nelson@kodak.UUCP (Bruce Nelson) (09/21/89)
I'm puzzled ... I didn't see anything about the Portable MAC in comp.sys.mac, but .... Apple announced the Portable Mac at 1 pm, Wednesday, 9/20. I saw several at a computer show going on in Rochester this week. List prices for the units is $6499 with a 40 meg hard drive and $5499 with just a floppy drive. A second floppy costs $699. Now where are those STACY's, with GCR's, for under $2 grand? Timing is gonna be critical here - Atari can beat them at their game - if they try. Bruce Nelson
powers@cim1ni.enet.dec.com (Bill Powers) (09/21/89)
In article <2122@kodak.UUCP>, nelson@kodak.UUCP (Bruce Nelson) writes: > > Now where are those STACY's, with GCR's, for under $2 grand? > > Timing is gonna be critical here - Atari can beat them at their game - if > they try. > I may not know where those stacy's are, but I do know this. Atari had a meeting in Westboro MA in mid July for prospective dealers, or some such. And user groups were invited for like a half hour I think it was. Well one of my co workers who is in the local user group attended, and he talked to Mike Dendo. Who at the time was VP of sales, he still may be, I don't know. Anyhow, Mike told him that at that time, there was only 1 Stacy in the whole US, and that they would ship in september. Now give them a chance to keep their prommises, as there is still 9 days left in September. 8-) And if they don't make it, show your support and buy something else. Bill Powers ---- Digital Equipment Corp. - Semiconductor Operations - Hudson MA The opinions expressed above are my own, not my employers TELEPHONE - (508) 568 - 7094 E-MAIL - powers@cim1ni.enet.dec.com - ...!decwrl!cim1ni!powers
clf3678@ultb.UUCP (C.L. Freemesser) (09/22/89)
In article <2122@kodak.UUCP> nelson@kodak.UUCP (Bruce Nelson) writes: >I'm puzzled ... I didn't see anything about the Portable MAC in comp.sys.mac, >but .... > >Apple announced the Portable Mac at 1 pm, Wednesday, 9/20. I saw several at >a computer show going on in Rochester this week. > >List prices for the units is $6499 with a 40 meg hard drive and $5499 with >just a floppy drive. A second floppy costs $699. > >Now where are those STACY's, with GCR's, for under $2 grand? > >Timing is gonna be critical here - Atari can beat them at their game - if >they try. > >Bruce Nelson Atari is in an excellent position. You have a portable ST with all the features of this Mac portable. You have the Spectre GCR by Dave Small, an EXCELLENT Mac emulator. Put them together, and you have a portable Mac for 1/3 the price Apple wants. Now for a company which uses Macs (such as Kodak), and a company looking to cut costs (such as Kodak), a STacy bundled with the Spectre would win over a Mac portable. All Atari has to do is put them together and show it off. Apple would be devistated in the portable market. Not only would sales be EXCELLENT, but it would a great victory: Atari whoops Apple. Atari: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE talk to Dave Small! Get a package deal together! All you have to do is to get STacy out the door at the same time the Mac portable hits the streets. After all, you ARE out to make money, right? Chris Freemesser, Rochester Institute of Technology | What I like : BITNET: %clf3678@RITVAX GEnie: C.FREEMESSER | 1) My Atari ST USENET: Just reply and hope it gets through | 2) My '77 Mercury Call the ACORN BBS (716)436-3078, 300/1200 baud | 3) Coke Classic
dnewton@carroll1.UUCP (Dave Newton) (09/22/89)
In article <2122@kodak.UUCP> nelson@kodak.UUCP (Bruce Nelson) writes: >Timing is gonna be critical here - Atari can beat them at their game - if >they try. Only if someone develops an AppleTalk interface, at least in the college environment. -- David L. Newton | dnewton@carroll1.UUCP | Quote courtesy of (414) 524-7343 (work) | dnewton@carroll1.cc.edu | Marie Niechwiadowicz, (414) 524-6809 (home) | 100 NE Ave, Waukesha, WI 53186 | Boston College. [Q]: How many surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb? [A]: The fish.
