Patrick@ark.cs.vu.nl (Patrick van Kleef) (03/06/87)
I just returned from a loooong and very tiring visit to the Hannover Messe. Fortunately, Tandon flew me there, but I took a car back... Ah, never again. ANyway, I've got some nice news. The entire Tramiel-clan was there and I spoke to Leonard who gave me some good information. - There "definitely _is_ going to be an upgrade for existing ST-owners to new ROM's and new Blitter. Memory upgrades are likely too, but that would make make a replacement of the power supply necessary (I think). Leonard told me Atari's still thinking about what to do with the current buggy ROM's. If the blitter's installed, new ROM's come with it. But what to do with people that don't want the blitter? Up to marketing, Leonard said. - EXCITING!!! I saw a, wha the author called "a full" implementation of SmallTalk on a MegaST 4. This was the 'hottest thing' around. Just before I saw Kodak showing a SmallTalk system costing megabucks. And the MegaST is gonna retail 4000 DM ($2000)! Harddisk necessary though (and the 4 meg too!). I was impressed. They showed a 'big' system next to the MegaST... no difference but the price-gap. - MicroDeal showd some demo's of games to be released. Goldrush was one and looks extremely good. Digitized sound, extremely good graphics. And talking about digitzed sound: this summer they're gonna release a sound sampler. They showed a prototype: more than 1 minute of good sound in a 1040ST. Can be played back to sampler and from there on to hi-fi system (good quality) or to ST-monitor speaker (also real nice). Digitized sounds may be used in programs. Also saw some other company mixing living video and graphics (like Amiga Genlock), but was dying of thirst then and gave beer first priority. No more info on that. - An Austrian programmer provided me with small program that lets you extend the number of DA's without limit. The EXTENDER.ACC he wrote already had al basic DA functions (install printer, modemport etc) and lots of other things I don't understand. But I have the manual so I'll let you know more when I think I know more (may be never :) - Atari has an interface board so existing ST's (1040's for sure) may be used with the laser printer. They should have more memory for full use (extensive graphics etc.), so that's why I said something about possible memory upgrades. The laserprinter is gonna retail for 3000 DM ($1500) and will have software to emulate an Epson FX-8000. No more news on that. - Engineers are looking into incorporating the 68020 with mmu or the 68030 (which has built-in mmu [mmu=memory management unit]) in new machines. Whichever is the cheapest will be the one. This, ofcourse, refers to the Atari TT, the Thirty Two(bit) machine. It will be out "after the summer" Shivji (hope I spell it right) said. The TT will use an existing ST as front-end. "But how about higher resolutions," I asked Leonard: "Will that mean there won't be higher resolutions?" He replied: "All current ST's can have higer resolutions. Providing you install a new video-driver and use the DMA-port. It surpreses me no-one has done this yet." Full report in the newsletter I talked about earlier. It may be a while before non-BITNETters receive it, because I still have'nt found a way of addressing them from within the mailinglist (an no, I'm not gonna type each and every individual name every time).
