seitz@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Matthew Eric Seitz) (05/01/88)
Once again, we seem to be getting a rash of postings from people who have given up on Atari, want to have nothing to do with Atari, and yet have nothing to do but write tirades against Atari. As a satisfied Atari customer, I feel compelled to respond. Last time I checked, there was nothing which gave you all the Atari did for a lower price. Dave, if this has changed, please feel free to post your figures. I have found Atari software to fulfill every need I have. Nothing extrodinary, just the basics: Terminal emulator ( Uniterm ), Word Processer ( Word Perfect ( which has just put out another upgrade ) ), Database ( dbMaster One ), spreadsheet ( vc ), Modula-2 compiler ( TDI ), Drawing ( EZ-Draw, again recently upgraded, IBM emulator for doing class work which was to be graded on an IBM ( PC-Ditto ). A handful of other miscellaneous utilities for printing and disk management. Not a lot, but what I think the vast majority of users need. ST software exists for just about every other common home and business user needs. The only other computer I have worked with extensively is the Amiga. in my experience, it crashed about as often as my ST: about once every two weeks. The "buggy" OS has not hampered my use of my computer in any way. Nor has it stopped the production of a number of fine programs for the ST. The ST monochrome diplay screen is the best I know of for a home computer, short of buying an expensive add-on monitor for your Mac. Atari employees often give information and support here on the net. I could continue, but I will summarize. The ST has never failed to do the job I required of it. No other computer does the things I need for as little money. I have heard no more complaints about it than any other computer. I still would reccommend it to anyone who wants to buy a computer. Matthew Seitz seitz@cory.berkeley.edu
euloth@dalcsug.UUCP (George Seto) (05/02/88)
In article <2878@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu>, seitz@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Matthew Eric Seitz) writes: > > Once again, we seem to be getting a rash of postings from people > who have given up on Atari, want to have nothing to do with Atari, and yet > have nothing to do but write tirades against Atari. As a satisfied Atari > customer, I feel compelled to respond. > Thank you Matthew. I have been quite happy with a 520ST (note NOT expanded to 1 Meg or with Modulator) that I bought back in January '86. I have several pieces of PD programs and a few other commercial programs that ALL work. Usually together or separately. I myself use Flash, as I love the editor in it. For WP, I use FirstWord Plus and as a database, SDB from David Betz, Thanks Dave. I have found a replacement, which I have sent to Steve Grimm, for VC.TTP called Sheet, now up to version 1.4. > > The ST monochrome diplay screen is the best I know of for a home > computer, short of buying an expensive add-on monitor for your Mac. > Atari employees often give information and support here on the net. > > I could continue, but I will summarize. The ST has never failed > to do the job I required of it. No other computer does the things I need > for as little money. I have heard no more complaints about it than any > other computer. I still would reccommend it to anyone who wants to buy a > computer. > So do I. I recommend it to many people. I was at a recent Music/Midi demo at a local Music store and the people doing the demos were from out of town and also recommended the ST for its' price and MIDI interfacing. They didn't sell the computers and sold software for many computer systems but seemed to recommend the ST for many things. Hope others feel the same way. George Seto - Using a friend's account. -- ******************************************************************************* * euloth@dalcsug.uucp || Disclaimer: All opinions are my own unless other- * * /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ || wise noted. * ****AKA: Atari Nut*************************************************************
wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (05/03/88)
In article <2878@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu>, seitz@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Matthew Eric Seitz) writes: > Last time I checked, there was nothing which gave you all the Atari > did for a lower price. Hmm... Perhaps for home use, but not for business/professional use. One of the major drawbacks with the ST is the difficulty/impossibility of networking them in any way, shape, or form. This is where the Mac kills everything else. Networking has been built into the Mac OS for quite some time now. The IBM PC has it kludged in (Token Ring/NetBIOS, Novell NetSlime, etc) and the ST doesn't have it at all. Last week, we got two new Mac IIs at work. To hook them up to the AppleTalk in the building so they could print to the two laser printers, all we had to do was plug into the LocalTalk connector and tell the system to use the LaserWriter+ printer resource via the AppleTalk connector. THAT SIMPLE. > I have found Atari software to fulfill every need I have. > Nothing extrodinary, just the basics: Terminal emulator ( Uniterm ), > Word Processer ( Word Perfect ( which has just put out another upgrade ) ), > Database ( dbMaster One ), spreadsheet ( vc ), Modula-2 compiler ( TDI ), > Drawing ( EZ-Draw, again recently upgraded, IBM emulator for doing class > work which was to be graded on an IBM ( PC-Ditto ). I have 5 Mega 2's at work (which I picked). We have recently gotten WordUp for a word processor. The output is really stupendous on the HP LaserJet II. One big problem is that it takes 8-12 minutes to layout and print a page using this setup. Also, try this: draw a chart using your favorite draw or paint program, then incorporate it into a document on your word processor. On the Mac, you would just cut it to the clipboard, hop into the word processor, and then paste it into the document. You can't do that on the ST yet. As I said, the ST line has some major holes that need to be filled in to compete in the business/professional market. The hardware that is there is quite adequate for the job, if we could just get the software to talk and work together. And the seperate systems to talk and work together via networks. Sigh. I really hate the idea of paying Apple for being so snotty about everything, but Atari and C= really haven't given us much of an alternative yet. -- /\ - "Against Stupidity, - {backbones}! /\/\ . /\ - The Gods Themselves - utah-cs!uplherc! / \/ \/\/ \ - Contend in Vain." - sp7040!obie! / U i n T e c h \ - Schiller - wes
