gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (01/26/89)
****** SOAPBOX ALERT!!! SOAPBOX ALERT!!! ****** In article <1562@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu> rob@baloo.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes: > > I think there is another problem here. While it looks as if Atari may > start behaving marginally better for their future hardware, they still > are leaving their existing customers out in the void. Let's see: The Mega ROMS have come out. But Atari announced on the net that they provided only a few bug fixes plus blitter support. Ergo, they won't give you much in your 1040 and would be a waste of money. Should Atari mail a card to every US owner inviting them to pay money for nothing, especially when they plan a real upgrade in the future? No, that would be stupid. What you _REALLY_ want is for them to finish TOS 1.4, do a really good job, and then mail you a card. The blitter chip hasn't come out to fit old 1040s; from what they've been saying all along, the chip yield is too low. I believe that it would be good if they could fix that and retrofit old machines, but if they don't have them they can't announce them. Should they mail all old users a card saying ``We have these great chips but can't sell you one?'' What you _REALLY_ want is for them to get the cost down so they can do this. GDOS is out, and you can buy it with any of a number of software packages. I wish they'd release it to non-commercial developers so we could write software to use it, but since developers are a tiny fraction of the total ST community, it would be STUPID for atari to mail a card to everyone when most users wouldn't be interested. What you really need is to understand what GDOS is. And, finally, if you think you NEED a coprocessor (not that the average user does enough floating point to need one), contact GFA or talk to your German friends. That one is for 520/1040 machines. You probably don't even really want this: it's expensive and few people need the extra performance. What's the point? How can you and I read the same newgroup and get such different information? I may not agree with some of Atari's actions, but at least I've kept my eyes open. Why don't we talk about something useful on this group instead of discussing misinformation and misconceptions? Why do we spend so much time second-guessing Atari's busines strategy in silly ways? If all non-commercial developers on the net got together and said, ``Release GDOS to us so we can use it and distribute it with our p.d. software'', then Atari might listen. But if we start making demands like ``Well, you really should have built a Mac IIx instead of the Megas and because you're so STUPID I'm never going to recommend Atari again'' then we're gonna get ignored. step, step, step down off that soapbox. 3 more days 'till my qualifying exams. -- greg ------ Greg Lindahl | Graduate School: gl8f@virginia.{edu,bitnet} | It's not just a job, ...!uunet!virginia!gl8f | It's an indenture.
rob@raksha.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) (01/26/89)
In article <1046@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: [on my posting] >The blitter chip hasn't come out to fit old 1040s; [...] >What you _REALLY_ want is for them to get the cost down so >they can do this. Uh, sorry, but I don't care *WHY* they aren't sending these cards, all I observe is that they are not sending them. >GDOS is out, and you can buy it with any of a number of software >packages. [...] >What you really need is to understand what GDOS is. Sorry again, I know what GDOS is, and the point stands. They sold me a machine with an incomplete OS, and did not think it necessary to rectify the matter. That some companies offer me GDOS as a package deal with their software is irrelevant. >And, finally, if you think you NEED a coprocessor Yes, I do. > (not that the >average user does enough floating point to need one), So? >contact GFA or >talk to your German friends. That one is for 520/1040 machines. And get something no compiler will support. Right. >You probably don't even really want this: it's expensive and few >people need the extra performance. I'm so glad you know so precisely what I want and need. You want to run my life for me too? >What's the point? How can you and I read the same newgroup and get >such different information? Still sorry, but you might want to look up the word fact in a dictionary; we do not disagree on any facts, just on intepretation. >3 more days 'till my qualifying exams. Success with it! SR
davidli@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Dave Meile) (01/26/89)
In article <1575@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu> rob@raksha.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) writes: >Uh, sorry, but I don't care *WHY* they aren't sending these cards, all >I observe is that they are not sending them. I owned an Apple ][+ - //e for many years. I never received any cards from Apple telling me about upgrades to the system. So what are you complaining about. Heck, no computer company I know of sends such things (unless you pay them $$$ for an update service). You're simply performing some random "bashing" there. >Sorry again, I know what GDOS is, and the point stands. They sold me >a machine with an incomplete OS, and did not think it necessary to >rectify the matter. What you *really* mean is that you purchased a machine with what you considered as an incomplete OS ... that was your choice. It would be nice to have GDOS in ROM, I suppose, if you really wanted your system to be all that slow. I'd suggest you take the matter up with DRI, and then Atari. >>And, finally, if you think you NEED a coprocessor > >Yes, I do. > >>contact GFA or >>talk to your German friends. That one is for 520/1040 machines. > >And get something no compiler will support. Right. Did you check out the Atari ST before you bought it? I mean, if you *really* needed a math coprocessor, why didn't you purchase an AT-clone in the first place? Instead, we are subject to a harangue which tends to indicate (to me at least) that you didn't know the first thing about buying a microcomputer in the first place. >SR My suggestion - sell you ST. You're never going to be happy with it. Buy a nice, safe, AT-clone and go complain about it on comp.sys.ibm.pc. -- Dave Meile