congdon@ci-dandelion.UUCP (Robert M. Congdon) (03/07/87)
In article <921@ark.cs.vu.nl> Patrick@ark.cs.vu.nl (Patrick van Kleef) writes: >- EXCITING!!! I saw a, wha the author called "a full" implementation > of SmallTalk on a MegaST 4. This was the 'hottest thing' around. > Just before I saw Kodak showing a SmallTalk system costing > megabucks. And the MegaST is gonna retail 4000 DM ($2000)! > Harddisk necessary though (and the 4 meg too!). I was impressed. > They showed a 'big' system next to the MegaST... no difference > but the price-gap. > In the latest Smalltalk-80 Newsletter (No. 10, Feb 1987) there is mention of an "experimental" port of ParcPlace Systems' VM1.0 version of PS Smalltalk to the Atari 4160 by the University of Dortmund. Perhaps that's what you saw? The benchmark figures look quite good, 37% of Xerox Dorado performance. Note: ParcPlace Systems is a subsidiary of Xerox, formed last year to develop, market and sell Smalltalk systems. If you're interested in receiving the Smalltalk-80 Newsletter, send the request to the following address: Nanette Harter ParcPlace Systems 3333 Coyote Hill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA -- Robert M. Congdon UUCP: {talcott,vaxine,mit-eddie}!ci-dandelion!congdon Cognition, Inc. PHONE: (617) 667-4800 900 Tech Park Drive Billerica, MA 01821
grunau_b@husc4.UUCP (03/07/87)
In article <921@ark.cs.vu.nl> Patrick@ark.cs.vu.nl (Patrick van Kleef) writes: >I just returned from a loooong and very tiring visit to the >Hannover Messe. >a car back... Ah, never again. . . . >ANyway, I've got some nice news. The entire Tramiel-clan was there >and I spoke to Leonard who gave me some good information. > >- There "definitely _is_ going to be an upgrade for existing > ST-owners to new ROM's and new Blitter. Memory upgrades > are likely too, but that would make make a replacement > of the power supply necessary (I think). Leonard told > me Atari's still thinking about what to do with the > current buggy ROM's. If the blitter's installed, new > ROM's come with it. But what to do with people that don't > want the blitter? Up to marketing, Leonard said. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ok, I don't think this can go without some sort of an observation. Let me first say that I am very very glad to see Messrs. Harris and Leavens spending so much time on the net, and am very grateful for the answers I have seen. I am very happy to see this development. However, I think it would be very worthwhile to comment on the above report, in particular the part of the sentence I marked. I think this would be worth- while, because the last set of flames against Atari policies and attitudes really got kind of off the track: people started talking as though the complaints were something like "I want you to provide a cheap upgrade from a 1040ST to one of the newer models". If, indeed, that is all people had been clamouring for, then I might almost think the younger Tramiel's "Ferrari" gaffe would have been warranted. I think it would be very worthwhile for people at Atari to be aware that the problem is NOT availability of cheap upgrades (I think we all realize that upgrade paths for closed-architecture machines are limited, as has been re-iterated time and again by Atari apologists on the net lately); NOR is it casting of blame for the bugs in GEM/GEMDOS, which are as we all know DRI's fault. No, rather, the problem is the attitude represented by the sentence I quoted: if Patrick Van Kleef is correctly reporting Mr. Tramiel's remarks, then we are to infer from this that THERE IS ACTUALLY A POSSIBILITY THAT PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT BLITTERS MAY NOT GET DEBUGGED ROMS FOR THEIR 1040S! If it is to turn out that the above remark -- that the decision to provide ROMs to non-blitter customers will be left up to the whims of "marketing" -- is in fact not correct, then great. However, I think I should make it QUITE clear that it is to my mind unthinkable that Atari would consider for even a MOMENT that customers are not 100% ENTITLED to upgrades of ROMs that contain bugs! Even your average PC-clone mail-order manufacturer sends out debugged BIOS ROMs on a regular basis! (I know of one that gives out new [free] ROMs every six months!) Admittedly, we are talking about a little more than a BIOS, and we are talking about a total rewrite. But I do NOT think it is acceptable that Atari consider not providing rewritten ROMs to ALL users, REGARDLESS, and for only a nominal fee. THIS is the matter we should be focusing on, and this, I believe, is the proper source of anger in the community: not whether or not we can turn our 1040s into Mega-STs, or even trade them in for them (I never expected that); nor whether Atari is competing adequately with the Amiga 2000; nor whether Atari is to incur any "blame" for bugs in the OS. I think that if there is any reason to turn away from Atari, and to avoid recommending Atari machines to friends (as recent posters have threatened), it is this. I, personally, had every intention of getting a blitter upgrade; indeed, of selling my 1040 and getting a new Mega ST. So I would have no trouble getting the new ROMs. But I would SERIOUSLY think twice if I thought Atari were pulling this kind of thing on other people. I simply don't want to have anything to do with a manufacturer that would consider not distributing debugged ROMs to ALL users, WHATEVER their Marketing department thought. There is more to choosing a computer than looking at the hardware in it -- the attitudes of the company count; they counted against Apple for me, and they are swiftly counting against Atari. grunau@husc4.UUCP or --- !seismo----- \ --- !rutgers----- !husc6!husc4!grunau / --- !decvax!ihnp4 or BITNET hostname is "harvsc4"; ARPA address is grunau@husc4.harvard.edu.