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (05/10/88)
In article <213@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: > [lot's deleted ] > >As I said, the ST line has some major holes that need to be filled in >to compete in the business/professional market. The hardware that is >there is quite adequate for the job, if we could just get the software >to talk and work together. And the seperate systems to talk and work >together via networks. Sigh. I think this is directly attributable to Atari not providing the system software components for doing it. Many parts of the original Mac OS were awful (if you ask me), but they picked a way to do it, did it, and then told developers how to use it. It's still not great, but it's there. A similar story goes for Microsoft/IBM too. Nothing is pretty; it's just documented and supported. By that I don't mean they provide good support; I mean that it exists in large numbers and is "standard". With the Atari, every developer is on their own to "hack" whatever they need that's not "supported" by Atari. If you propose it to the idiots there (in management), they say "See figure 1." So you're left either making your program live within the constraints imposed by Atari, or "doing it your way" and being made an outcast in Sunnyvale. Even if a group of developers agree on "standard" methods, there's no guarantee (without "support" from Atari) that things won't break or be redefined by Atari in the next ROMs (something you apparantly don't have to worry about with great frequency). Atari leaves it up to the third parties to "fix" and "improve" their system, but then Atari doesn't support the third party either! So we end up with the pot pouri of incompatible software that we have today. Each developer telling all the other ones that they did something wrong, making their program incompatible. Each developer with their own idea of the "correct" way to do things on the Atari. And Atari only says "don't do it at all." -- David Beckemeyer | "To understand ranch lingo all yuh Beckemeyer Development Tools | have to do is to know in advance what 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | the other feller means an' then pay UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david | no attention to what he says"
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (05/12/88)
In article <316@bdt.UUCP>, david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes: > In article <213@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: > >As I said, the ST line has some major holes that need to be filled in > >to compete in the business/professional market. The hardware that is > >there is quite adequate for the job, if we could just get the software > >to talk and work together. And the seperate systems to talk and work > >together via networks. Sigh. Actually the hardware isn't there. I have yet to see an Ethernet/TCP/IP link or an ST network(!)... tho' MacWeek did mention that TOPS was suppose to be working on TOPS for the ST ... the Mac has AppleTalk/TOPS and third party Ethernet connections for the SE. The ST has a promised "PromiseLAN" network (which all sounds kind of recursive to me). Business need networking. More important, businesses need networks that are independent of vendors (Ethernet/ TCP/IP, NFS, TOPS all come to mind). > I think this is directly attributable to Atari not providing the system > software components for doing it. Many parts of the original Mac OS were > awful (if you ask me), but they picked a way to do it, did it, and then > told developers how to use it. It's still not great, but it's there. > A similar story goes for Microsoft/IBM too. Nothing is pretty; it's just > documented and supported. By that I don't mean they provide good support; > I mean that it exists in large numbers and is "standard". Agreed. The Mac environment is going to pay for their awful overall design in the long run...just as the ST will also have similar problems.. The difference is that Apple supported their developer community. It is easier for Apple to make drastic changes to their OS in the next few years (like adding multi-tasking and color attributes (24 bitplane stuff)) because the developer community is better supported and of course their is something in it for them. The flip side is that similar changes to the ST may see developers wandering off and spending their resources on higher volume and better supported machines. Why has this come about : Atari's developer problems stem from : 1.Pre-announcing products way too early and promoting unrealistic expectations. (the blitter and Megas come quickly to mind) 2.Not providing a hard set of user interface guidelines 3.Not providing a generalized font and device mechanism that is standard with the OS. 4.Licensing GEM and then not maintaining up to date DRI versions. 5.Not providing a network option that is of general value (Ethernet, AppleTalk) 6.Not providing ongoing contact with and documentation updates to developers. It should be noted that only #5 is hardware. The other points are procedural (#1,2,3,4,6) for the most part. For example : a generalized font mechanism exists (in the form of GDOS) it is a procedural matter why it is not part of the OS a user receives with his/her system. ----------------- Naturally My Opinions are my own....and I could be wrong :)