JALKIO@cc.helsinki.fi (Jouni Alkio) (10/24/89)
->In article <3364@nmtsun.nmt.edu>, scksnsr@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Sean Kelly) writes: > cmm1@CUNIXA.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Christopher M Mauritz) writes: > >> <1049@cc.helsinki.fi> JALKIO@cc.helsinki.fi >> (Jouni Alkio) responds: >> What makes the 386 an industry standard? As far as I know, there are >> very few programs especially for it. The more people keep supporting only >> the PC-line (XT, AT, 386...), the more technology has to go along the >> same traditional tracks. >> -> I don't know about Finland, but here there are more PC's on desktops for the -> small business and home user than loose paperclips :-). Seriously, the -> amount of PC's abound is sickening. If it's not an industry standard, -> tell me what is. Besides, you said more people supporting one line, -> the more technology has to go along the same tracks ... doesn't this -> sound like industry standardization? > We sure have tons of PC's here in Finland. I was talking about 386 specific software and there is not very much of it! The TT will be ST compatible, just like the 386 is PC-compatible, and MAC II is MAC-compatible! I think it won't take very long, when there is as much TT specific software as there is 386 specific software. By the way, I can use a lot of PC- or MAC-software on the ST, too. The coin (the industry standardization) has, as always, two sides. The good one is that you can get a lot of software. The bad one is the dependence on old technology. The same problem is with ST's and TT's, too - but the PC is older standard. > (Jouni Alkio) continues: > I have got every program I've needed for my Atari ST this far. Usually > they are more user-friendly than their PC-counterparts. I think it is stupid > to speculate about if the TT is coming or not. They have already introduced > it in Germany. (And if it wouldn't come, Atari could soon be in bankrupt > or something...) > -> I also have just about every program I've needed for my Atari ST, too. -> Almost every. There are things for our SUNs that I wouldn't mind having, -> but my biggest hang up is the fact that the same programs available on -> other machines are so much more powerful, nicer, AVAILABLE, and supported. If I have a program for my computer, isn't it available?!?!? Could you give an example of a program more powerful on a PC (in the same price-range, not a 386, for example)? > > Jouni Alkio: > What's so important in having INTERNAL modems, etc... You can buy all > off those devices for ST's and TT's, too. > -> Just take a look at my desk, and you'll see the advantage of INTERNAL stuff. -> I've got my 1040 sitting on it. A huge cable comes out for my external disk -> drive, which is also propped up vertically against the wall behind the desk; -> I've got another cable coming out to the Atari EXTERNAL harddrive that's too -> big for 20 Meg, and sounds like a 747 during takeoff. Then I've got another -> cable coming out to my EXTERNAL modem. And, finally, cables going out to -> my printer and my two monitors. It's a mess! If my 1040 were more like -> a Mega (which is also too small), and if I could put the harddrive, diskdrive, -> and modem all inside it on CARDS, I'd just have to worry about hiding the -> cable for the printer---and that's easy by just throwing it behind the bloody -> CPU box with its nice INTERNAL cards. I like having various devices on my desk. This doesn't mean that I couldn't use them. I admit that some people like emptier desks - and it's also practical in the offices, for example. For me, it's a matter of taste. It's not my fault if you have bought a noisy hard-disk. You are free to choose. Or do you mean that a PC-case would prevent the hard-disk from being so noisy?!?!? > >> Chris writes: >> Now that I've got my own little 68030 worksation (named after a popular >> red fruit <grin>) and have it actually in front of me (yes, you can >> actually see and touch it!). > > Jouni says: > Why compare an Apple with 68030 to an ST?!?! Compare a MAC to a ST and > compare their price, too! A ST costs only less than a third of a rival > MAC, at least here in Finland. You can still emulate a MAC with a ST > even faster than a real MAC. Where does all that extra money Apple takes go? > -> Chris is not comparing an Apple II to an ST. In fact, I don't know of any -> Apple II that has a 68030. He OBVIOUSLY means his Mac. Get a clue :-) -> And my ST can NEVER beat the nearby Mac II in terms of speed or graphics. Wait a minute, I didn't write anything about Apple II (and if I did, I meaned Apple MAC II, of course)! I just didn't like the speed comparison between A 68030 APPLE AND A 68000 ST, it is unfair! OF COURSE