Patrick@ark.UUCP (03/08/87)
In article <426@ci-dandelion.UUCP> congdon@ci-dandelion.UUCP (Robert M. Congdon) writes: >In article <921@ark.cs.vu.nl> Patrick@ark.cs.vu.nl (Patrick van Kleef) writes: >>- EXCITING!!! I saw a, wha the author called "a full" implementation >> of SmallTalk on a MegaST 4. This was the 'hottest thing' around. >In the latest Smalltalk-80 Newsletter (No. 10, Feb 1987) there is >mention of an "experimental" port of ParcPlace Systems' VM1.0 version >of PS Smalltalk to the Atari 4160 by the University of Dortmund. >Perhaps that's what you saw? The benchmark figures look quite good, >37% of Xerox Dorado performance. > No, what I saw was a German product. Don't know anything about performance, though. I also have in my possession a first class product from the Technical University of Delft (The Netherlands). It is an image-processing program using all ST features. You should see it to believe it. It is public domain but takes up more than 600 Kb for the program (called AIM, Atari Image <something>) and demo-files. A single picture takes up more than 60 Kb. But oh so good. Any idea how I should distribute this?
preston@felix.UUCP (Preston L. Bannister) (03/09/87)
In article <921@ark.cs.vu.nl> Patrick@ark.cs.vu.nl (Patrick van Kleef) writes: >- There "definitely _is_ going to be an upgrade for existing > ST-owners to new ROM's and new Blitter. Memory upgrades > are likely too, but that would make make a replacement > of the power supply necessary (I think). Leonard told > me Atari's still thinking about what to do with the > current buggy ROM's. If the blitter's installed, new > ROM's come with it. But what to do with people that don't > want the blitter? Up to marketing, Leonard said. As an ST owner, I would rather have a 'full' upgrade. As a software developer I would rather have the fewer possible configurations to deal with. My vote would be for one upgrade option with the works (ROM, Blitter and memory expansion). I would imagine that offering only one upgrade option would be less costly for Atari. If so then Atari could offer the upgrade for less money and/or make more of a profit on it. >- EXCITING!!! I saw a, wha the author called "a full" implementation > of SmallTalk on a MegaST 4. This was the 'hottest thing' around. > Just before I saw Kodak showing a SmallTalk system costing > megabucks. And the MegaST is gonna retail 4000 DM ($2000)! > Harddisk necessary though (and the 4 meg too!). I was impressed. > They showed a 'big' system next to the MegaST... no difference > but the price-gap. Anyone know more about this???? ======================================== Preston L. Bannister USENET : ucbvax!trwrb!felix!preston BIX : plb CompuServe : 71350,3505 GEnie : p.bannister
leavens@atari.UUCP (Alex Leavens) (03/09/87)
in article <1347@husc6.UUCP>, grunau_b@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (Justin J. M. Grunau) says: > > Will people who don't want to upgrade to the blitter be able to get > new debugged ROMS? I hope so... There's been no final decision made on this--I think Leonard's comment about "Leaving this up to marketing types" was more of a hedge than an actual statement of intent. At this point I think we want your input. How many of you _aren't_ going to upgrade to blitters, but still want the ROMS? --alex @ Atari BIX: alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS AtariCorp: 408-745-2006
leavens@atari.UUCP (Alex Leavens) (03/09/87)
in article <924@ark.cs.vu.nl>, Patrick@ark.cs.vu.nl (Patrick van Kleef) says: > > I also have in my possession a first class product from > the Technical University of Delft (The Netherlands). It > is an image-processing program using all ST features. > You should see it to believe it. It is public domain > but takes up more than 600 Kb for the program (called AIM, Atari > Image <something>) and demo-files. Please send me a copy if you get a chance. My address is: Atari Corp. (US) 1196 Borregas Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94088 Attn: Alex Leavens Thanks! --alex @ Atari BIX: alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS AtariCorp: 408-745-2006
grunau_b@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (Justin J. M. Grunau) (03/10/87)