twolf@homxb.ATT.COM (T.WOLF) (01/27/89)
In article <1046@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: > ****** SOAPBOX ALERT!!! SOAPBOX ALERT!!! ****** ...some deleted stuff... > Let's see: The Mega ROMS have come out. But Atari announced on the net > that they provided only a few bug fixes plus blitter support. Ergo, > they won't give you much in your 1040 and would be a waste of money. > Should Atari mail a card to every US owner inviting them to pay money > for nothing, especially when they plan a real upgrade in the future? If you look at it in this light, you may be right. But the question here is: "Why did Atari only incorporate these few bug fixes?" -- I've had my 1040ST since Spring '86. I think TOS was put on ROM a little before that. Since then, there has been NO upgrade to the ROM that I was notified of (come to think of it, I never got any mail from Atari PERIOD (except some Developers Newsletters.) Somehow, I don't think 3 1/2 years is too short a period to wait for some "bug fixes". > No, that would be stupid. What you _REALLY_ want is for them to > finish TOS 1.4, do a really good job, and then mail you a card. So, when is that going to be? Another 3 1/2 years? What makes you think Atari would send ANYONE cards telling them of upgrade opportunities? > The blitter chip hasn't come out to fit old 1040s; from what they've > been saying all along, the chip yield is too low. When I bought my ST from the dealer in '86, the guy promised me that Atari Corp. would make these Blitters available in a "couple" of months. ...36 months later... > What's the point? How can you and I read the same newgroup and get > such different information? I may not agree with some of Atari's > actions, but at least I've kept my eyes open. Point well taken. But I don't think ANYONE is totally objective about the way Atari Corp. has been doing business....not even you. > Why don't we talk about something useful on this group instead of discussing > misinformation and misconceptions? Why do we spend so much time > second-guessing Atari's busines strategy in silly ways? Ditto. > > step, > step, > step down off that soapbox. ...spark...spark...crackle...crackle...My soapbox is providing a good fire... (If I seem abusive, ignorant, sadistic, masochistic, overly vocal...don't blame my employer - My traits have not been discovered yet.) -- Tom Wolf Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ E-mail: twolf@homxb.att.com
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (01/27/89)
In article <10968@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> ftg!dwm@stag.UUCP (David Meile) writes: >My suggestion - sell you ST. You're never going to be happy with it. Buy a >nice, safe, AT-clone and go complain about it on comp.sys.ibm.pc. > Good answer. You seem to be on the same wavelength as Atari. This seems to be EXACTLY what Atari is telling their users too -- and apparantly a lot of them are doing it. Brilliant. That's the way to attack the U.S. market! >-- Dave Meile -- David Beckemeyer (david@bdt.UUCP) | "Lester Moore - Four slugs from a .44 Beckemeyer Development Tools | no Les, no more." 478 Santa Clara Ave. Oakland, CA 94610 | - Headstone at Boot Hill UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax}!unisoft!bdt!david | Tombstone, AZ
rob@raksha.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) (01/27/89)
In article <10968@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> ftg!dwm@stag.UUCP (David Meile) writes: >>Sorry again, I know what GDOS is, and the point stands. They sold me >>a machine with an incomplete OS, and did not think it necessary to >>rectify the matter. >What you *really* mean is that you purchased a machine with what you >considered >as an incomplete OS ... that was your choice. Yes, it was my choice, in the expectation that the matter would be rectified. Call me naive. >It would be nice to have GDOS in >ROM, I suppose, if you really wanted your system to be all that slow. ROM, disk, I don't care. The point is that Atari should have done something. >Did you check out the Atari ST before you bought it? I mean, if you *really* >needed a math coprocessor, why didn't you purchase an AT-clone in the first >place? Ever heard of changing situations? >Instead, we are subject to a harangue which tends to indicate (to me at least) >that you didn't know the first thing about buying a microcomputer in the >first place. Why should I, or anyone, care what misguided indications you seek to conjure up? >My suggestion - sell you ST. You're never going to be happy with it. Buy a >nice, safe, AT-clone and go complain about it on comp.sys.ibm.pc. Wrong. I am more happy with my ST than I would be with an AT clone. I guess in your world that means that I have to sing praise and halleluja only? Rob Carriere PS If anyone else wants to flame me, let them feel free, but let's please do it via email.
twolf@homxb.ATT.COM (T.WOLF) (01/30/89)
I would like to apologize for a "soap-box" commentary on this subject. In a previous message, I noted that "x by y by z" colors (I don't recall the exact numbers) should be read as: x * y * z. I somehow got the notion that these numbers represented a three-dimensional space in which the possible color-values where the units of that space; thus, my incorrect statement....I'm going senile, I think. What's even worse, I wouldn't even have noticed this faux-pas myself. Someone had to point this out to me :-) Oh well, I guess I deserve all the hate-mail I'm no doubt going to get on this subject.... -- Tom Wolf Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ E-mail: twolf@homxb.att.com