acf5:comp.sys.atari.st / gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) / 10:48 pm Nov 9, 1989 */ In article <46bcb82f.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: >>1) A FAST CPU, at least a 25 Mhz 68030, with an option to go to >> 33 Mhz or even 50 Mhz as Motorola releases the faster cpus. > >You don't understand what a 16 mhz 68030 means. The TT has burst-fill >mode memory above 2 megs. This means it's faster than the Mac IIcx by >as much as 50% for typical applications. Apple just released the Mac >IIci which is capable of running burst-fill ram... the TT is very >competetive compared to the Mac. Let us see some facts. From BYTE magazines: IIcx IIci ALR/25 SIA/32 Matrix 16.2 10.5 2.62 2.10 Sieve 31.4 19.8 14.06 11.02 Sort 29.7 19.4 10.52 8.26 Mac IIcx, 16Mhz, 120ns Dram, No cach, No Burst fill mode. Mac IIci, 25Mhz, 80ns Dram, No cash, Burst fill mode. ALR 386/25, 25Mhz, 80ns Dram, Cash, interleaved memory. SIA 386/32, 32Mhz, 80ns Dram, Cash, interleaved memory. >This means it's faster than the Mac IIcx by >as much as 50% for typical applications. Since the IIci is only 35% faster than the IIcx, I could not expect the TT to be more than 20% faster that the IIcx. Thanasis
mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) (11/11/89)
/* acf5:comp.sys.atari.st / gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) / 10:48 pm Nov 9, 1989 */ >the TT is very >competetive compared to the Mac. In performance maybe. (Because the Macs are slow (no cash)) (compare with 386) In support? Compare Atari support with Apple support? Do you mean software? Like the OS updates, the multi-finder vs TOS 1.4? Do you mean hardware? The Mac IIci vs the Mega 4? Thanasis
phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) (11/11/89)
/* Line eater death from above */ Just a point of information. Skip if you don't care. In article <2245@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >Few if any other vendors supply this sort of capability. [To upgrade the >CPU in your computer] Several companies offer this solution, actually. Every maker of a backplane-based system. Commodore-Amiga. Even (gasp!) IBM, if you're talking about going from a 386 to a 486. Zenith had some very nice backplane units with processor boards, some years ago; they stopped making them for several reasons, most of which escape me right now. A company which shall remain nameless has already announced that they'll have a 68040 board for current systems when the 68040 becomes available in large quantities. I think offering a processor upgrade path would make the Atari line more interesting to the buyer. Official memory upgrade paths would do the same. I've seen more than one person turned off by "you mean, I have to go third party to put in more RAM? I think I'll look at this other machine..." Just two cents worth (not counting inflation), - R'ykandar. - R'ykandar. -- | R'ykandar Korra'ti, Editor, LOW ORBIT | phoenix@ms.uky.edu | CIS 72406,370 | | Elfinkind, Unite! | phoenix@ukma.bitnet | PLink: Skywise | QLink: Bearclaw |
phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) (11/11/89)
/*Line eater death from above*/ Answering a couple of questions and offering a suggestion. In article <46c15364.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes: > Didn't C= design the A2000 with some slots that accept PC cards? Yes. The same with the 2500. Don't know about the 3000, since it isn't ready to market yet., > Perhaps we should undertake to write [an Atari ST emulator]? AMax, a Macintosh emulator for the Amiga, requires a hardware box in which you insert legally-purchased Macintosh ROMs. You may wish to consider a similar approach. (Their box also included special circutry to allow you to use a Mac drive, something that would be unnecessary for a ST emulator, since Atari didn't screw up THEIR floppy system...) :-) - R'ykandar. -- | R'ykandar Korra'ti, Editor, LOW ORBIT | phoenix@ms.uky.edu | CIS 72406,370 | | Elfinkind, Unite! | phoenix@ukma.bitnet | PLink: Skywise | QLink: Bearclaw |
gl8f@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (11/11/89)
In article <12430004@acf5.NYU.EDU> mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) writes: >Let us see some facts. From BYTE magazines: > > IIcx IIci ALR/25 SIA/32 > >Matrix 16.2 10.5 2.62 2.10 >Sieve 31.4 19.8 14.06 11.02 >Sort 29.7 19.4 10.52 8.26 > > >Mac IIcx, 16Mhz, 120ns Dram, No cach, No Burst fill mode. >Mac IIci, 25Mhz, 80ns Dram, No cash, Burst fill mode. > >ALR 386/25, 25Mhz, 80ns Dram, Cash, interleaved memory. >SIA 386/32, 32Mhz, 80ns Dram, Cash, interleaved memory. You left off a few details. OS for the 80x86 boxes? What fraction, if any, of the IIci memory is running with burst fill mode? And was the on-chip cache on the 68030 enabled? From the speedup between the x and i, I would think that the IIci wasn't using burst fill at all. Finally, benchmarking is a black art. I prefer benchmarks which are similar to the programs which I run, which are all large-memory-model programs that are big. The Byte benchmarks aren't in this category. The FACTS will arrive when you can run your *application* on a TT and on other machines and compare the results. ------ Greg Lindahl gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA.
stephen@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Steve Whitney) (11/11/89)
In article <13199@s.ms.uky.edu> phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) writes:
[quote deleted]
# A company which shall remain nameless has already announced that they'll
#have a 68040 board for current systems when the 68040 becomes available in
#large quantities.
# I think offering a processor upgrade path would make the Atari line
#more interesting to the buyer. Official memory upgrade paths would do the
#same. I've seen more than one person turned off by "you mean, I have to go
#third party to put in more RAM? I think I'll look at this other machine..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, VME is a multimaster bus
which means that you can plug another processor board in there and let
it control the system. Perhaps this is one of the reasons Atari chose to
use an expensive bus standard.