In article <620@atari.UUCP> leavens@atari.UUCP (Alex Leavens) writes: >in article <1347@husc6.UUCP>, grunau_b@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (Justin J. M. Grunau) says: >> >> Will people who don't want to upgrade to the blitter be able to get >> new debugged ROMS? I hope so... > > There's been no final decision made on this--I think Leonard's comment >about "Leaving this up to marketing types" was more of a hedge than an actual >statement of intent. At this point I think we want your input. How many >of you _aren't_ going to upgrade to blitters, but still want the ROMS? > >--alex @ Atari > >BIX: alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS AtariCorp: 408-745-2006 I think that answer is easy: EVERYBODY wants new ROMs. In particular, when the work is done to rewrite GEMDOS, in order to remove the 40 folder limit, then I think EVERYONE will want to have, and will be ENTITLED to having, their ROMs replaced. And NO one should have to get any sort of hardware upgrade (such as the blitter) in order to get a debugged OS that they are entitled to by any conventional standards today. This is a far worse issue than the developers documentation. I do not believe that Atari is required to provide developers documentation to anyone; it is in their own interest, yes, but the fact that they do require you to buy extra things, such as a compiler, is their own business. HOWEVER, to require you to buy a blitter in order to have an update of the OS is ENTIRELY unaccep- table, in my opinion, and goes against what all other manufacturers are doing. The question, "who will want new ROMs without the blitter" simply should not be asked. Instead, Atari should start shipping new ROMs as soon as they are available, and have been cleansed of the 40 folder limit, to ANYONE who wants them, and should charge a bare minimum. [Please do not take this as a personal flame against your comment, Mr. Leavens; I am delighted that this issue IS being noticed, and am very happy to see you being so present on the net!] JJMG grunau@husc4.UUCP or --- !seismo----- \ --- !rutgers----- !husc6!husc4!grunau / --- !decvax!ihnp4 or BITNET hostname is "harvsc4"; ARPA address is grunau@husc4.harvard.edu.
neil@atari.UUCP (03/10/87)
In article <1347@husc6.UUCP>, grunau_b@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (Justin J. M. Grunau) writes: > In article <921@ark.cs.vu.nl> Patrick@ark.cs.vu.nl (Patrick van Kleef) writes: > >I just returned from a loooong and very tiring visit to the > >Hannover Messe. > > Leonard told > > me Atari's still thinking about what to do with the > > current buggy ROM's. If the blitter's installed, new > > ROM's come with it. But what to do with people that don't > > want the blitter? Up to marketing, Leonard said. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > if Patrick Van Kleef is correctly reporting Mr. Tramiel's remarks, then we are > to infer from this that THERE IS ACTUALLY A POSSIBILITY THAT PEOPLE WHO DO NOT > WANT BLITTERS MAY NOT GET DEBUGGED ROMS FOR THEIR 1040S! > > If it is to turn out that the above remark -- that the decision to provide > ROMs to non-blitter customers will be left up to the whims of "marketing" -- > is in fact not correct, then great. Don't worry too much about this remark. In my experience, the humble Marketing department has never had much say in decisions regarding ROM upgrades. This is usually simply a delaying tactic while the engineering types make up their minds. Currently, there is a strong likelihood that there are 2 ROM revs in our not-too-distant future: 1. Blitter ROMs ... for those who upgrade to blitter chip only. Timing for delivery should be in Spring '87 2. New improved ROMs ... for everyone, blitter or no, incorporating many additional fixes, speedups, and improvements over the current ROMs and the blitter ROMs. Timing for delivery -- later on :-). Please folks, relax. We really are aware of the problems and working on a solution. -- --->Neil Harris @ Atari...{hoptoad, lll-lcc, pyramid, imagen, sun}!atari!neil BIX: neilharris / CIS: 70007,1135 / Delphi: NEILHARRIS / GENIE: NHARRIS WELL: neil / Atari Corp. BBS 408-745-5308 / Usually the OFFICIAL Atari opinion
K538915@CZHRZU1A.BITNET.UUCP (03/11/87)
[Alex Leavens tells JMG@CERNVAX to order the dev kit in the USA...]
