Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET (Z4648252) (05/26/89)
Hal Meeks writes:
"All these emulations aren't something to boast about. It indicates that
the software end of the machine using it's native OS is severely lacking, and
people are trying to make up for that."
-----------------------
Yup, I think what Hal is saying might be true. During the past half
year, ever since I purchased Spectre 128, I rarely see the ST side of my
Mega ST anymore.
My ST runs more dependably as a Mac than as an ST. Note that I use
my computer for writing and minor desktop publishing. I use FullWrite
almost daily, finding it easier to use than PageMaker. FullWrite is also
easier to use than Calamus and for college students, certainly much
cheaper ($108.00). Its power and EASY user interface reminds me of the
same principle that TimeWorks DeskTop Publisher transmits in being easy on
the user.
I have fewer crashes while using the ST as a Mac and, in the long
run, am able to get more productivity out of my machine as a writer with it
in Mac mode.
I've had an ST system since the Summer of 1985 and love the box. It is
faster than any other system that I have ever used and is certainly
friendlier. I regret that we don't have powerful and easy programs such as
FullWrite available for the Atari as I would prefer using such a program on
the ST "side".
With the advent of cheap lasers and the HP DeskJet series, a writer
should expect to being able to actually see on the screen what he will
get on the printer, font-wise. I'm not referring to italics, underscore,
bold face, etc. I'm talking about fonts such as what you'd see in the ST
desktop publishing programs. However, a writer shouldn't have to boot up
a DTP program to see such. The programs available as word processors (WordUp)
are slow and cumbersome. They positively crawl. Again, I'm referring to
word processers which display DTP-type fonts. Others which don't (WordPerfect)
are fairly fast but they don't display on the screen what you get on the
printer.
Is this a fault of TOS or developers? I dunno. However, I really
regret that so many of the ST programs are unpolished and rough while
programs for other systems, as a whole, seem to be finer made. We, as
STers, certainly deserve better and should not have to buy an emulator in
order to have really professional software.
Look at programs for the Mac and IBM and compare. We can't use the
excuse that the ST is "new" because it isn't. This summer will see the
forth year of the ST market. It is a real pity that programs such as
Dungeon Master, Oids, and Captain Blood, and Time Bandits, are rated as
the most polished programs for the ST while 'productive' software such as
WordPerfect, PageStream, Calamus, First Word, and Word Up are considered
'problem children'.
Ian Chadwick's "Ian's Quest" in the June 89 ST Log also echos this.
STers deserve better programs.
Larry Rymal <Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET>greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman) (05/26/89)
In article <890525.11385598.000380@SFA.CP6> Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET (Z4648252) writes: >Hal Meeks writes: > >"All these emulations aren't something to boast about. It indicates that >the software end of the machine using it's native OS is severely lacking, and >people are trying to make up for that." > My ST runs more dependably as a Mac than as an ST. Note that I use >my computer for writing and minor desktop publishing. I use FullWrite >almost daily, finding it easier to use than PageMaker. FullWrite is also >easier to use than Calamus and for college students, certainly much >cheaper ($108.00). Its power and EASY user interface reminds me of the >same principle that TimeWorks DeskTop Publisher transmits in being easy on >the user. > I have fewer crashes while using the ST as a Mac and, in the long >run, am able to get more productivity out of my machine as a writer with it >in Mac mode. The Mac has had some dogs, too. How many revisions has, say, Microsoft Word gone through, now? Or even MacWrite? The business community is much less tolerant of buggy software than we Atari folks are, since they cannot afford to stay with dogs, and superior competition quickly fills the gap. As personal users, we can't afford to simply discard an $80 program because it's buggy. The Atari's problem is that we don't have the buying power and numbers to draw that kind of competition. That is not a flaw of the hardware nor the OS. > With the advent of cheap lasers and the HP DeskJet series, a writer >should expect to being able to actually see on the screen what he will >get on the printer, font-wise. [...] > Is this a fault of TOS or developers? I dunno. However, I really >regret that so many of the ST programs are unpolished and rough while >programs for other systems, as a whole, seem to be finer made. We, as >STers, certainly deserve better and should not have to buy an emulator in >order