a MAC II is technically much better than a ST - you could as well compare a MAC II with a supercomputer... It makes no sense comparing computers in completely other price-ranges. > >> Richard says: >> So, from past experience we can expect a CHEAP 68030 machine from Atari >> that won't be expandable and will be margin in other aspects. > > Sounds right. When I was still a fanatic, I was convinced that the Atari > was the most powerful computer out for the price. For only a few hundred > dollars more (I had the money) I could have gotten (ack) an Amiga (oh no!). > Or something that has support. Dare I say it? Yes, a Mac. What do you relly mean by that support? I wouldn't pay much extra money for getting some brochures, for example. One fact is, that you are slightly in another position as I - Europe is Atari's first marketing area for computers, as far as I know. > > Jouni replies: > How come won't be expandable??? You can even expand a ST very well, even > if it doesn't actually have ANY card slots... By the way, remember MIDI, > too. > -> Sure I guess you can expand an ST `very well,' but it isn't easy. You just -> don't lift the cover a drop in a card. You lift the cover, desolder a chip, -> patch a jumper, solder a socket, pay through the nose for parts, and labor -> if you don't know how. It doesn't have to be so easy if you are a bit handy. It would be nice if I just could insert the cards in their sockets, but it really doesn't matter very much for me. > -> Yes, the ST's are inexpensive. That's great. If you want it now, though, -> forget it. And support? I've sent out all the warranty cards I could -> from my Atari stuff, and I've never gotten a single brochure from Atari, -> or a newsletter, or anything. I wonder if there's anybody back there. -> Authorized repair centers? We don't need no stinking authorized repair -> centers! As I said before in this article, I wouldn't like to pay much extra for some brochures. *** NOTE: I changed the text "Varsinainen ..." to my real name "Jouni Alkio". The first "name" was not a name (I didn't know that it would represent a name, at all...) Sorry.*** Jouni Alkio
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (10/27/89)
in article <1086@cc.helsinki.fi>, JALKIO@cc.helsinki.fi (Jouni Alkio) says: > ... I was talking about 386 specific software and there is not very much of it! > The TT will be ST compatible, just like the 386 is PC-compatible, and MAC II is > MAC-compatible! I think it won't take very long, when there is as much TT > specific software as there is 386 specific software. Thing is, it's not even that necessary to have TT, Mac II, Amiga 2500, etc. specific software. For example, nearly every piece of Amiga software written works just fine on a 68020 or 68030 based Amiga. It takes immediate advantage of running on a true 32 bit system. You can write programs that use 68020/68030 specific instructions, but except for the most CPU/FPU intensive programs, this isn't noticable. Motorola did it right from the start; the linear-addressing programmers mention only one aspect of this. For the Clone machines, the situation is entirely different. If you're running a standard MS-DOS application, you kick the '386 into 8086 emulation mode. You have no 32 bit instructions and thus get little benefit from a 32 bit bus. Only '386 specific programs take advantage of the machine. The main reason folks buy '386 machines these days is to run their 8/16 bit programs faster -- not because the '386 itself lends much by being a true 32 bit CPU (the '386 SX does nearly as well), but merely because Intel makes 25Mhz and 33MHz '386s, while their fastest '286 is around 12MHz (AMD makes a 16MHz version, which they claim runs 8086 and 80286 software faster than a 16MHz '386). >> Or something that has support. Dare I say it? Yes, a Mac. > What do you relly mean by that support? You generally have to pay for support, and there are various kinds. Some you even get from Atari. For example, an ST dies. At least you have an idea of who made it, and maybe even who'd fix it. I could certainly answer that kind of question for a Mac or an Amiga. Now look at that $2000 loaded '386 Clone. You've probably never heard of that company before, but no big deal, right? After all, it runs MS-DOS, and probably OS/2, so there's no need for you to worry about software support like you would with Apple, Amiga, or Atari. Only, now it breaks down. That company could very likely not exist anymore. Sure, you can buy a name brand Clone from Compaq or someone, but that's going to greatly throw off your price comparison with the aforementioned 680x0 machines, except the Apples or the NeXT. > Jouni Alkio -- 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