One would really think that the obvious way would be to order the
dev kit from Atari Switzerland (CERNVAX is in Switzerland). The problem
is that, they won't sell it to us (Physics Institute of the University
Zuerich), at last you find a few dumb .... (us) which are prepared to pay
>500 $ just to get some documentation + brain damaged C-compiler and then
Atari Switzerland tell us that it doesn't exist anymore (which we know is
not true of course (we haven't got that lucky yet)).
Simon
K538915@CZHRZU1A.BITNETK538915@CZHRZU1A.BITNET.UUCP (03/11/87)
[Alex Leavens asks who will not upgrade to the blitter]
Does your question imply that there will be a blitter upgrade for the
1040, 520 and 260 (before they become obsolete)? If that is so and the upgrade
is resonably priced, I will naturally buy a blitter upgrade....
Simon
K538915@CZHRZU1A.BITNETljdickey@water.UUCP (03/11/87)
In <620@atari.UUCP>, leavens@atari.UUCP (Alex Leavens) asks: > At this point I think we want your input. How many > of you _aren't_ going to upgrade to blitters, but still want the ROMS? What is a "blitter", and what difference will I notice if I get one? What bugs will be killed by new ROMS? What new features will the new ROMS have? -- L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo. ljdickey@water.UUCP ljdickey%water@waterloo.CSNET ljdickey%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA ljdickey@water.BITNET UUCP: ...!watmath!water!ljdickey
akw@osupyr.UUCP (03/11/87)
In article <620@atari.UUCP> leavens@atari.UUCP (Alex Leavens) writes: > There's been no final decision made on this--I think Leonard's comment >about "Leaving this up to marketing types" was more of a hedge than an actual >statement of intent. At this point I think we want your input. How many >of you _aren't_ going to upgrade to blitters, but still want the ROMS? I, for one, will be waiting with baited breath for the new ROMS and the blitters, given price boundaries (will the upgrade be ~$50-70(US) as the last ones were?) provided, of course, they are compatible with my stock, vanilla 520ST. Alex, a related question...is/will Atari support/be supporting an official RAM upgrade for us 512K owners (and those unfortunate 256K owners somewhere in EurAsia with 260STs) now or anytime in the future? | Andy Weaver --+-- akw%osupyr.uucp@cbatt.UUCP | The Ohio State University | Proverbs 25.25 1774 College Rd Cols, OH 43210 |
sansom@trwrb.UUCP (03/11/87)
In article <620@atari.UUCP> leavens@atari.UUCP (Alex Leavens) writes: >...At this point I think we want your input. How many >of you _aren't_ going to upgrade to blitters, but still want the ROMS? Hmmm. Without the blitter upgrade, what good _are_ these ROMs? I don't mean to sound negative, but it was my understanding that the ROMs you are talking about contain only the hooks needed by TOS to use the blitter (correct me if I'm wrong). I think most of us are waiting for the GEMDOS bug fixes before buying a new set of ROMs (at least I am). -Rich -- //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /// Richard E. Sansom TRW Electronics & Defense Sector \\\ \\\ {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!sansom Redondo Beach, CA /// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
leavens@atari.UUCP (03/11/87)
> I think that answer is easy: EVERYBODY wants new ROMs. In particular, when > the work is done to rewrite GEMDOS, in order to remove the 40 folder limit, > then I think EVERYONE will want to have, and will be ENTITLED to have, their > ROMs replaced. And NO one should have to get any sort of hardware upgrade (such > as the blitter) in order to get a debugged OS that they are entitled to by any > conventional standards today. Well, it was just a question.... <grin> I really think that what will happen is a set of two ROM releases: 1) The blitter ROMS, for use with the blitter (obviously, as soon as the blitter's available), 2) New, non-blit ROMS, with bug fixes, a little later on. Again, we here in the marketing department don't really have much say in this--although we certainly pass along your ideas and wants to the software team. I'll keep you informed as we get more info. --alex @ Atari BIX:alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS AtariCorp: 408-745-2006 "How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all."
