winston@fjcnet.GOV (Winston M. Llamas) (10/24/89)
I've been reading a lot of the messages in this group lately and one thing is clear - while the rest of the computing world has progressed into the late 80's, Atari is still stuck with early 1980's technology. One of the reasons I bought my ST was it's price - it afforded me the same computing capability as a Mac (and a 6mhz AT) for a much lower price. In many ways, I got what I paid for - a lack of programs that I'd really like to use. Sure there's Word Perfect, a couple of decent C compilers, and some really terrific PD programs. There are even good CAD and DTP applications available. Still, have you ever noticed that even some of the most used programs on the ST (Flash is a glaring example) is feature deficient when compared to programs available on other machines? I've always wanted a nice Lisp interpreter/compiler/development system for the ST. On the MS-DOS world, there's PC-Scheme, which is just one heck of a system (and it's affordable). On the Mac, I use Allegro CL and MacScheme+Toolsmith, both excellent products. On the ST, you have Cambridge Lisp (okay, so it's a lot slower than other Lisp implementations out there, when using the interpreter). While the initial investment with regards to procuring an ST is low, most of the cost of owning a computer is spent on the time spent using it. Without adequate software support, the nicest machine will only gather dust. I don't have an ST now, although I've kept a lot of my old ST software. I bought an Amiga a little later than my ST and while Commodore has not been much better at letting the world know what a neat little computer it has in the Amiga, I find that I could do a lot of things with the Amiga that I could not do with the ST (e.g. I can compile CLIPS, NASA's expert system shell with Lattice C; none of the ST compilers I own [Laser C, Mark Williams, Prospero] can do this). Lately, I've even seen some ads for the Amiga on national TV (as well as promotional video tapes on some local software and hardware houses). I have seen ads for the Portfolio, but what does that have to do with the ST? Or the TT (after reading the specs of this machine, I could not believe I waited four years for something that "advanced"). I have a Mac IIcx at work - something tangible I can use with software that I use and need. How many people do you think will write software for the TT (at least here in the U.S.). Do you think Word Perfect Corporation will be out there in the front line releasing their latest software for the ST/STE/TT? The bottom line is, the best deal available on the computing world are the myriads of 386 boxes available NOW. You can buy Unix for it now and get some good PD development tools. And if you're desperate, you can even run MS-DOS. If Intel CPU's are not your bag, the Mac IIcx and IIci are really nice boxes with tons of software available. I guess count me as another disillusioned ex-ST user. Winston "a computer is just a tool" Llamas
dnewton@carroll1.UUCP (Dave 'C is cool, but what about LOGO?' Newton) (10/26/89)
In article <211@fjcp60.GOV> winston@fjcnet.GOV (Winston M. Llamas) writes: >.... Still, have you ever noticed that even some of the most used >programs on the ST (Flash is a glaring example) is feature deficient when >compared to programs available on other machines? (I think Flash is a comm program--if it's not, ignore this :-) I've been using UniTerm now for a while, and have decided it's easily one of the best terminal programs available for any machine. Even my PC-type friends have said it's pretty cool, which is pretty good for them, 'cuz they all hate Atari. >..... Or the TT (after reading the specs of this machine, I could not >believe I waited four years for something that "advanced"). Umm, you're telling me a 386 system is advanced? I'm sorry, but it's really quite a banal little system. There's nothing fancy about a cache. There's certainly nothing too 'neato' about putting all the processor-intensive tasks (graphics, sound) on the main processor. It's a lot more fun (and fast) to use a (gasp) _co-processor_!!! >The bottom line is, the best deal available on the computing world are the >myriads of 386 boxes available NOW. You can buy Unix for it now and get >some good PD development tools. And if you're desperate, you can even >run MS-DOS. If Intel CPU's are not your bag, the Mac IIcx and IIci are >really nice boxes with tons of software available. Intel CPU's are not my bag. Unfortunately, neither is paying Apple up the wazoo for a slow machine. Oh yeah, I _could_ get a IIci, but if I had that much money to waste, I'd probably get a NeXT. Additionally, I just saw an add for a 25Mhz, 60-Meg disk, 4 Meg RAM 486 box that looks like it would beat a 33MHz 386 for $4995. I'd rather have that, if I was going to go the route of a boring machine. Can we stop this incessant "Your computer sucks, 'cuz mine's better' stuff now? Very little is accomplished except for reiterating the point that no machine has everything everyone wants. -- 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
winston@fjcnet.GOV (Winston M. Llamas) (10/26/89)