# (not counting inflation),
# - R'ykandar.
#
# - R'ykandar.
#--
#| R'ykandar Korra'ti, Editor, LOW ORBIT | phoenix@ms.uky.edu | CIS 72406,370 |
#| Elfinkind, Unite! | phoenix@ukma.bitnet | PLink: Skywise | QLink: Bearclaw |
Steve Whitney "It's never _really_ the last minute" (())_-_(())
UCLA Comp. Sci. Grad. Student | (* *) |
Internet: stephen@cs.ucla.edu UCLA Bruin--> { \_@_/ }
GEnie: S.WHITNEY `-----' JALKIO@cc.helsinki.fi (Jouni Alkio, University of Helsinki, Finland) (11/11/89)
In article <46bcb82f.14a1f@force.UUCP>, covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: <Part of the text deleted> > > I get the following: > > 1) GDOS with ALL of its WARTS and faults > > 2) TOS 1.6, with only single tasking > > 3) An increase in speed > > 4) A higher rez color mode (640x480 in 16 colors) > > Except for the higher color rez I don't see anything in the TT > that would make me want to dump my investment in my current ST > hardware. Well, don't buy it, then. > > What would make me buy an Atari computer: > > 1) A FAST CPU, at least a 25 Mhz 68030, with an option to go to > 33 Mhz or even 50 Mhz as Motorola releases the faster cpus. > > 2) ability to change to a 68040 CPU without buying a whole new > computer. That is why I can Atari computers disposable. In order > to upgrade to a different CPU you have to "dispose" of your older > computer. > > 3) A true multi-tasking, multi-windowing OS. I mean, heck the Amiga > has had multi-tasking since the first A1000 was released. > > 4) An open buss so that 3rd party vendors can develop boards for the TT. > > 5) Better Developer support from Atari, with real discounts given to > Developers for Atari hardware. > > 6) Real color graphics ala the Macintosh. 640x480 in 16 colors is a joke, > and Atari should be ashamed for introducing a new machine with such > limited grpahics?? The TT will be the Atari machine for the early 1990s > and should be better then that!! > > 7) A replacement for GDOS. Something that uses outline fonts. The Mac system > beats GDOS all the way to the North Pole!! GDOS is such a memory hog that > even 4 megs in my ST is limiting!! Atari already has announced the technical specifications for the first TT, so you can't help it, can you? By the way, don't you know that Atari has said that the ATW's nice graphics card will probably be introduced for the TT (this has been posted here)? You REALLY DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT ATARI if you don't like them! You can by all means change the company. I can see no reason why Atari wouldn't try to do all they can. If they can't do all you want them to do, it's not their fault. Find a company that can fulfil your needs. > > Richard (Tired of Bashing the TT) Covert (Oh, what was this, then?) Jouni Alkio
hase@netmbx.UUCP (Hartmut Semken) (11/13/89)
In article <29034@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> stephen@oahu.UUCP (Steve Whitney) writes: >Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, VME is a multimaster bus >which means that you can plug another processor board in there and let >it control the system. Perhaps this is one of the reasons Atari chose to >use an expensive bus standard. True. Standard-VME is a multimaster BUS. Ataris "implementation" in the TT/Personal (the one to come real soon now) is not capable of multiple masters. as someone@atari said, the TT/x (the larger machine, prototypes yet to be seen) will have a 32-bit extended VME BUS capable of multiple bus masters. Very few VME cards are BUS masters. Most are slaves. So the TT/P's slot will do almost everything You want it to do. But why don't we all just shut up till the TT appears in the shops, till we get facts/real machines thar rattle when falling down? hase -- Hartmut Semken, Lupsteiner Weg 67, 1000 Berlin 37 hase@netmbx.UUCP Dennis had stepped up into the top seat whet its founder had died of a lethal overdose of brick wall, taken while under the influence of a Ferrari and a bottle of tequila. (Douglas Adams; the long dark teatime...)
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (11/13/89)
Richard Covert/Greg Lindhal debate: >>In article <46bcb82f.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Cover >Gee, Richard, I thought people had been explaining to you in detail >exactly what the TT gives you. The Atari TT gives you an Atari Cheerleader like Greg Lindhal.. There aren't any Atari products to compete with most of what the other computer companies already have for sale, so you have to fall back on the "someday, someday" cheerleaders... >And to repeat: WHY DON'T YOU JUST SHUT UP AND LET THE MARKET DECIDE IF THE >TT IS A GOOD MACHINE INSTEAD OF FLOODING COMP.SYS.ATARI.ST WITH MESSAGES >ABOUT SOMETHING YOU'VE NEVER SEEN? >>What has happened to Atari Corp?? >They are making money selling computers. Atari Corp is making a lot of noise about IBM compatible "pocketable" computers, and "handheld" video games. They are *NOT* doing anything useful for their base of computer owners. Of course they can make money anywhere they want to.. that's their right under our free enterprise system.. but.. do we as owners of their outdated technology have to kiss up to them?? Neil Harris of Atari Corp used to try to tell Atari owners to just "shut up" if they didn't like what Atari was doing.. his reign as deity of Atari information didn't last long. How long will Atari owners watch\ as they're once more passed by...? BobR
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (11/14/89)