hulse@iris.ucdavis.EDU (C.A. Hulse) (09/23/89)
In article <603@carroll1.UUCP>, dnewton@carroll1.UUCP (Dave Newton) writes: > In article <2122@kodak.UUCP> nelson@kodak.UUCP (Bruce Nelson) writes: > >Timing is gonna be critical here - Atari can beat them at their game - if > >they try. > > Only if someone develops an AppleTalk interface, at least in the college > environment. I don't own Spectre ( I'm waiting for a Mac emulator that incorporates Appletalk), so this is probably a naive question, but here goes: It seems to me that Appletalk, and any other 'interface' for the Mac, runs from the chooser D.A. If this is the case, how hard would it be to write a Desk Accessory just for the ST that would run Appletalk, perhaps via the MIDI port? Or is the Appletalk protocal the stumbling block (this seems unlikely, since I have heard of PC Appletalk cards)? Or is it simply that there appears to be little market for it? If the last answer is the right answer, please read the references. "Just my (own) two cents..." --Andy Hulse
Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik) (09/23/89)
I'll tell you the real nifty part - the Mac 'portable' weighs in at a hefty 16 pounds! Its also phically a lot larger than the STacy. And to really make life interesting, a picture of the STacy and mention of GCR is made in the latest issue of MacUser magazine! Nice free ad or what? Now all they need is to pump those babies out to a waiting Mac world. Peter Szymonik Xorg@cup.portal.com
sirkm@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Greg Anderson) (09/24/89)
In article <5395@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> hulse@iris.Berkeley.EDU (C.A. Hulse) writes: > It seems to me that Appletalk, and any other 'interface' for the Mac, runs >from the chooser D.A. In order to run Appletalk (the protocol), you need to be able to speak to LocalTalk (the hardware). >If this is the case, how hard would it be to write a >Desk Accessory just for the ST that would run Appletalk, perhaps via the MIDI >port? A MIDI cable is not a LocalTalk cable. (Ever try to plug a PhoneNet connector into your Midi port? :> ) Even if this were not the case, Midi ports run at about 32K baud, while LocalTalk runs at 200K baud or so. Thus, if you want LocalTalk on the ST, you'll have to use the DMA port to drive it. I don't think it's 'hard' as much as 'a heck of a lot of work'. Personally, if I was going to undertake such a project, I think I would sooner build an ethernet board for the ST. I don't think the market will exist until Spectre GCR is available. In theory, that should be Real Soon Now. In theory, anyway. ___\ /___ Greg Anderson ___\ /___ \ \ / / Social Sciences Computing \ \ / / \ /\/\ / University of California, Santa Cruz \ /\/\ / \/ \/ sirkm@ssyx.ucsc.edu \/ \/
logic@wet.UUCP (Henry Kwan) (09/24/89)
In article <22440@cup.portal.com> Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik) writes: >I'll tell you the real nifty part - the Mac 'portable' weighs in at a >hefty 16 pounds! Its also phically a lot larger than the STacy. And >to really make life interesting, a picture of the STacy and mention of >GCR is made in the latest issue of MacUser magazine! Nice free ad or >what? Now all they need is to pump those babies out to a waiting Mac >world. > >Peter Szymonik >Xorg@cup.portal.com From every review that I've read, the STacy weights in at 15 lbs. Not much of a difference, I would say. Also, the Macintosh Portable runs at 16 Mhz and the active-matrix screen is *nice*. Super fast with no blurring at all and an 180 degree viewing angle. A single charge will keep the machine running from 6-12 hours and has an inactive mode in which the processor is kicked down to 1 Mhz to keep battery drain to a minimum. Of course, the thing lists for ~$6500. Still, I'd bet everything that Apple will not be able to keep up with demand for the first few months. -- Henry Kwan - FWB, Inc. | "Experience varies directly claris!wet!logic@ames.arc.nasa.gov | with equipment ruined." cca.ucsf.edu!wet!logic@cgl.ucsf.edu | {claris,ucsfcca,hoptoad,lamc}!wet!logic | -- Tech Support
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (09/24/89)