I don't think I said that the ST sucked. The gist of my previous post was that even if Atari manages to get the TT out in time, it will take a while (if ever) before a significant software base is developed for it. Yes, Uniterm is a nice program (thank's Simon). But let's get real. I want to use some development tools that just are not available on the ST. Smalltalk-80 is available for the ST, but there does not seem to be any way to get the thing here in the U.S. (yes, I called Parc Place Systems). The thing is, 386 machines are pretty decent machines (okay, so you don't like Intel chips) that are readily available at decent prices. You can get some nice expansion cards for it too. And there are literally tons of software available for the machine (running on at least three operating systems). Yeah, I think we all have done enough bashing on the STE/TT lately, especially since I have yet to see one of the things in a store. I think the $4995 486 system dmewton was talking about is the Cheetah Gold 33. There is a short article on the computer in the November 1989 issue of Byte. Seems like a pretty good deal for the price (4 megs of ram, vga graphics, 60 meg hd). Winston Llamas
steve@thelake.UUCP (Steve Yelvington) (10/26/89)
In article <212@fjcp60.GOV>, winston@fjcnet.GOV (Winston M. Llamas) writes ... >I don't think I said that the ST sucked. The gist of my previous post was >that even if Atari manages to get the TT out in time, it will take a while >(if ever) before a significant software base is developed for it. If the TT runs all properly written ST software (much faster!), what's the big deal? And the optional Unix OS is said to be System V and capable of running anything written for the Motorola binary standard. I don't think it's reasonable to term either of those software bases "insignificant." I sympathize with your frustrations at not being able to get Smalltalk or Scheme or whatever, but let's be serious: those are not significant applications in terms of the general market. They're weird. Anyone who's looking for mainstream applications -- word processors, 1-2-3-compatible spreadsheets, desktop publishing, databases, etc., will be in great shape. There's a lot of specialty software out there, too (MIDI is the obvious example). I bought an ST in 1985, so I know what a software drought is like. The TT won't have that problem. Steve Yelvington, up at the lake in Minnesota ... pwcs.StPaul.GOV!stag!thelake!steve (Usenet) ... {playgrnd,moundst,class68}!thelake!steve (Citadel)
winston@fjcnet.GOV (Winston M. Llamas) (10/27/89)
In article <0926891056429243@thelake.UUCP>, steve@thelake.UUCP (Steve Yelvington) writes: > > If the TT runs all properly written ST software (much faster!), what's the > big deal? And the optional Unix OS is said to be System V and capable of > running anything written for the Motorola binary standard. I don't think > it's reasonable to term either of those software bases "insignificant." > I would hope that Atari can release their version of Unix for the TT within a reasonable time period of the computer's release (unlike Commodore, which has promised Unix on the Amiga for years now). The availability of Unix applications would be a boon, but I doubt whether the average Atari user out there is going to bother with Unix unless it is made considerably easier to use. I'm not really sure the TTP configuration of the machine will actually support Unix (there does not seem to be any reason it should not). By the time a TT system is configured to run Unix, one will probably have to spend upwards of three thousand dollars to get a workable system (not bad for a Motorola based machine, but Apollo diskless workstations don't cost that much more). As I said, we'll have to wait and see if Atari can bring these products out in time. I'm not sure I can hold my breath that long, however. -Winston
phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) (10/27/89)
(A point of correction to a previous claim; ignore if you don't care about Unix availability...) In article <214@fjcp60.GOV> winston@fjcnet.GOV (Winston M. Llamas) writes: >I would hope that Atari can release their version of Unix for the TT within >a reasonable time period of the computer's release (unlike Commodore, which >has promised Unix on the Amiga for years now). No. Amiga hasn't given a shipping date for the US. They have repeatedly said that they are working on it and they have repeatedly implied that it will NOT be out in the US until the Amiga 3000 ships. When is that? They refuse to say, since this is a ground-up, all 32-bit project - not at all the same as just dropping a 68030 into an Amiga 2000 or 2500. If you want Unix right now, go to Europe. >As I said, we'll have to wait and see if Atari can bring these products out >in time. I'm not sure I can hold my breath that long, however. Last time I went shopping for a computer, I looked at the Atari ST line. It didn't win out. I keep hoping that Atari will put its stuff together and help prevent IBM and OS/2 from owning everything. (That's why I read this group, by the way). I'm also not holding my breath. - 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 |
winston@fjcnet.GOV (Winston M. Llamas) (10/29/89)