In article <2245@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: > In article <46bcb82f.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: > > Gee, Richard, I thought people had been explaining to you in detail > exactly what the TT gives you. > > For the present ST home user, the TT is a fast ST. > > For the Unix user, the TT is a nice cheap workstation. The TT/P is NOT a UNIX workstation, not as it comes Off The Shelf. Even John Townsend has said that UNIX will be available for the TT/Tower and not the TT/Plastic. You COULD add more RAM, a bigger hard drive and then install UNIX on the TT/Plastic. But, what will Atari's policy be towards adding more RAM to the TT/Plastic?? If you extrapolate from Atari's present policy with regards to the Mega ST2, you won't be able to add more memory to the TT/Plastic. In fact, some of the later pc boards for the Mega ST2 are NOT traced for 4 megs of RAM, making it darn near impossible to upgrade a Mega ST2 to 4 megs of RAM. I know this from my local ST dealer who HAS SEEN the Mega ST2 w/o pc board traces for 4 megs, and also with a special 2 megs only MMU chip. So, who knows if the TT/Plastic will even be expandable to more then 2 megs of RAM?? No one until they are released!! Atari's official policy is that to upgrade an Atari computer you "dispose" of your current Atari computer and buy a new model with more features. Atari has NEVER supported end-user, or even dealer installed, addons. Even when it is just a matter of adding RAM ics to a motherboard. So, who knows if you will be able to expand a TT/Plastic?? > > >And I mean the TT/Plastic as it is the most likely TT to make it > >to the USA. The latest "rumors" from Europe indicate 2nd Quarter 1990 for European delivery of the TT/Plastic. and NO DATE for the TT/Tower. So, when will we in the United States see the TT/Tower?? Who knows?? And there are still European products which are not sold here in the States. The entire Atari IBM PC clone line are sold in Europe, but try buying one here in the States. So, just because a product is sold in Europe (read Germany) doesn't mean that it will be sold here in the States. > > Oh, I think it's pretty probable that the TT/X will make it here. > > >Except for the higher color rez I don't see anything in the TT > >that would make me want to dump my investment in my current ST > >hardware. > > So don't. People who NEED the TTs speed will buy it. People who NEED > Unix will buy it. People who don't need it won't... > > >What would make me buy an Atari computer: > > > >1) A FAST CPU, at least a 25 Mhz 68030, with an option to go to > > 33 Mhz or even 50 Mhz as Motorola releases the faster cpus. > > You don't understand what a 16 mhz 68030 means. The TT has burst-fill > mode memory above 2 megs. This means it's faster than the Mac IIcx by > as much as 50% for typical applications. Apple just released the Mac > IIci which is capable of running burst-fill ram... the TT is very > competetive compared to the Mac. > > When the TT delivers it will be interesting to benchmark it against > '386-based Unix boxes. I think you'll find that it won't be that much > slower than a "33 mhz 386" because of the burst mode and other reasons. > It will not be two times slower, which you would think from the ratio > of the "megahertz". Megahertz are relatively meaningless. Once again you didn't understand my comments. I was talking about upgrading the cpu in the TT not comparing cpus speeds between the Intel and the Motorola cpus. And it would be nice for Atari to design an upgrade to a faster 68030. Even if it meant replacing the motherboard the way Apple forces the Mac II users. At least then you could do it. But given Atari's track record not only will Atari NOT supply a faster cpu but Atari will design the TT so that a third party vendor won't be able to supply a faster cpu either. Atari has done this with the Mega STs already. Heck, there are plenty of folks who can't even use TOS 1.4 because the Mega ST won't drive the 6 EPROM set!! And other folks who can't drive both a hard drive and the SLM804 because the DMA port won't drive more then one load!! > > >2) ability to change to a 68040 CPU without buying a whole new > > computer. That is why I can Atari computers disposable. In order > > to upgrade to a different CPU you have to "dispose" of your older > > computer. > > Few if any other vendors supply this sort of capability. It costs > extra money up front. Tell that the Mac users!! Heck, a MAC SE can be upgraded to a Mac SE/30. sure it costs money but you can do it!! And Apple has made a fortune selling MAC SE to SE/30 upgrade kits!! So, Mac SE users can change from a 68000 cpu to a 68030 cpu w/o "disposing" of their current computer. That is definitely cheaper then trying to sell a used computer and then paying full-stroke for a new computer. But, once again, Mac users get more out of their used Macs than Atari users get out of their used STs!! Why can't Atari LEARN from Apple?? I guess Atari will be synonymous with CHEAP in the future!! > > >3) A true multi-tasking, multi-windowing OS. I mean, heck the Amiga > > has had multi-tasking since the first A1000 was released. > > Unix plus X windows (or your favorite windowing system, I happen to be > partial to mgr ;-) gives you this. It's clear that GEMDOS will NOT become > a multi-tasking multi-windowing OS in the near future, not only because > it's a lot of $$ to write, but also because current GEM programs are > incompatible with multi-tasking in all sorts of little ways. > > Asking for things which can't be delivered is a bit strange. Unix is > the future, Richard. What is so strange about asking for a multitasking multiwindowing OS?? Geez, if commodre can do it on a 68000 A2000 then why can't Atari do it on a 68030 TT?? And just how FAR off in the future is UNIX for the TT?? given the fact that the TT/Plastic won't be here in next summer, and the fact that UNIX is intended for the TT/Tower, I would say sometime next century :-). > >6) Real color graphics ala the Macintosh. 