Pete Szymonik sez: >I'll tell you the real nifty part - the Mac 'portable' weighs in at a >hefty 16 pounds! Its also phically a lot larger than the STacy. And >to really make life interesting, a picture of the STacy and mention of >GCR is made in the latest issue of MacUser magazine! Nice free ad or >what? Now all they need is to pump those babies out to a waiting Mac >world. Yes... but... While I'll be the first to acknowledge that Dave Small is one of the true Wizards of the Atari world, and his Mac Emulator is one of the true wonders of the Atari world, an Atari ST running a Mac Emulator still is *NOT* the equivalent of a Mac... There are still some things and some programs that the Spectre *cannot* handle... What Mac owner, or prospective Mac owner is going to take the chance that an "off brand" computer like an Atari, running an "emulator" is going to run *their* specific applications..? What business is going to risk their balance sheet on saving a few bucks (and pounds) by buying "game machines" that run *some* Mac software...? Unless Atari Corp. can come up with some coherent marketing plan, the only STaceys they're going to sell are going to be to current ST owners... A "portable Macintosh" is a computer with a credibility factor... an Atari that "sort of" emulates a Mac is an interesting curiosity. BobR
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (09/26/89)
In article <2122@kodak.UUCP>, nelson@kodak.UUCP (Bruce Nelson) writes: > I'm puzzled ... I didn't see anything about the Portable MAC in comp.sys.mac, > but .... > > Apple announced the Portable Mac at 1 pm, Wednesday, 9/20. I saw several at > a computer show going on in Rochester this week. > > List prices for the units is $6499 with a 40 meg hard drive and $5499 with > just a floppy drive. A second floppy costs $699. > > Now where are those STACY's, with GCR's, for under $2 grand? > > Timing is gonna be critical here - Atari can beat them at their game - if > they try. > > Bruce Nelson I would like to know how Atari can produce and sell a Laptop ST for under $2,000 while Apple charges almost $5500 for basically the same machine?? The only real hardware difference between the two machines has to be the LCD display?? Does anyone have techincal specifications for the two LCD displays being used?? Is the Atari LCD display slower to redraw than the Mac display?? I know that the ST has a higher resolution (640x400 VS. 535x352). since, the ST has higher res then the Mac SE anyway. The only other explanation is that Apple *KNOWS* that they can charge $5500 for a laptop. I heard on COMPUTER CHRONICLES (a PBS TV show) that Apple had $100,000,000 in pre-order sales for the laptop Mac!! Geez, if there is that big of a market for a Laptop Mac , then a LapTop ST, with the Gadgets By Small (which is now shipping according to the latest news on GEnie!!!) GCR mac Emulator should sell by the thousands!! I have seen pictures of the Laptop ST and seen actual Laptop Macs on TV, and the Laptop ST is much smaller and lighter then the Laptop Mac. So, let's just hope that Atari can get the Laptop ST out before Apple eats the market. Ken B, or John Townsend, if you read this message PLEASE PLEASE ask Jack Tramiel to advertise the Laptop ST in the WALL STREET JOURNAL like Atari has done for the Atari PORTFOLIO!! And mention the GBS GCR cartidge, and Atari could clean up with the Laptop ST!!! Well, its startinf to look good, if only Atari can get the Laptop ST and the TT out this year!!! I have told my local dealer that I want one!!! Richard Covert
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (09/26/89)
In article <22482@cup.portal.com>, Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: > Pete Szymonik sez: > > Yes... but... > > While I'll be the first to acknowledge that Dave Small is one of the true > Wizards of the Atari world, and his Mac Emulator is one of the true wonders > of the Atari world, an Atari ST running a Mac Emulator still is *NOT* > the equivalent of a Mac... > > There are still some things and some programs that the Spectre *cannot* > handle... > > A "portable Macintosh" is a computer with a credibility factor... an > Atari that "sort of" emulates a Mac is an interesting curiosity. > > BobR I have to disagreee with Bob Retell. My ONLY complaint with the SPECTRE 128 has to do with the SLM804 printer driver. I have read and watched the Spectre on GEnie for over a year and,except for the SLM804 printer driver, the Spectre