In article <13067@s.ms.uky.edu>, phoenix@ms.uky.edu (R'ykandar Korra'ti) writes: >... > No. Amiga hasn't given a shipping date for the US. They have repeatedly > said that they are working on it and they have repeatedly implied that it > will NOT be out in the US until the Amiga 3000 ships. When is that? They > refuse to say, since this is a ground-up, all 32-bit project - not at all > the same as just dropping a 68030 into an Amiga 2000 or 2500. > I stand corrected, as far as Commodore promising Unix for years now. It's too bad every Amiga magazine has to talk about it for years now, but that rumors and announcements are not synonymous. While it's nice to see Atari and Commodore making Unix available on their 32 bit machines, I think it's equally important that these guys are able to support their products in earnest. Considering how long it has taken Atari, for example, to make an OS upgrade available to its users, I'm not sure that their version of Unix will be that much better supported. - Winston M. Llamas
don@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Donald R Lloyd) (10/29/89)
Actually, I remember reading shortly before the 2500 came along that CBM had
officially announced the 2500UX, which was basically to be a 2500 with 5 megs
of memory, a larger HD, and a tape drive. I know the 2500's have been in
developer's hands for a while. I think the major delay is inthe fact that CBM
decided to change the hardware to a 2000 with a 25MHz 030 board, and there was
a lot of retesting & redesigning to do.
Sorry if this message came out a little garbled.... I'm not doing a full
vt-100 emulation here & it makes editing a little exciting...
--
Gibberish .sig for sale or lease.
is spoken Contact don@vax1.acs.udel.edu for more information.
here. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault.daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (10/31/89)
in article <214@fjcp60.GOV>, winston@fjcnet.GOV (Winston M. Llamas) says: > Summary: software availability > In article <0926891056429243@thelake.UUCP>, steve@thelake.UUCP (Steve Yelvington) writes: > I would hope that Atari can release their version of Unix for the TT within > a reasonable time period of the computer's release (unlike Commodore, which > has promised Unix on the Amiga for years now). That's certainly an exaggeration. First of all, Commodore's only had machines capable of running UNIX out for not quite a year now (the A2500/A2620), and they never claimed that UNIX would ship as soon as the hardware was available to run it. If you're going to commit to porting UNIX to you're machine, you have to to right, and do it right the first time. Hopefully Atari will think similarly if/when they do a port for their '030 machine. You're dealing with a different set of customers with UNIX than with the native environment. In part, you have much less of a distinction to offer, and you're far more likely to offer something distinctively bad than distinctively good. If you ship a faulty, incomplete, or hastily ported UNIX the first time, you may not have anyone listening by the time you get around to fixing it -- you've already built a bad reputation. I'm glad Commodore had enough sense to realize it has to be done right the first time around. > -Winston -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (10/31/89)
in article <4840@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU>, don@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Donald R Lloyd) says: > Actually, I remember reading shortly before the 2500 came along that CBM had > officially announced the 2500UX, which was basically to be a 2500 with 5 megs > of memory, a larger HD, and a tape drive. I know the 2500's have been in > developer's hands for a while. They did in fact announce a 2500UX at the same time the 2500 was introduced. That was at the '87 CeBit fair in Hannover, West Germany, and the first real showing of UNIX on an Amiga, though that was an older version, and the A2500 hardware at that point was still beta hardware. The A2500 itself actually started shipping around a year ago, I don't recall if it was November or December. UNIX has been in beta test at various sites for at least that long. > I think the major delay is inthe fact that CBM decided to change the hardware to > a 2000 with a 25MHz 030 board, and there was a lot of retesting & redesigning to do. The '030 board work was actually started long before the A2500 actually shipped at all; it was kind of a logical outgrowth of the A2620 board that powers the A2500 (the first one was shown to developers at the Amiga DevCon in April of '88). How they configure an A2500UX is pretty much up to the folks responsible for integrating the system -- they have the choice of CPU (14.2MHz '020 or 25MHz '030), hard disk, whatever. Naturally the folks who are given the choice prefer the '030 system, but the bundle ultimately sold by Commodore comes down to a marketing decision more than anything. They have to take into account the price, competition, etc. as well as SPEED, which of course is what REALLY matters. > Gibberish .sig for sale or lease. > is spoken Contact don@vax1.acs.udel.edu for more information. > here. DISCLAIMER: It's all YOUR fault. -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Systems Engineering) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy Too much of everything is just enough