640x480 in 16 colors is a joke, > > and Atari should be ashamed for introducing a new machine with such > > limited grpahics?? The TT will be the Atari machine for the early 1990s > > and should be better then that!! > > Monitors that show resolutions greater than 640x480 in color are very > expensive. Not very suitable for a small-business machine. You can > always buy some PC Klone with one if you want it. Color monitors capable of 800x600 are under $700. And are getting cheaper all the time. The problem is that you are locked into with cheap color graphics Atari decides to put in the TT because the Atari market is too small for third party vendors to design Atari specific hardware. So the lousy 640x480x16 color graphics is ALL you will see for YEARS on the TT. It is a shame that Atari didn't make the graphics better then that!! The price of monitors is NOT the critical factor that it used to be. The TT was an opportunity for Atari to LEAP ahead of the competition in graphics instead falling behind. That alone says a lot about Atari Management. Make a cheap computer and sell it to the yokels!! Don't make a State of the Art computer (you can NOT tell me the TT is forcing the state of the art, not with a single tasking OS, and crummy graphics). > > Price high resolution monitors for the Mac. Note that they require a card. > Note that the TT/P has a card slot. Yes, EXACTLY ONE, and that is only a half-VME card slot at that!! > > >7) A replacement for GDOS. Something that uses outline fonts. The Mac system > > beats GDOS all the way to the North Pole!! GDOS is such a memory hog that > > even 4 megs in my ST is limiting!! > > A third party could do that... it would sell and probably make money. Is that your answer for everything?? Wait for third party vendor support of basic OS features?? Doesn't say much for Atari does it?? Unless Atari Corp supports a GDOS replacement it will NOT be a standard that software developers will use. Atari HAS to develop and SUPPORT a GDOS replacement before SW vendors will develop for it. So, a 3rd party vendor GDOS replacement won't fly. The only reason that GPLUS is viable is that it is plug replacement for GDOS. If GPLUS's fonts were incompatible with GDOS fonts GPLUS wouldn't have sold either. > >All in all, everything about the TT says if it had been released in Jan 1989 > >instead of July 1990 it MIGHT have been an acceptable computer. But by the > >Summer of 1990, when we can reasonable expect to see the TT on USA shelves, > >it will already be outdated by the Amiga A3000, and the Mac IIcx, Mac IIci. > > The Mac IIcx and Mac IIci hardly outdate the TT, especially since it seems > that they cost a lot more money (assuming the TT arrives, of course.) what does cost have to do with obsolete hw?? Even if the Macs were CHEAPER than the TT they would still be more ADVANCED then the TT. A cheaper TT is NOT more advanced than an EXPENSIVE MAC. > Looks like Atari has a very interesting product, if they do bring out > Unix for it and ship both in a timely fashion. Oh come on!! The MacIIci has a 25 MHZ 68030 in it!! The TT will have a 16 MHZ 68030. Which is outdated before it is even on the shelf!!! Hey if you are looking for a cheap computer buy a used IBM PC XT. Heck you can buy them for under $500. If you want a POWERFUL computer, state of the art computer, an expandable computer, then DON'T buy an Atari!! Why can't Atari release different models of the TT like Apple does the Mac?? And that's another complaint. the differences between the Mega ST and the 1040ST are just cosmetic (a better keyboard, a different cabinet, a blitter chip). But the differences between the Mac II, MacIIc, MacIIci are MAJOR. Different CPUS, faster CPUS, different graphics. What will the difference between the TT/Plastic and the TT/Tower be?? Again cosmetic. The Tower will be in a different cabinet, but will have the SAME cpu, same graphics, same IO, same everything else. It would make more sense to make the TT/Tower have a 25Mhz or even 33MHZ 68030 to make it DIFFERNT from the TT/Plastic. Or to give the TT/Tower higher rez color graphics. Something more then just more RAM, and a couple of VME slots. Why can't the TT/Tower be designed to use the FASTEST available 68030?? Why can't the TT/Tower be designed with hi rez color graphics?? That would make the TT/Tower more then just a TT/Plastic in a different cabinet. > > And to repeat: WHY DON'T YOU JUST SHUT UP AND LET THE MARKET DECIDE IF THE > TT IS A GOOD MACHINE INSTEAD OF FLOODING COMP.SYS.ATARI.ST WITH MESSAGES > ABOUT SOMETHING YOU'VE NEVER SEEN? Hey, you are "flooding" the USENET system with your "ProAtari" messages, so why shouldn't I add my own comments?? Also, UPPERCASE doesn't make your comments any more correct, they just make you look foolish!! also, I am just stating what I would like to see in a new Atari computer. If Atari were to design and MARKET a computer that meets my needs I would consider it. But, from the Atari product descriptions, the TT/Tower looks to be just a souped up Game machine to me!! And I don't need to spend $XX thousands just to play Flight Simulator!! > > >What has happened to Atari Corp?? > > They are making money selling computers. Yes, but only in EUROPE :-) > > ------ > Greg Lindahl > gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA. Richard Covert
hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) (11/14/89)
This is really getting tiresome. Richard, don't you have better things to be doing than wasting your time and hours writing long complaints? Has anyone mailed you yet, agreeing with your statements? Is there any reason why all of this screaming derision of Atari must be broadcast all over the net? If you don't like what you've got, write Atari, don't bother us folks who are happily using and developing stuff for Atari hardware... In article <46d16986.