is a fine product which is very compatible with the MAC SE product line. Heck, Dave has even been able to add limited sound to the Spectre. And with the new Stereo PCM sound in the 1040STE and the TT, Dave promises even better Mac sound emulation. Just wait for Dave to port Spectre to the TT!!!! then you can have a MacII also!! So, the Spectgre is NOT 'an interesting curiosity'!! I just wish that the Spectre could print out at 300 dpi on my SLM804. It can do 144 dpi though, which is something. And not many Mac users have Atari laser printers anyway. I think that the STacy/GCR combination will be a big seller!!! At 1/3 the price of a real Laptop Mac, it will cleanup!!! Now, if only Atari can get the STacy out. GADGETS BY SMALL is shipping, according to messages on GEnie, the GCR cartridge now!! So, all we need is for Atari to start shipping the STacy!! Richard (I do NOT speak for Atari or GADGETS BY SMALL) Covert
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (09/26/89)
In article <22440@cup.portal.com> Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik) writes: > I'll tell you the real nifty part - the Mac 'portable' weighs in at a > hefty 16 pounds! Its also phically a lot larger than the STacy. The Macintosh Portable is 15.7 pounds with a built in 40Mb hard disk. (It's 13.7 without the hard disk.) Also, the small size of a Stacy might be considered a disadvantage, depending on how the keyboard feels and how big the screen is. Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. Object Specialist Internet: lsr@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr AppleLink: Rosenstein1
hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) (09/26/89)
In article <45da3096.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: >I would like to know how Atari can produce and sell a Laptop ST for under $2,000 >while Apple charges almost $5500 for basically the same machine?? > >The only real hardware difference between the two machines has to be the LCD display?? >Does anyone have techincal specifications for the two LCD displays being used?? >Is the Atari LCD display slower to redraw than the Mac display?? I know that the >ST has a higher resolution (640x400 VS. 535x352). since, the ST has higher res >then the Mac SE anyway. Dunno 'bout the rest of the stuff you mention, but the specs I saw said that the Mac portable will have a 640x400 LCD screen. I'm inclined to believe that they're using identical display technology. They just don't call it the same because Apple likes to lead the public to believe that everything they do is new, innovative, and original... As long as the world doesn't see anything else comparable, then Apple doesn't have any trouble charging whatever the hell they feel like. If the STacy doesn't flood the US market soon, it'll never get a chance, because most people are too willing to swallow the Apple PR junk. I suppose one other significant difference would be that the portable Mac has Localtalk support. Of course, if you think one little Zilog Z8530 is worth the $3500 price difference... }-) Hm... Oh yes, the Mac portable is much larger, it's not billed as a "Laptop," as the STacy is named. The Mac uses a faster CPU, 16MHz. It really does look like Apple has some good ideas in this box. The STacy will basically be a Mega redesigned to fit in a smaller case... I suppose, given that, Atari still may not grab a very sizable chunk of the laptop market. The Mac is a relatively open system, compared to the STacy. You can expand the memory just by dropping in more SIMMs. I think the STacy would require tedious brain surgery... Of course, a strike against the Mac - the portable's expansion slot uses yet another different design. So now Apple has Macs with funny NuBus slots, weird SE slots, and weird Portable slots. This sorta puts it on even ground with the STacy, since its Mega slot is also not an industry standard. The sad thing is, tho, I bet there'll be lots of products for the MAcPortable's slot developed very quickly... So it goes. Gawd, what a depressing article. Sorry. If you can prove any or all of what I've just said to be grossly untrue, please do, I'd feel much better for it. -- -=- PrayerMail: Send 100Mbits to holyghost@father.son[127.0.0.1] and You Too can have a Personal Electronic Relationship with God!
rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) (09/29/89)
In article <45da3096.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: >I would like to know how Atari can produce and sell a Laptop ST for under >$2,000 while Apple charges almost $5500 for basically the same machine?? Possibly because Apple produced a real machine for which there will be an upgrade path, support, expandability, etc? Dunno; I haven't seen either. Apple's laptop IS pricey, but perhaps not outlandishly so. The market will decide. >The only real hardware difference between the two machines has to be the LCD >display?? Since when has hardware been the only important factor? TOS is junk. GEM is near-junk in its present buggy ST incarnation. No, that's not fair I guess; TOS & GEM are "priced almost appropriately" -- howzzat? You should pick your hardware based largely on what it will run that you wish to run. Why else would bazillions of people still choose to buy XT/AT-clones (price aside :) ? >Geez, if there is that big of a market for a Laptop Mac , then a LapTop >ST, with the Gadgets By Small (which is now shipping according to the >latest news on GEnie!!!) GCR mac Emulator should sell by the thousands!! I don't follow that logic. As someone else here has already remarked, "emulation" does not a clone make. I bought a Magic Sac for my 520ST because it was a neat hack & fun toy. But depend on it? Pfah! You'll have to tack a few 9's after "99.%" compatible before businesses will buy it. And I doubt the consumer market (i.e.: us) will ever eat more than the first one or 2 of your "thousands" of GCRs, let alone Staceys. >I have seen pictures of the Laptop ST and seen actual Laptop Macs on >TV, and the Laptop ST is much smaller and lighter then the Laptop Mac. >So, let's just hope that Atari can get the Laptop ST out before Apple >eats the market. IBM/NEC/Zenith and Apple >>> OWN <<< the portable market in this country. It's already been eaten. Atari may get a few crumbs in the USA, if they pursue them. [ I find it helps to think of Atari as a European company that builds for Europe, sells in Europe, and just coincidentally happens to live in the U.S. ] >Ken B, or John Townsend, if you read this message PLEASE PLEASE ask Jack >Tramiel to advertise the Laptop ST in the WALL STREET JOURNAL like Atari >has done for the Atari PORTFOLIO!! And mention the GBS GCR cartidge, and >Atari could clean up with the Laptop ST!!! > >Well, its startinf to look good, if only Atari can get the Laptop ST and the >TT out this year!!! I have told my local dealer that I want one!!! My my, SO many exclamation-marks! :) Forget "cold fusion"; if we could only bottle "Atari-owner loyalty" there wouldn't BE an energy crisis. :) (So speaks an ex-Atari-enthusiast.) -- >>> "Aaiiyeeeee! Death from above!" <<< | Steve Rehrauer Fone: (508)256-6600 x6168 | Apollo Computer, a ARPA: rehrauer@apollo.hp.com | division of Hewlett-Packard "Look, Max: 'Pressurized cheese in a can'. Even _WE_ wouldn't eat that!"
rehrauer@apollo.HP.COM (Steve Rehrauer) (09/29/89)
In article <45da4392.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: >So, the Spectgre is NOT 'an interesting curiosity'!! > >I just wish that the Spectre could print out at 300 dpi on my SLM804. It can >do 144 dpi though, which is something. And not many Mac users have Atari >laser printers anyway. But you've just lent weight to the opposing side, Richard. David Small is a warlock-class hacker. But the GCR is not a Mac. It is neat. It is cheap. It lets an ST owner glimpse much of the Mac world. But it won't be a serious Mac alternative. Look, someone who wanted to run Macintosh software, who didn't already own a Mac or ST, who didn't have Big Dollars to spend but could afford a GCR+Stacey, will (I'll bet my last floppy disk) 9 times out of 10 buy a Mac Plus instead. I know I would, if that criteria matched my situation. Someone who wants & can afford a >>portable<< Mac will BUY a portable Mac. Only those want a portable Mac AND to whom every penny truly matters AND who perhaps are not completely informed or like living on the edge MAY go for Atari's "solution". The backlash of frustrated would-be Mac-users with their not-quite-Macs aka Staceys w/ GCRs would probably crisp what little U.S. presence Atari still has, anyway. >I think that the STacy/GCR combination will be a big seller!!! At 1/3 the >price of a real Laptop Mac, it will cleanup!!! Cleanup WHAT for Pete's sake? Atari's act? Gee, I know I'm coming across like a personal attack on you, your love for Atari, etc. Sorry, I don't mean to. I just word-associate "doubt" when I hear "Atari" these days. (I know: you're a Cubs fan too, right? Oops, just kidding! :) -- >>> "Aaiiyeeeee! Death from above!" <<< | Steve Rehrauer Fone: (508)256-6600 x6168 | Apollo Computer, a ARPA: rehrauer@apollo.hp.com | division of Hewlett-Packard "Look, Max: 'Pressurized cheese in a can'. Even _WE_ wouldn't eat that!"