leavens@atari.UUCP (03/11/87)
> [Alex Leavens asks who will not upgrade to the blitter] > Does your question imply that there will be a blitter upgrade for the > 1040, 520 and 260 (before they become obsolete)? If that is so and the upgrade > is resonably priced, I will naturally buy a blitter upgrade.... As far as I know we absolutely will be producing a blitter upgrade for the current ST's. I'd be _extremely_ surprised if we didn't. --alex @ Atari BIX:alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS AtariCorp: 408-745-2006 "How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all."
leavens@atari.UUCP (03/11/87)
> [Alex Leavens tells JMG@CERNVAX to order the dev kit in the USA...] > One would really think that the obvious way would be to order the > dev kit from Atari Switzerland (CERNVAX is in Switzerland). The problem > is that, they won't sell it to us (Physics Institute of the University > Zuerich), at last you find a few dumb .... (us) which are prepared to pay >>500 $ just to get some documentation + brain damaged C-compiler and then > Atari Switzerland tell us that it doesn't exist anymore (which we know is > not true of course (we haven't got that lucky yet)). Hmmm. I haven't really gotten used to the fact yet that I'm sometimes talking to people in other countries... (Actually, I've been accused of residing on another planet altogether, but that's a different story... <grin>). I'm kind of surprised that Atari Switzerland says that there isn't a DEVPAK--again, I think the thing to do would be contact Cindy Clavern at Atari US about the developer's kit, and explain the problem to her. She's very helpful. --alex @ Atari BIX:alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS AtariCorp: 408-745-2006 "How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all."
bammi@cwruecmp.UUCP (03/11/87)
In article <8703110109.AA15127@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> K538915@CZHRZU1A.BITNET writes: > + brain damaged C-compiler and then ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That certainly is NOT true. Alcyon C works quite well. It certainly is no speed deamon, nor does it produce the best code in the world, but it certainly produces CORRECT code, without any arbitrary limitations, which is certainly more than what i can say for the other two. Agreed the library had some erors, but fixes for most of these problems have been provided by many individuals here. In more than 90% of the cases i have come across, where people have been bitching about the compiler its been a case of "operator error". -- usenet: {decvax|cbatt|cbosgd}!cwruecmp!bammi jwahar r. bammi csnet: bammi@case arpa: bammi%case@csnet-relay compuServe: 71515,155
neil@atari.UUCP (03/12/87)
In article <1361@husc6.UUCP>, grunau_b@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (Justin J. M. Grunau) writes: > >> Will people who don't want to upgrade to the blitter be able to get > >> new debugged ROMS? I hope so... > > > > There's been no final decision made on this--I think Leonard's comment > >about "Leaving this up to marketing types" was more of a hedge than an actual > >statement of intent. At this point I think we want your input. How many > >of you _aren't_ going to upgrade to blitters, but still want the ROMS? > > > > I think that answer is easy: EVERYBODY wants new ROMs. In particular, when > the work is done to rewrite GEMDOS, in order to remove the 40 folder limit, > then I think EVERYONE will want to have, and will be ENTITLED to having, their > ROMs replaced. And NO one should have to get any sort of hardware upgrade (such > as the blitter) in order to get a debugged OS that they are entitled to by any > conventional standards today. You are making a big assumption here, Justin. My understanding is that the new ROMs for the blitters do in fact incorporate some small fixes, but certainly not the bigger ones the nice folks in netland have been crying for. The good news is that a later set of ROMs will be done which not only support the blitter, but also incorporate many more fixes, updates, speedups, etc. Those are the ones you *really* want. My feeling is that you really want the blitter. And if you *don't* want the blitter (it is a free country) you don't want the ROMs yet. Wait for the new improved ROMs, coming soon to a dealer near you. Finally, the message for the day is... CALM DOWN OUT THERE! You're getting hot and bothered by what was probably just an offhand remark, assuming that the quote was even accurate. -- --->Neil Harris, Director of Marketing Communications, Atari Corporation UUCP: ...{hoptoad, lll-lcc, pyramid, imagen, sun}!atari!neil BIX: neilharris / CIS: 70007,1135 / Delphi: NEILHARRIS / GENIE: NHARRIS WELL: neil / Atari Corp. BBS 408-745-5308 / Usually the OFFICIAL Atari opinion
engst@batcomputer.UUCP (03/12/87)
Alex talked about input on whether or not people will be wanting the blitter
chip as well as the ROMS or just the ROMS. Here is mine. I would like to
know exactly what the blitter chip will allow in terms of performance before
I would spend extra money money for one, although I would almost certainly
get the new ROMS. Alex, could you describe what the difference will be?