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: >The TT/P is NOT a UNIX workstation, not as it comes Off The Shelf. >Even John Townsend has said that UNIX will be available for the >TT/Tower and not the TT/Plastic. You COULD add more RAM, a bigger >hard drive and then install UNIX on the TT/Plastic. But, what will > Sun-2s with 68010s and 1 MB of RAM ran Unix, why can't a 68030 with 2MB? Answer - no reason. If Atari doesn't release an official option, someone else will. It'd be trivial. >Once again you didn't understand my comments. I was talking about upgrading the >cpu in the TT not comparing cpus speeds between the Intel and the Motorola >cpus. And it would be nice for Atari to design an upgrade to a faster >68030. Even if it meant replacing the motherboard the way Apple forces >the Mac II users. At least then you could do it. But given Atari's track >record not only will Atari NOT supply a faster cpu but Atari will design the >TT so that a third party vendor won't be able to supply a faster cpu either. >Atari has done this with the Mega STs already. Heck, there are plenty of folks >who can't even use TOS 1.4 because the Mega ST won't drive the 6 EPROM set!! >And other folks who can't drive both a hard drive and the SLM804 because the >DMA port won't drive more then one load!! > Y'know, for the price they charge for new motherboards, ya might as well get a new case, keyboard & power supply as part of the deal. Mac pricing is so ridiculous it really isn't relevant in this regard. The weak drivers are a real pain, must admit. My Mega-4 won't operate the floppy drive if my hard drive is plugged in but powered off. My old 1040 never had any problems of this sort. No buffering. Definitely seems like pinching too many pennies there. >> >> >2) ability to change to a 68040 CPU without buying a whole new >> > computer. That is why I can Atari computers disposable. In order >> > to upgrade to a different CPU you have to "dispose" of your older >> > computer. >> >> Few if any other vendors supply this sort of capability. It costs >> extra money up front. > >Tell that the Mac users!! Heck, a MAC SE can be upgraded to a Mac SE/30. >sure it costs money but you can do it!! And Apple has made a fortune selling >MAC SE to SE/30 upgrade kits!! So, Mac SE users can change from a 68000 cpu >to a 68030 cpu w/o "disposing" of their current computer. That is definitely >cheaper then trying to sell a used computer and then paying full-stroke for >a new computer. But, once again, Mac users get more out of their used Macs >than Atari users get out of their used STs!! > >Why can't Atari LEARN from Apple?? I guess Atari will be synonymous with >CHEAP in the future!! Pointless. Rip out the guts and jam in new ones. As far as the Mac is concerned, when you do an upgrade you *have* thrown away your computer and bought a brand new one, at Apple's prices. THis whole argument is pointless. >And just how FAR off in the future is UNIX for the TT?? given the fact >that the TT/Plastic won't be here in next summer, and the fact that UNIX >is intended for the TT/Tower, I would say sometime next century :-). > Unix is wonderful for many reasons, among which are: a) it's readily portable b) it's readily accessible Don't sweat this issue. It's not worth worrying about. You're screaming about an OS not being available for a machine that's not available. Doesn't that seem just a little bit foolish to you? >Yes, EXACTLY ONE, and that is only a half-VME card slot at that!! > So what, so you buy a bus-expansion chassis and throw in however many bezillion cards your power-hungry little hands can get hold of... (Don't get me wrong, that's exactly what *I* intend to do... }-) > >Is that your answer for everything?? Wait for third party vendor support of >basic OS features?? Doesn't say much for Atari does it?? > Computer companies don't live and die on their own. Computers don't stand alone, particularly not in today's world of networking and interoperability. Third party solutions are the key to any computer's success. It's tough for a company to keep ahead in both the hardware and software ends of things simultaneously. Apple's been trying for a long time, but they've failed pretty miserably. Look at how dismal MacWrite is. It spreads resources too thin to have to handle both ends of the system. (In Apple's case, they've spun off their software group as an independent, called Claris.) It's tough to do both the hardware and the software right. Look at DEC - they certainly very popular hardware, but they didn't write Berkeley Unix, the most popular Vax operating system... Look at DEC again, when they tried to release their own version of Unix. It's taken them how many tries, to get it close to right? (Must admit, the current Ultrix stuff is Very Slick...) >Hey, you are "flooding" the USENET system with your "ProAtari" messages, >so why shouldn't I add my own comments?? Also, UPPERCASE doesn't make your >comments any more correct, they just make you look foolish!! > For some people's comments it doesn't matter which case they're typed in. So it goes... >also, I am just stating what I would like to see in a new Atari computer. >If Atari were to design and MARKET a computer that meets my needs I would >consider it. But, from the Atari product descriptions, the TT/Tower looks to be >just a souped up Game machine to me!! And I don't need to spend $XX thousands >just to play Flight Simulator!! > Tell that to Atari, directly. Doesn't do us or them any good here. >> >> >What has happened to Atari Corp?? >> >> They are making money selling computers. > >Yes, but only in EUROPE :-) So it goes. MSDOS is so deeply entrenched in the US, there's no way that a technologically superior machine could compete here anyway. That's part of the problem with this industry, "no one ever got fired for buying IBM." People are afraid of innovations, and only go for things with the Big Blue seal of approval. Apple's first foray into the area, the Lisa, was such a poor piece of engineering the stigma from that has slowed the Mac market penetration for a long time... Of course, now may very well be the best time for Atari to hit the scene, and hit it big, as the DOS world scrambles to define a DOS standard for "graphical user interfaces" (god what a disgusting phrase...). Now, mainly because there are no established standards, a newcomer actually has a fair chance at winning itself a share of the market. Given that perspective, TOS isn't so bad - the PC world has yet to switch to OS/2, so they're still looking at single-user single-tasking 24x80 character cell COMMAND.COM prompts. Obviously this market is shaking itself out pretty quickly though, and Atari may yet miss the boat... ... my opinions, only. and why should I know anything, I live at a University, not in the real world... }-) -- -=- PrayerMail: Send 100Mbits to holyghost@father.son[127.0.0.1] and You Too can have a Personal Electronic Relationship with God!
mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) (11/14/89)
/* acf5:comp.sys.atari.st / covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) / 3:56 pm Nov 13, 1989 */ > In article <2245@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: > > Monitors that show resolutions greater than 640x480 in color are very > > expensive. Not very suitable for a small-business machine. You can > > always buy some PC Klone with one if you want it. > > Color monitors capable of 800x600 are under $700. ... > The TT was an opportunity for Atari to LEAP ahead of the > competition in graphics instead falling behind. I would hate to reduce your enthousiasm (:-) for Atari Richard but that would have to be quite a LEAP. The current most common VGA for 386 PCs is 800x600x16colors. It won't be more that 5-6 months before 1024x768 color will be THE standard for 386 systems. By the time the TT appears... > > Price high resolution monitors for the Mac. Note that they require a card. > > Note that the TT/P has a card slot. > > Yes, EXACTLY ONE, and that is only a half-VME card slot at that!! I have seen the NEC Multisync 3D for less than $550. Its provides 1024x768 interlaced or 800x600 non-interlaced. Color of course. For the PC a controler (1024x768x16colors) costs less that $220. Thanasis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If you pray hard enough, water will run uphill. How Hard? Why, hard enough to make water run uphill, of cource!" R. A. Heinlein Internet: mitsolid@csd2.nyu.edu (mitsolid%csd2.nyu.edu@relay.cs.net) UUCP : ...!uunet!cmcl2!csd2!mitsolid -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) (11/14/89)
/* acf5:comp.sys.atari.st / hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) / 10:04 pm Nov 13, 1989 */ >Given that perspective, TOS isn't so bad - the PC world has yet to switch >to OS/2, so they're still looking at single-user single-tasking 24x80 >character cell COMMAND.COM prompts. Obviously this market is shaking itself >out pretty quickly though, and Atari may yet miss the boat... I Assume you haven't heard of Microsoft windows or Desqview for the PCs. It takes less that $1000 of hardware to multitask DOS using a graphical environment and virtual memory (of sorts). Thanasis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If you pray hard enough, water will run uphill. How Hard? Why, hard enough to make water run uphill, of cource!" R. A. Heinlein Internet: mitsolid@csd2.nyu.edu (mitsolid%csd2.nyu.edu@relay.cs.net) UUCP : ...!uunet!cmcl2!csd2!mitsolid -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (11/14/89)
In article <46c15364.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM>, rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes: > In article <46bcb82f.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: > [ "Why buy a TT/P?" ] > >What has happened to Atari Corp?? why can't they design and produce a new > >machine as nice as the ST was back in 1985?? The ST beat other computers > >hands down in 1985. I wish the TT could do the same in 1990!! > > Richard, I humbly suggest that what you seem to want, and what I myself > wouldn't mind having, is an ST emulator for the Amiga. Think about it. > You want plug-in CPU upgrades (Amiga can do). You want multitasking > (Amiga can do). You want slots & a more standard bus (A2000 can do; > didn't C= design the A2000 with some slots that accept PC cards?). You > want better graphics (well, C= continues to improve their graphics chips, > and with an A2000 you can buy a PC Targa board if you need something > better). Outline screen fonts? Well, I don't know of any box in the > general ST/Amiga/Mac price-range that does that (though I'm sure I'll > be "gently corrected" if I'm wrong ;-). > > As far as I can tell from your many previous postings, the only real > reason you have (or that any of us have, probably) for wanting to stick > with an Atari-brand machine is the (possibly substantial) investment > you've made in software. > > -- > >>"Aaiiyeeee! Death from above!"<< | Steve Rehrauer, rehrauer@apollo.hp.com > "Flee, lest we be trod upon!" | The Apollo Computer Division of H.P. Actually, the MAIN reason that I still like my STs (yes, I have two and I still use both of them) is that the GEM interface is still better than anything that I can buy for an IBM PC clone. I just bought the current issue of the (US) magazine COMPUTER LANGUAGE, November 1989. It dealt with the various multitasking OSes and windowing packages available for the IBM PCs. and it was a very discouraging magazine. It appears that PCs (even 80386 and 80486) are still stumbling around the 640K barrier imposed by the original IBM PC/XT. So, there are few good Graphical User Interfaces available for the IBM PCs. Oh, there are lots of windowing (single tasking, single user) packages,but they are are unique and require learning their library functions. There is NO standard GUI Desktop for IBM PCs similiar to the Mac or GEM. Now, I need to research the availability of UNIX/X Windows for IBM PCs. COMPUTER LANGAUGE had verry little to say about UNIX; it was strictly MS DOS. If UNIX with X windows are becoming more popular then I will seriously consider buying an IBM PC clone. I really enjoy the GEM interface. I am writing some programs now with GEM interfaces to them. My biggest problem right now is that I have an early, buggy, version of HiSoft's WERCS (distributed by Michtron in the US). WERCS keeps trashing my HRD file once I develope a BIG RSC file. I have asked Michtron on GEnie (well just last night) about how to upgrade WERCS. I was informed that there is a newer version of WERCS which doesn't crash. My WERCS is version 1.68 Dated October 28 1988. Anyway, what I want in a computer is SPEED and a Good User Interface. What I expect from a Computer Maker is variety and CHOICE and later Support. And that is was is lacking from Atari. Rich Covert
rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) (11/15/89)
In article <46d16986.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: >Tell that the Mac users!! Heck, a MAC SE can be upgraded to a Mac SE/30. >sure it costs money but you can do it!! Have you checked out the price? If I were an SE owner, I'd keep the SE and buy an SE/30 (the $$ difference between upgrading and buying new isn't all that much). And then I'd have TRUE multitasking... ;-O ;-P ;-> >Why can't Atari LEARN from Apple?? I guess Atari will be synonymous with >CHEAP in the future!! Oh, there's a different synonym for them now? C'mon, Richard -- they've found their niche and exploit it fairly well. Don't blame them for not being Apple. Expect less from Atari; you'll live longer. ;-) >> Looks like Atari has a very interesting product, if they do bring out >> Unix for it and ship both in a timely fashion. > >Oh come on!! The MacIIci has a 25 MHZ 68030 in it!! The TT will have a 16 MHZ 68030. >Which is outdated before it is even on the shelf!!! Oh give me a break! There's a rather big price jump between the 16 & 25MHz parts. It sounds like a reasonable trade-off to me. Assuming it ever gets on the shelf, which is what we're all waiting for, right? [ Deleted much, much more... ] Will you and Greg please take your arguments to email? Those of us who haven't yet added an entry for "Richard E. Covert" to our kill-files would probably appreciate it. Everyone airs their gripes now & then (I plead guilty), but this IS getting a bit stale... -- >>"Aaiiyeeee! Death from above!"<< | Steve Rehrauer, rehrauer@apollo.hp.com "Flee, lest we be trod upon!" | The Apollo Computer Division of H.P.
phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) (11/15/89)
In article <12430010@acf5.NYU.EDU> mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) writes: >I Assume you haven't heard of Microsoft windows or Desqview for the PCs. >It takes less that $1000 of hardware to multitask DOS using a graphical >environment and virtual memory (of sorts). Desqview has about the same amount of support that CP/M does. Doesn't count. And Microsoft is saying that Windows 3.0 (the Wowzer-Bang Gee-Wiz Update That Will Make Windows Really Neat And Worth Using) will break all current Windows applications. No, I'm not making this up. Software will break. FIXING it will be semi-trivial - but try explaining that to all the people who purchased Windows applications expecting them to work from version to version. Personally, if Microsoft really does release an incompatible version of Windows, I think that'll kill the market. (This is also why WordPerfect has not been doing anything about Windows, I understand; I'm told they found out about it already and decided just to wait for Windows 3 than waste their time on software that'll be de facto dead in six months to a year.) So very, very happy I don't own a Clone, - R'ykandar. -- | R'ykandar Korra'ti, Editor, LOW ORBIT | phoenix@ms.uky.edu | CIS 72406,370 | | Elfinkind, Unite! | phoenix@ukma.bitnet | PLink: Skywise | QLink: Bearclaw |
mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) (11/15/89)
/* acf5:comp.sys.atari.st / phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) / 2:33 pm Nov 14, 1989 */ >In article <12430010@acf5.NYU.EDU> mitsolid@acf5.NYU.EDU (Thanasis Mitsolides) writes: >>I Assume you haven't heard of Microsoft windows or Desqview for the PCs. >>It takes less that $1000 of hardware to multitask DOS using a graphical >>environment and virtual memory (of sorts). > > Desqview has about the same amount of support that CP/M does. Doesn't >count. I believe you mean support for using Desqview as a multiprocessing OS. And you are right, it is not easy to use Desqview as a multiprosessing OS (even though possible and documented). However, I was refering to Desqview as a way to execute many DOS programs at the same time. For that, you need 0 support. Thanasis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If you pray hard enough, water will run uphill. How Hard? Why, hard enough to make water run uphill, of cource!" R. A. Heinlein Internet: mitsolid@csd2.nyu.edu (mitsolid%csd2.nyu.edu@relay.cs.net) UUCP : ...!uunet!cmcl2!csd2!mitsolid -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (11/15/89)
In article <46d16986.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes:
[ An amazingly incoherant and long posting. ]
Richard:
My advice to you is this:
1) Wait until the TT is released. If it isn't, go buy something else.
2) Evaluate the TT. If it meets your needs, buy one.
If it doesn't, don't.
Repeating what *you* want a million times won't get the message to Atari,
it will merely bore us. Speculating about the TT's price/performance
before it exists is silly. Flaming about the TT's price/nonperformance
or obselescence is equally silly.
Have a nice day.
------
Greg Lindahl
gl8f@virginia.edu Astrophysicists for Choice.gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (11/15/89)
In article <24002@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >The Atari TT gives you an Atari Cheerleader like Greg Lindhal.. No, Bob, one day I woke up and said, "I don't want to let any more articles flow by on comp.sys.atari.st with obvious technical goofs in them. And I'm tired of seeing people repeatedly give Atari advice about marketing when all they're doing is filling the newsgroup with junk." I don't own any Atari stock. I rarely turn on my 520 these days. But I enjoy quality discussions on comp.sys.atari.st... until recently. >There aren't any Atari products to compete with most of what the other >computer companies already have for sale, so you have to fall back on the >"someday, someday" cheerleaders... Excuse me? My point is: don't flame something that doesn't exist yet. Who knows if will exist or not, ever? I don't. You don't. So don't waste the keystrokes flaming it. >>>What has happened to Atari Corp?? >>They are making money selling computers. >Atari Corp is making a lot of noise about IBM compatible "pocketable" >computers, and "handheld" video games. And they are making money selling computers. I'll stop repeating myself on this point, and suggest that you read their stock reports. And if you don't like the ST, buy something else. ------ Greg Lindahl gl8f@virginia.edu Astrophysicists for Choice.
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (11/16/89)
In article <10130@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu>, hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes: > This is really getting tiresome. Richard, don't you have better things to > be doing than wasting your time and hours writing long complaints? Has > anyone mailed you yet, agreeing with your statements? Is there any reason > why all of this screaming derision of Atari must be broadcast all over the > net? If you don't like what you've got, write Atari, don't bother us folks > who are happily using and developing stuff for Atari hardware... Howard, first I admire some of your programming. I have seen the result of your work and it is excellent. And that is one reason why I *HATE* to see Atari introduce a new machine that is as poorly conceived as the TT appears to be. How is the ST/TT market ever going to attract and retain imaginative and creative programmers such as yourself if Atari doesn't improve the ST/TT?? I really want to see a better TT then the TT/Plastic, and MAYBE, just MAYBE, Atari will hear the SCREAMs of anguish from the customers. It is not too late for Atari to redesign the TT/Tower (which is the model that I am really interested in). I would be glad to want another YEAR to see the TT/Tower with a faster 68030 and 1024x1024x256 colors and multitasking and multiwindows. That's what I want to accomplish by my Atari bashing. As the TT/Plastic is described I would rather pass. > > The weak drivers are a real pain, must admit. My Mega-4 won't operate the > floppy drive if my hard drive is plugged in but powered off. My old 1040 > never had any problems of this sort. No buffering. Definitely seems like > pinching too many pennies there. Howard, I am glad that you see my point. Too many people are willing to overlook the defects in the ST in their fervor to support it. The penny pinching manufacturing methods useds to make a "cheap" ST shoould NOT be applied to the new TTs!! Who wants to spend $3,000 on a TT just to find that you can't operate your floppy if the hard drive is turned off!! I have seen horror stories of ways that the ST fails from machine to machine. The TT has got to be better then the ST. But, if no one