gints@NCoast.ORG (Steve Juhasz) (09/29/89)
In article <45e9895f.71d0@apollo.HP.COM> rehrauer@apollo.COM (Steve Rehrauer) writes: > >Since when has hardware been the only important factor? TOS is junk. >GEM is near-junk in its present buggy ST incarnation. No, that's not >fair I guess; TOS & GEM are "priced almost appropriately" -- howzzat? >You should pick your hardware based largely on what it will run that >you wish to run. Why else would bazillions of people still choose to >buy XT/AT-clones (price aside :) ? > [atari-bashing stuff deleted] > >My my, SO many exclamation-marks! :) Forget "cold fusion"; if we could >only bottle "Atari-owner loyalty" there wouldn't BE an energy crisis. :) >(So speaks an ex-Atari-enthusiast.) >-- >>>> "Aaiiyeeeee! Death from above!" <<< | Steve Rehrauer > Fone: (508)256-6600 x6168 | Apollo Computer, a > ARPA: rehrauer@apollo.hp.com | division of Hewlett-Packard >"Look, Max: 'Pressurized cheese in a can'. Even _WE_ wouldn't eat that!" Since you are so into bashing Atari and the ST line of computers, Mr. Rehrauer, perhaps you could enlighten us "Atari-owner loyalists" to why you consider the ST's to be "junk". I personally own an Atari ST, but have also done extensive (and I mean extensive) work on both Macintoshes and IBM-PC's during my four years at Cornell (A Mac and IBM dominated university). In my opinion (and I stress that), The Mac operating system is the most buggy thing I've ever encountered. If you want me to go into details about that, I will. As far as the IBM and compatibles, I believe they and the ST's are two very different types of computers that have their strong and weak points. I prefer a mouse and menu environment over a command line one. That is one reason I chose the ST. BTW, I think WINDOWS for the IBM stinks (talk about emulation!). Finally, If you think there is no good software for the ST line, you better wake up and smell the coffee! Pick up an issue of START magazine or any other good ST magazine, and you'll think differently. -Steve -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Juhasz gints@ncoast.org
dnewton@carroll1.UUCP (Dave 'Yes, I'm weird' Newton) (09/30/89)
In article <1270@ultb.UUCP> clf3678@ultb.UUCP (C.L. Freemesser) writes: >Atari is in an excellent position. You have a portable ST with all the >features of this Mac portable. You have the Spectre GCR by Dave Small, >an EXCELLENT Mac emulator. Put them together, and you have a portable >Mac for 1/3 the price Apple wants. No, you _don't_ have all the features of the Mac portable--it's still lacking the AppleTalk/LocalTalk port. Until Atari or someone comes up with a reasonably fast bridge, I seriously doubt people will _really_ look seriously at one of these, at least in a college environment. I have tried to talk people into buying ST's with GCR as a cheap Mac alternative, but without the AppleTalk, they don't fit in to our scheme of things. So until then, my school at least won't be ordering scads of them to use as portable Macs. -- David L. Newton | dnewton@carroll1.UUCP | Quote courtesy of (414) 524-7343 (work) | dnewton@carroll1.cc.edu | Marie Niechwiadowicz, (414) 524-6809 (home) | 100 NE Ave, Waukesha, WI 53186 | Boston College. [Q]: How many surrealists does it take to screw in a light bulb? [A]: The fish.