Thanks,
Adam Engst
engst@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edudillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (03/13/87)
The question is, "what are the features of this new blitter" ?? -Matt
leavens@atari.UUCP (03/14/87)
in article <88@osupyr.UUCP>, akw@osupyr.UUCP (FarOff MicroDesigns) says: > > Alex, a related question...is/will Atari support/be supporting an official > RAM upgrade for us 512K owners (and those unfortunate 256K owners somewhere > in EurAsia with 260STs) now or anytime in the future? > Don't know, but I tend to doubt it. There are already a large number of good inexpensive RAM upgrades available. --alex @ Atari BIX:alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS AtariCorp: 408-745-2006 "How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all."
leavens@atari.UUCP (03/14/87)
in article <1657@trwrb.UUCP>, sansom@trwrb.UUCP (Richard Sansom) says: > > Hmmm. Without the blitter upgrade, what good _are_ these ROMs? I don't > mean to sound negative, but it was my understanding that the ROMs you are > talking about contain only the hooks needed by TOS to use the blitter > (correct me if I'm wrong). I think most of us are waiting for the GEMDOS > bug fixes before buying a new set of ROMs (at least I am). The new ROMS will also incorporate bug fixes and some tightening up of code. They will work with either the blitter installed or not. --alex @ Atari BIX:alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS AtariCorp: 408-745-2006 "How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all."
leavens@atari.UUCP (03/14/87)
in article <849@water.UUCP>, ljdickey@water.UUCP says: > > What is a "blitter", and what difference will I notice if I get one? A blitter is a hardware co-processor dedicated to graphics. You'll notice about a 5 fold increase in the performance of many graphics operations with one installed. > What bugs will be killed by new ROMS? I'll have to get a list. I know that the underscore bug in the file selector's been fixed--I don't know what else. > What new features will the new ROMS have? Other than bug fixes and blitter support, none, as far as I know. --alex @ Atari BIX:alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS AtariCorp: 408-745-2006 "How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all."
leavens@atari.UUCP (03/14/87)
in article <409@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, engst@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Adam C. Engst) says: > > > I would like to > know exactly what the blitter chip will allow in terms of performance before > I would spend extra money money for one, although I would almost certainly > get the new ROMS. Alex, could you describe what the difference will be? The difference is that the graphics operations that used to be performed in software will now be performed in hardware, with a resulting increase in speed. This thing's _fast_. --alex @ Atari BIX:alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS AtariCorp: 408-745-2006 "How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all."
shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (03/14/87)
In article <655@atari.UUCP> leavens@atari.UUCP (Alex Leavens) writes: > The difference is that the graphics operations that used to be performed >in software will now be performed in hardware, with a resulting increase >in speed. This thing's _fast_. > >--alex @ Atari Is the blitter going to be invisible if you don't want to use it, so for instance Sublogic's Flight Simulator won't run 5 times faster (can you say "Cessna F-16"? :-) :-) ) stan shebs
ali@rocky.UUCP (03/15/87)
In article <4378@utah-cs.UUCP> shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) writes: >Is the blitter going to be invisible if you don't want to use it, so for >instance Sublogic's Flight Simulator won't run 5 times faster (can you >say "Cessna F-16"? :-) :-) ) I believe that the SubLogic people do everything via the 68000, and ignore any other hardware features. (For instance, they do not use the blitter on the Amiga.) This probably makes it easier for them to port it to all the 68000 machines, and this is probably why the user interface that comes with the Amiga and Atari versions are similar and does not follow the machine's own user-interface standards. (I'm not sure if this is correct at all, but this is what I heard from someone who was not sure himself...) Ali Ozer, ali@rocky.stanford.edu
ljdickey@water.UUCP (03/15/87)
> > What is a "blitter", and what difference will I notice if I get one? > A blitter is a hardware co-processor dedicated to graphics. > > What bugs will be killed by new ROMS? > ... the underscore bug in the file selector's been fixed ... I vote for: *One* new ROM, that will correct the current list of known problems, and which will support the blitter, as an option. Everyone should get the new ROM. Upgrade to blitter should be one chip add on. The fact that the ROM is biltter ready should encourage sales of blitter. Keep inventory list short. Two different ROM upgrades is one too many. -- L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo. ljdickey@water.UUCP ljdickey%water@waterloo.CSNET ljdickey%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA ljdickey@water.BITNET UUCP: ...!watmath!water!ljdickey
sansom@trwrb.UUCP (Richard Sansom) (03/16/87)
In article <4378@utah-cs.UUCP> shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) writes: >Is the blitter going to be invisible if you don't want to use it, so for >instance Sublogic's Flight Simulator won't run 5 times faster (can you >say "Cessna F-16"? :-) :-) ) Unless I'm mistaken, Bruce Artwick & Co. (SubLogic) wrote all of their own graphics routines for the ST version of Flight Simulator II, therefore there should be no "Cessna F-16" performance from a blittered ST. -Rich -- //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ /// Richard E. Sansom TRW Electronics & Defense Sector \\\ \\\ {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!trwrb!sansom Redondo Beach, CA /// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
ericr@hpvcla.HP.COM (Eric Ross) (03/16/87)
With their experience on all the multitude of IBM clones at varying clock speeds, I would hope that Flight Simulator will keep track of real time and produce as many refreshes as possible within the real-time quantum. Therefore, the blitter should in theory just cause more refreshes, but not more airplane motion in a given second. Incidentally, my Cessna on my HP-Vectra(AT clone at 8 Mhz) runs at the same speed as on an IBM-PC at 4.5? Mhz with many more refreshes/second. Eric Ross Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA (Home of the Thinkjet and Quietjet printers) UUCP: ihnp4!hpfcla!hpvcla!ericr CIS: 72347,2664 GEnie: E.ROSS Phone: (206)254-8110
leavens@atari.UUCP (Alex Leavens) (03/17/87)
in article <4378@utah-cs.UUCP>, shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) says: > > Is the blitter going to be invisible if you don't want to use it, so for > instance Sublogic's Flight Simulator won't run 5 times faster (can you > say "Cessna F-16"? :-) :-) ) Yes, there will be a an easy way to turn it off if the software that you're running goes a little too fast with it on... <grin> --alex @ Atari BIX:alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS AtariCorp: 408-745-2006 "How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all."
barkley@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (Bill Barkley) (03/17/87)
In article <409@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> engst@batcomputer.UUCP (Adam C. Engst) writes: > >Alex talked about input on whether or not people will be wanting the blitter >chip as well as the ROMS or just the ROMS. Here is mine... > Adam Engst > Here is mine. I want the blitter. I want the blitter. I want the blitter... (etc.) B2 --- Bill Barkley ...!ucbvax!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!barkley NCR Corp., E&M-Columbia ...!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!ncrcae!barkley ncrcae.ncr.com
koster@msudoc.UUCP (04/01/87)
In article <639@atari.UUCP> leavens@atari.UUCP writes: > Well, it was just a question.... <grin> > > I really think that what will happen is a set of two ROM releases: > > 1) The blitter ROMS, for use with the blitter (obviously, as soon > as the blitter's available), > > 2) New, non-blit ROMS, with bug fixes, a little later on. > > Again, we here in the marketing department don't really have much say >in this--although we certainly pass along your ideas and wants to the >software team. I'll keep you informed as we get more info Well, I don't want to sound unappreciative, but some of us are getting a little tired of waiting for the blitters. mightn't it be possible to put out the ROM's with the bug fixes FIRST, and put out the other set with the blitter if [did I say if? Should I be so optimistic to say when? Naaah!] it comes out? Just a thought... -koster [ihnp4!msudoc!koster] {Insert your favorite disclaimer here.}