ref0070@ritcv.UUCP (Bob Fortin) (11/06/86)
How does the documentation from Megemax C compare to the Developers Kit. Does it just explain the function calls, or is it more complete documentation. ps. along the same line, what is the latest status of the ATARI Documentation package. Thanks, Bob Fortin
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (01/29/87)
Keywords: In article <544@atari.UUCP> apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes: > >Use the Developer Support phone number provided in your documentation. > Oh, you mean the documentation that one can't get unless one purchases undesired software at exorbitant (well, at least *unreasonable*) prices? Tell me again how Atari supports developers. All kidding aside (:-), any revamped estimates for when the "official" documentation will be available to us mere consumers? The last estimate I heard was from many months ago, and was "around Christmas." I figure you Atarians should at least have a better estimate by now. Thank you for your support (;-). -- - Joel Plutchak uucp: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster ARPA: oyster@unix.macc.wisc.edu BITNET: plutchak@wiscmacc Disclaimer: If subpoenaed, the U of W will disavow all knowledge of my actions.
daryl@ihlpe.UUCP (01/31/87)
> >Use the Developer Support phone number provided in your documentation. > Oh, you mean the documentation that one can't get unless one purchases > undesired software at exorbitant (well, at least *unreasonable*) prices? > Tell me again how Atari supports developers. (I saw the 8-), but still... ) I have been watching this for a few days. I am amazed (not necessarily at the above author, but it was a convenient followup article) on how many people are unwilling to purchase the ATARI package but feel that they somehow deserve free information. If the information ATARI provides has some value, then each of us must evaluate ATARI's asking price with our perceived value of it. When we decide that other software is a better value, then OK, but we should expect that software to provide the necessary documentation. I do, however, believe that ATARI should unbundle the machine detailed documentation from the various development packages. disclaimer: I own an ATARI, own stock in ATARI, and am extremely biased in favor of ATARI...... Daryl Monge UUCP: ...!ihnp4!iheds!dlm AT&T CIS: 72717,65 Bell Labs, Naperville, Ill AT&T 312-979-3603
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (02/02/87)
In article <1511@ihlpe.UUCP> daryl@ihlpe.UUCP (Daryl Monge) writes: >> >Use the Developer Support phone number provided in your documentation. >> Oh, you mean the documentation that one can't get unless one purchases >> undesired software at exorbitant (well, at least *unreasonable*) prices? >> Tell me again how Atari supports developers. > >(I saw the 8-), but still... ) >I have been watching this for a few days. I have been watching this newsgroup since its inception. > I am amazed (not necessarily >at the above author, but it was a convenient followup article) on how many >people are unwilling to purchase the ATARI package but feel that they >somehow deserve free information. I am amazed that somebody could read the word "free" into the discussion. As the person you so conveniently followed up, I can assure you that I *never* said anything about free information, nor do I expect unreasonable things of Atari. However, there are a few things you may want to keep in mind. First off, I pay for a commercial information service, mostly to keep up with ST news, products, and technical tips, so money isn't so much of an issue with me. Secondly, what I and others frequently get annoyed about is the attitude shown by Atari (as a corporation, not *necessarily* by certain personnel) regarding basic machine information. Example: somebody mentions that hard drive brand "X" can be interfaced with the ST if you write a driver which correctly interprets the port's signals. We immediately are subjected to a harangue from Atari personnel like "if you think we're going to support brand X you're out of your mind!" All we ask is a little information, not major support of brand X. And lastly, we would all be quite pleased to be able to give Atari appropriate compensation for good hardware and OS documentation. But I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a compiler, assembler, kermit, etc., which I will not use. The bundling policy *may* have had merit when the machine was new-- it served to encourage serious commercial software developers to produce some software to help sell the machine. Now, the lack of reasonable access to official documentation can only hurt sales, especially with all the quality software options available. > If the information ATARI provides has >some value, then each of us must evaluate ATARI's asking price with our >perceived value of it. When we decide that other software is a better >value, then OK, but we should expect that software to provide the necessary >documentation. This isn't merely software documentation. It's hardware and OS documentation that involves the internal workings of the computer. How many compilers (or other software, for that matter) do you know of that come complete with in-depth information concerning the target machine? The documentation we'd like to see has no bearing on any particular language, software, hardware, or use. It's *basic* information about a product which we all legally own. So spare us the indignation. >disclaimer: I own an ATARI, own stock in ATARI, and am extremely biased > in favor of ATARI...... Then why don't you support their supporting the ST intelligently? -- - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster) Disclaimer: The above, unless otherwise labeled, constitutes personal opinion.