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (10/03/89)
In article <10032@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu>, hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes: > In article <45da3096.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: > >I would like to know how Atari can produce and sell a Laptop ST for under $2,000 > >while Apple charges almost $5500 for basically the same machine?? > > > >The only real hardware difference between the two machines has to be the LCD display?? > >Does anyone have techincal specifications for the two LCD displays being used?? > >Is the Atari LCD display slower to redraw than the Mac display?? I know that the > >ST has a higher resolution (640x400 VS. 535x352). since, the ST has higher res > >then the Mac SE anyway. > Dunno 'bout the rest of the stuff you mention, but the specs I saw said > that the Mac portable will have a 640x400 LCD screen. I'm inclined to > I've just said to be grossly untrue, please do, I'd feel much better for it. > -- > -=- PrayerMail: Send 100Mbits to holyghost@father.son[127.0.0.1] > and You Too can have a Personal Electronic Relationship with God! I have found out since my first post that the Mac portable uses an active matrix lcd panel. Basically, this means that each pixel has an active element (i.e transistor) driving it while I belive the SuperTwist panel that Atari uses is an X-Y cross matrix. Anyway, the Mac lcd panel is supposed to be much faster, even though the resolution is the same as Atari's panel. So, until we actuallt see the Atari STacy, we can only guess about the differences. And this points out why Atari will NEVER beat Apple; Apple produces new machines, Atari produces vaporware!! . .. . .. ... Richard Covert
matthews@umd5.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) (10/09/89)
Er, the STacy isn't vaporware. Saw a Stacy4 (4 meg STacy) at the WAACE AtariFest 89, running Spectre GCR. It also had an internal hard drive, but I don't know what size it is/was. Mike Matthews
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (10/11/89)
In article <5428@umd5.umd.edu>, matthews@umd5.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) writes: > Er, the STacy isn't vaporware. Saw a Stacy4 (4 meg STacy) at the WAACE > AtariFest 89, running Spectre GCR. It also had an internal hard drive, > but I don't know what size it is/was. > > Mike Matthews Ok, now weill I didn't go to the WAACE Atari fest last weekend, I heard that the STacy on display at the show was the same old prototype that Atari has been showing for months!! It wasn't even a production model. So, its VaporWare until I can buy it at my dealer!!! P.S. so, where was the TT, 1040STe, CD ROMs, PC DITTO II?? Did Atari have the TOS 1.4 EPROMs for sell at the show?? Did Atari, the company, show anything NEW at the show?? Nope. I thought not. I, for one, am just waiting for Jim Allen to develope his 68030 board for the Mega ST. I hear that he might even add more memory to it. And maybe better color graphics!! Heck, maybe Jim Allen (designer of that wonderful product Turbo16!!) can do what Atari has failed to do: Design a 68030 computer and market it!!! I heard that Jim Allen was at the WAACE show. Did anyone talk to Jim?? Richard Covert
macduff@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Roger R. Espinosa) (10/12/89)
In article <10032@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu>, hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes: > In article <45da3096.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: > >I would like to know how Atari can produce and sell a Laptop ST for under $2,000 > >while Apple charges almost $5500 for basically the same machine?? > > > >The only real hardware difference between the two machines has to be the LCD display?? > >Does anyone have techincal specifications for the two LCD displays being used?? > >Is the Atari LCD display slower to redraw than the Mac display?? I know that the > >ST has a higher resolution (640x400 VS. 535x352). since, the ST has higher res > >then the Mac SE anyway. > Dunno 'bout the rest of the stuff you mention, but the specs I saw said > that the Mac portable will have a 640x400 LCD screen. I'm inclined to > believe that they're using identical display technology. They just don't > call it the same because Apple likes to lead the public to believe that > everything they do is new, innovative, and original... As long as the world > doesn't see anything else comparable, then Apple doesn't have any trouble > charging whatever the hell they feel like. If the STacy doesn't flood the > US market soon, it'll never get a chance, because most people are too willing > to swallow the Apple PR junk. I shouldn't do this (don't want to start a flame war here...), but no, the screen *is* something totally new, and has been heralded as the *best* display on a portable around. We Apple-junkies really don't like paying an arm and a leg, and love to point out the cheaper competition, but even the MS-DOS super- popular portables can't compare screen-wise. And it's IBM that creates the new names for old stuff (e.g. "pel" and "fixed card" for "pixel" and "hard disk"...), not Apple. The NuBUS is more standard than NeXTs on the Macs. There's a different card in the Portable because it uses a different CPU than an SE/30 (their slots are the same size) and because of the power constraints. Different machines, with different power capabilities. It was a better move. Is it too expensive? You betcha. The biggest gripe is the memory: the *most* expensive memory chips are required (Static DRAMS), and of course, come a year, you're gonna NEED that expensive RAM to run the new system software. Roger (whose just bored and decided to distribute some truth...)