to have really professional software. Atari can take at least some of the rap for the problems of getting good hardcopy output. The GDOS situation is bad for everyone. GDOS should be a part of the standard developer's kit, and smoothly integrated into *every* application that uses GEM. There is too much confusion about and hassle with GDOS. > Look at programs for the Mac and IBM and compare. We can't use the >excuse that the ST is "new" because it isn't. This summer will see the >forth year of the ST market. It is a real pity that programs such as >Dungeon Master, Oids, and Captain Blood, and Time Bandits, are rated as >the most polished programs for the ST while 'productive' software such as >WordPerfect, PageStream, Calamus, First Word, and Word Up are considered >'problem children'. The ST might as well be new, when you look at the market penetration it's got here in the U.S. You can't cite the European sales figures to American software companies, because they are totally irrelevant to the American market. The English version of a product is essentially a separate product, and the ST just doesn't have the installed base to justify any kind of a major effort on the part of big software companies. Hence, we get after-thought ports of programs written for other platforms that don't quite fit on the ST. In this regard, ST owners are indeed lucky to be able to emulate, to a high degree of success, other computers with that large installed base. These emulations give us a bridge to professional software until the Atari market gets as hot here as it did in Europe. Atari Corp. keeps promising that this is going to be the case Real Soon Now. In the mean time we can boot up our Magic Sacs and Spectre 128's and PC Ditto's, and wait. Longish .signature follows. Skip now. Greg Wageman DOMAIN: greg@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: ...!uunet!sjsca4!greg 1601 Technology Drive BIX: gwage San Jose, CA 95110-1397 CIS: 74016,352 (408) 437-5198 GEnie: G.WAGEMAN ------------------ "Live Free; Die Anyway." ------------------ Opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author.
Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik) (05/27/89)
I will vehemently disagree with both the previous posts. The ST has lots of software that matches or outdoes Mac and IBM software. Calamus and LDW Power take care of the desktop publishing and database aspect (need I mention Superbase and DynaCadd ?) There is *plenty* of excellent ST software out there, its just that it may not be as well known as the 'name' software in other computer worlds. I use both emulation packages - but after suffering with the Mac Plus at work and watching what my MS-DOS friends have to go through coming home to the ST is like a vacation and I only use the emulators to remind myself of the alternatives! <grin> Peter Szymonik Xorg@cup.portal.com
colas@mirsa.inria.fr (Colas NAHABOO) (05/29/89)
From article <18849@cup.portal.com>, by Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik): > The ST > has lots of software that matches or outdoes Mac and IBM software. > Calamus and LDW Power take care of the desktop publishing and > database aspect (need I mention Superbase and DynaCadd ?) No, I must disagree with you: - Calamus is non-intuitive and most Mac packages are as powerful - LDW Power is a slow emulation of an outdated version of lotus 1-2-3 (far from excel power...) - I worked with superbase: Its langage is bugged to the max, and its user interface is cumbersome, less efficient than the "appleworks" integrated software I was using on my apple II In fact, most of the flaws of the St software (I am not speaking of games, with dungeon master and populous being pure jewels) stems from OS flaws, namely: - awkward event handling (I used easy-draw for all the drawings in my thesis, but the handling of mouse clicks is slow and imprecise due to GEM) - no text manager. Either for input (no way to cut-paste & edit text resources) or for output (bad/no support for fonts...) The advantages of the ST lies in fact in these deficiencies, in that they motivated truly outstanding PD utilities or ports of Unix software to it. (Uniterm, UW, gulam, Tex & LaTex, emacs clones...) For instance, to do my overhead slides, I just go on a Mac, but to generate postscript drawings for my thesis I used my ST because I had the source of the PD gem->ps "mfps" converter and could more easily transfer files from/to unix with the ST. And we were able to make our lab not to by any more terminals, but only STs, with the existence of such packages as Peter Collinson's Term program, uniterm, gulam, microemacs, gulam, Tex and LaTeX... Just my 2 cents worth... Colas NAHABOO BULL Research FRANCE -- Koala Project (GWM X11 Window Manager) Internet: colas@mirsa.inria.fr Surface Mail: Colas NAHABOO, INRIA - Sophia Antipolis, 2004, route des Lucioles, 06565 Valbonne Cedex -- FRANCE Voice phone: (33) 93.65.77.71, Fax: (33) 93 65 77 66, Telex: 97 00 50 F