complains than why will Atari change their act?? > Pointless. Rip out the guts and jam in new ones. As far as the Mac is > concerned, when you do an upgrade you *have* thrown away your computer > and bought a brand new one, at Apple's prices. THis whole argument is > pointless. > It is NOT pointless to show how another company supports their customers. The big point is that apple gives you the option, the choice. Sure it is expensive but the best things in Life Aren't Free!! And the main point is that Atari DOES NOT give you the choice. sure, you can buy a Mega ST instead of a 1040ST but you are still getting the same basic machine. And maybe, just maybe, someday in the 90's you will be able to buy a TT/Plastic. But that's ALL the choices that Atari gives you. No enhancements like better color graphics, or a faster processor. Just a cheap unexpandable computer. It would be nice if Atari would give their customers more CHOICES!! > >Is that your answer for everything?? Wait for third party vendor support of > >basic OS features?? Doesn't say much for Atari does it?? > > > Computer companies don't live and die on their own. Computers don't stand > alone, particularly not in today's world of networking and interoperability. > Third party solutions are the key to any computer's success. It's tough for > a company to keep ahead in both the hardware and software ends of things > simultaneously. Apple's been trying for a long time, but they've failed > pretty miserably. Look at how dismal MacWrite is. It spreads resources too > thin to have to handle both ends of the system. (In Apple's case, they've > spun off their software group as an independent, called Claris.) It's tough > to do both the hardware and the software right. Look at DEC - they certainly > very popular hardware, but they didn't write Berkeley Unix, the most popular > Vax operating system... Look at DEC again, when they tried to release their > own version of Unix. It's taken them how many tries, to get it close to right? > (Must admit, the current Ultrix stuff is Very Slick...) > The Claris case is concerning APPLICATION software. My GDOS example is SYSTEM software. No body can do a better design for SYSTEM software than the system manufacturer. So, the MacWrite is not the same as a BAD GDOS. It is the same as a CRAPPY DESKSETII though. And from what I have heard DeskSet II is a real DOG!! So, you are right, Atari should leave application software to the third party vendors. But, I am right in that Atari should FIX GDOS and make other SYSTEM level improvements. > So it goes. MSDOS is so deeply entrenched in the US, there's no way that > a technologically superior machine could compete here anyway. That's part > of the problem with this industry, "no one ever got fired for buying IBM." > People are afraid of innovations, and only go for things with the Big Blue > seal of approval. Apple's first foray into the area, the Lisa, was such a > poor piece of engineering the stigma from that has slowed the Mac market > penetration for a long time... > > Of course, now may very well be the best time for Atari to hit the scene, > and hit it big, as the DOS world scrambles to define a DOS standard for > "graphical user interfaces" (god what a disgusting phrase...). Now, mainly > because there are no established standards, a newcomer actually has a fair > chance at winning itself a share of the market. > > Given that perspective, TOS isn't so bad - the PC world has yet to switch > to OS/2, so they're still looking at single-user single-tasking 24x80 > character cell COMMAND.COM prompts. Obviously this market is shaking itself > out pretty quickly though, and Atari may yet miss the boat... > > not in the real world... }-) > -- Actually, Howard, you are totally correct in your analysis of the PC market. I am researching various OSes and GUIs for the PCs and it is a total wildhouse. There are scores of different and incompatible little screen programs for the PC and strange things such as PC-MOS and MicroSoft Windows. The GEM/TOS interface may only be singletasking but it beats MicroSoft Windows hands down. Do you know how you develop a MS Windows application?? first you write your C code under DOS, compile, link, load. Then you boot MSW (Microsoft Windows) and try to execute your MWS apps. If it fails you have to exit from MSW, and do the edit-compile-link process until you THINK you have solved the problem. Then reboot MSW (which is slow/fast depending upon your HW [286 or 386]) and try it all over again. Obviously you have few if any SOURCE code level debugging tools available. And MWS is the BEST and most popular windowing package available for the PCs. So, TOS is great compared to PCs and MSW. You 640K barrier like with an IBM PC. Geez, I just *WISH* that Atari would design the TT with State of the Art features!! The TT *COULD* have been the IBM PC killer, but I don't see that happening given Atari's lack of committment to the USA!! Rich Covert
matthews@umd5.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) (11/18/89)
In article <24002@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: [stuff deleted] >Atari Corp is making a lot of noise about IBM compatible "pocketable" >computers, and "handheld" video games. They are *NOT* doing anything >useful for their base of computer owners. Of course they can make money >anywhere they want to.. that's their right under our free enterprise system.. >but.. do we as owners of their outdated technology have to kiss up to them?? > As if you're doing anything useful for the computing industry! The only thing messages like that do is waste net bandwidth. And make readers fed up with all of this whining. If you don't like it, don't take it and LEAVE. I'm a little fed up with what Atari has been doing too. I was hoping for a TT, but now I doubt I'll buy one. I WILL NOT, HOWEVER, BASH THE COMPUTER JUST BECAUSE IT ISN'T UP TO MY SPECIFICATIONS. > >BobR Mike Matthews
krs@stag.UUCP (Kent Schumacher) (11/20/89)
[covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes...] > > [... stuff deleted ....] I really want to see a better TT then > the TT/Plastic, and MAYBE, just MAYBE, Atari will hear the SCREAMs of anguish from > the customers. It is not too late for Atari to redesign the TT/Tower (which is the > model that I am really interested in). I would be glad to want another YEAR to see the > TT/Tower with a faster 68030 and 1024x1024x256 colors and multitasking and multiwindows. > That's what I want to accomplish by my Atari bashing. As the TT/Plastic is described > I would rather pass. > [... more stuff deleted] You know Richard, a little bit of bashing can help quite a bit. A lot (can you say incessant...) gets you ignored. This post would have been deleted without ever being read if you hadn't had Howard Chu's name at the top. - Kent Schumacher It's... ardvar!krs@stag.UUCP GEnie: K.SCHUMACHE1