matthews@umd5.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) (10/12/89)
In article <462a4b3d.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: >Ok, now weill I didn't go to the WAACE Atari fest last weekend, I heard that >the STacy on display at the show was the same old prototype that Atari has >been showing for months!! It wasn't even a production model. I personally have never heard of a Stacy4 with 4 megs of RAM and an internal hard drive, until I saw it at the Fest. There is some problem with the local editor and what terminal type it thinks I'm using, so some of the lines from your old message seem to have disap- peared. Your definition of Vaporware is... well, not what I would consider OK. The STacy isn't vaporware. It is unavailable. Vaporware means, to me, the product doesn't exist in any form. >P.S. so, where was the TT, 1040STe, CD ROMs, PC DITTO II?? Did Atari >have the TOS 1.4 EPROMs for sell at the show?? Did Atari, the company, >show anything NEW at the show?? The TT etc. were absent (I'm a little upset at that too). Atari wasn't there to sell anything (they seldom, if ever, SELL anything at a show, just demo stuff). The new stuff they showed, aside from the STacy4, was the Portfolio and a Megafile 60 (not very exciting, but it IS new). > >Nope. I thought not. Since you yourself said you werne't there, I wish you'd stop making statements that would require your presence to verify them. >I, for one, am just waiting for Jim Allen to develope his 68030 board for the >Mega ST. I hear that he might even add more memory to it. And maybe better >color graphics!! Heck, maybe Jim Allen (designer of that wonderful product >Turbo16!!) can do what Atari has failed to do: > Design a 68030 computer and market it!!! > I'd rather have a computer designed for an '030. The Mega is too closed an architecture to allow any good to come from putting an 030 in there (compared to a real 030 machine). >I heard that Jim Allen was at the WAACE show. Did anyone talk to Jim?? >Richard Covert If I didn't now better, I'd say someone else wastrying to type into this document. <sigh> One question I wish you'd ask yourself is this: what good is all this complaining doing? Mike Matthews
strasser@grasp.cis.upenn.edu (Colin Strasser) (10/13/89)
In article <1627@cbnewse.ATT.COM> macduff@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Roger R. Espinosa) writes: >In article <10032@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu>, hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes: > >Is it too expensive? You betcha. The biggest gripe is the memory: the *most* >expensive memory chips are required (Static DRAMS), and of course, come a year, >you're gonna NEED that expensive RAM to run the new system software. > >Roger Isn't "static DRAM" an oxymoron? -Colin Colin Strasser stasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu CI$: 72447,1650
lake@ka3ovk.uucp (Marshall Lake) (10/13/89)
>P.S. so, where was the TT, 1040STe, CD ROMs, PC DITTO II?? Did Atari >have the TOS 1.4 EPROMs for sell at the show?? Did Atari, the company, >show anything NEW at the show?? > I don't know! Why WASN'T any of that stuff there? Atari did give a set of TOS 1.4 EPROMs to the presidents of each of the users groups in WAACE.