rjd@nancy.UUCP (02/04/87)
In article <1511@ihlpe.UUCP> daryl@ihlpe.UUCP (Daryl Monge) writes: >> >Use the Developer Support phone number provided in your documentation. >> Oh, you mean the documentation that one can't get unless one purchases >> undesired software at exorbitant (well, at least *unreasonable*) prices? >> Tell me again how Atari supports developers. > >(I saw the 8-), but still... ) > >I have been watching this for a few days. I am amazed (not necessarily >at the above author, but it was a convenient followup article) on how many >people are unwilling to purchase the ATARI package but feel that they >somehow deserve free information. If the information ATARI provides has >some value, then each of us must evaluate ATARI's asking price with our >perceived value of it. When we decide that other software is a better >value, then OK, but we should expect that software to provide the necessary >documentation. > >I do, however, believe that ATARI should unbundle the machine detailed >documentation from the various development packages. > >Daryl Monge UUCP: ...!ihnp4!iheds!dlm I am amazed at how many people never read articles all the way through before complaining. The original poster was not talking about getting the documentation from Atari for free, that would be silly. But he was complaining about Atari bundling their documentation together with a fairly poor C Complier and tools, thereby forcing the public to make the purchase of the extra complier to get the documentation. To add insult to injury, Atari then sets up a Country Club of these "developer's" so that they can get information that the rest of us are apparently not "entitled" to, even though we bought the machine. (That's a little like selling a computer without an operating system... you get the machine, but can't make full use of it.) Even IBM does not operate that way. The equivalent of Atari's "developers documentation" is the IBM Technical Reference manual...which you can purchase from IBM for a scant $50.00 (without an un-needed or unwanted language bundled in). In addition, I can call IBM tech reps and ask them pretty much anything I want about their various machines. (Everything within the copyright laws, that is.) Since the ST sells for such a low price, I cannot expect Atari to pick up the overhead of free documentation, but I also never expected them to resort to the method they obviously prefer. - Rob DeMillo Brown University - Planetary Science Group UUCP: ...{seismo!harpo}!ihnp4!brunix!rjd CompuServe: 73537,2737 ------ "...I am not so sure what you want me for! Either your machine is a fool, or me..." -- "WarGames", CSN
oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (02/17/87)
<>
In my original message, I requested any news of when the long-awaited ST
documentation would be available unbundled from the Dev kit. I got no
response from anybody, either semi-official or pure rampant rumour.
If you recall, the last word from the folks at atari was last October,
when they said it would be out "in a couple months, around Christmas."
Well, last night I was scanning through BIX news and files (where you can
get such useful items as Neochrome pictures of Neil Harris and family),
and came upon a note from Neil dated December 23 (around Christmas...)
saying that it would be out "in a couple months." Well, it's been a couple
months. Is it's release indeed imminent, or will it be, in the great
tradition of the computer industry, always "a couple months" away?
Why do I get the feeling that something *really* nasty will happen to us
pioneers, like having the documentation bundled with the new machines, but
otherwise unavailable?
On a related note, that crack about the Ferrari was not only in extremely
bad taste, but it wasn't even an apt analogy. More fitting would be having
Sam spend our hard-earned ST profits on a Ferrari which came with a faulty
carburetor (and no owners manual, natch :-), and then having the dealer
express dismay when he asked about getting one that functioned properly.
--
- Joel Plutchak
uucp: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
ARPA: oyster@unix.macc.wisc.edu
BITNET: plutchak@wiscmacc
Disclaimer:
If subpoenaed, the U of W will disavow all knowledge of my actions.pes@bath63.UUCP (03/31/87)
The following was meant to be for Richard Sansom, as a followup to
the NAG 2 questionnaire which I sent him. However, it got bounced
by a mailer somewhere along the line. Since I think it ought to
be brought to the attention of Atari, I've put it here. (I've
already mentioned this to an Atari(UK) contact as well.) I'd just
add the note from my original mailing to the effect that, for the
user population I'm thinking of, 'buy the developer's kit' is not
the answer. (And, given the response I got when I contacted
Atari(UK) about it about a year ago, it would be like pulling teeth
to get them to sell you one anyway -- and with some fairly obnoxious
strings attached.)
**** Original message follows ****
If you got my NAG 2 answers, you'll have noticed my flame about
documentation. While I mean every word of it, I thought a bit more
background might help put it into perspective.
The problem is really one of intense personal frustration. I *like* the
ST. I'd like to see more people using it. Because of my position in
our Computer Center, people often ask me for advice when they are
contemplating buying a personal computer of some sort. At present,
though, and primarily because of the lack of proper documentation, I can
only honestly recommend the ST to two classes of user: the incredibly
naive ones, who want to buy a machine and a software package, load and
go, and never want to go beyond that; and the dedicated hackers, who are
willing to spend hours puzzling things out for themselves, and probably
even prefer it that way as a matter of pride.
However, most people I come into contact with are not in either of those
extreme groups. They want to write their own programs (at least to some
extent), but they don't want to have to spend millenia trying to find
the hooks and handles which will allow them to make use of the support
which is potentially provided by the system. I cannot in honesty or
good faith recommend the ST to anyone in this large category; and
everytime I have to suggest that someone would be better off with an
IBMclone or a BBC Master because they'll be able to find out how to use
it, it TICKS ME OFF, because I know the ST would be a better machine,
but there's no document I can recommend to them which would let them
make use of it.
I've seen most of (and bought many of) the 'third party' documents, and
so far they all seem either to be trivial, or (while having the right
idea) inaccurate (usually in the same ways -- must have sprung from a
common source), or incomplete. (Or, even worse, some combination of the
three.) (The new Sybex book on GEM *may* be an exception -- but as it
is about 'proper' GEM, and Atari GEM is a subset, I'm not sure yet.)
Cheers, Paul