DAVIDLI@simvax.BITNET.UUCP (03/03/87)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 10:30 CST
From: <DAVIDLI@SIMVAX.BITNET> (System Manager)
Subject: hardware 'upgrades'
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
X-Original-To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu, DAVIDLI
I've been reading the comments of people who seem quite angry that Atari
isn't instantly providing them with a means to upgrade their 520ST/1040ST to
some 'new' version. I'd like to provide those folks with a history lesson
about the nature of 'upgrades' in microcomputing ...
My first microcomputer was a Quest ELF. I had to solder it together myself.
It had a whole 256 bytes of memory, which was quite enough when you consider
that I had to key in programs in hexadecimal. The only way I could upgrade
this machine was to purchase additional hardware. Eventually, I had 4 kilobytes
of memory, a typewriter keypad, an actual language (Tiny-BASIC) and* a black-
and-white monitor bought surplus. My total investment was roughly equivalent
to the price of a 520ST with monochrome monitor.
Then I spotted an Apple ][ (back in pre-color days). I 'upgraded' my ELF by
selling it to another hacker and purchased an Apple ][+, with 16 kilobytes of
memory. After several 'upgrades', I had 64 kilobytes of memory, a lower-case
modification, a modem (300 baud), a color TV, an Amber monitor, a printer and
lots* of software. The investment, including software, would have paid for a
1040ST with color monitor and a (new Atari) laser printer.
I was a BIG Apple fan. :-)
Then the most terrible thing happened. Apple came out with the //e. The
ONLY way for me to upgrade to a //e was to sell my ][+ and purchase a //e.
What did I get for my upgrade? More keys to type on, a few changes in the
operating system (which was NOT available for the ][+ in a changed ROM),
80 columns, 128K of memory ... minor changes. ALMOST ALL of the software I
already had worked well with the new machine. This 'upgrade' would have paid
for a 1040ST with color monitor and a Color Ink-Jet printer.
About the same time, IBM came out with their first microcomputer. The
IBM-PC had 16K of memory, upgradeable to 64K of memory. No, I didn't ever
purchase an IBM, but since that time I've seen the rise of the IBM-PC mark II,
with up to 512K on the motherboard, the XT, the AT. NONE of these machines
was upgradeable. You sold your old one and bought a new one. But, funny
thing, most programs that would run on an IBM-PC would also run on an IBM-XT.
Some even run on the IBM-AT. Hardware changed, but the software stayed
generic enough to cross over to the new systems. IBM has been doing very well
with their microcomputer line. If software on the PC didn't run on the XT (and
vice-versa), that particular computer line would be an historical footnote.
The LISA came out from Apple. Then the Macintosh -- Apple's answer
to the IBM PC-jr. (The Macintosh was to the LISA what the PC-jr was to the PC).
These were also the first truly expensive 'closed architecture' machines. When
Apple came out with the 'new-improved' Macintosh, at a cost LOWER than the
original Macintosh and less than a year after its initial release, well,
naturally the early owners screamed bloody murder. And Apple obliged them by
providing a 'new-improved' motherboard for roughly 1/2 the cost of the new
machine. This 'upgrade' would have paid for a 520ST with a color monitor.
I understand that LISA owners (who paid upwards of $6000 for their machines)
could 'downgrade' them to a Macintosh ... the only case where you can actually
LOSE money in getting a more widely used machine. :-) & :-(
Some other systems of note which did NOT provide such 'upgrades' include
Tandy, Sinclair, Commodore (VIC-20 to C64 to C128), Atari (400 to 800 to 800XL
to 135XE...), Data General, Grid, Epson, etc., etc., etc.
There are two threads here. First, the software for the truly successful
microcomputers ran across the entire computer line. COMPATIBILITY is a key
issue. We have every right to ask Atari to provide software compatible
machines. Indeed, if Atari has any business sense at all they will do
everything possible to ensure such compatibility. So should those of us who
are currently writing software. The blitter chip/ROM upgrade is feasible, and
a wise move on Atari's part.
Second, manufacturers are under NO obligation to provide new hardware to
purchasers of their old hardware. For instance, there is no way that current
Macintosh owners are going to upgrade their current machines to the new color
workstations. They'll have to buy new machines. We shouldn't blame Atari
for not providing us with upgraded machines. Especially when those new
machines are not even on the shelves yet... Upgrading is OUR responsibility,
at whatever cost we feel is necessary to our health and well-being.
Personally, I can live with 2-4 megabytes stashed in a 1040ST. I don't need
16 megabyte capability. If I ever need that much memory, I'll consider
purchasing a NEW computer.
-- David Meile
Send interesting comments to INFO-ATARI16.
Send FLAMES to davidli@simvax.bitnet.pes@bath63.UUCP (03/06/87)
Or, to pick a popular 'right-now' comparison: My information is that Commodore have explicitly stated that they will *not* provide upgrades to ROM for their loyal customers who bought the early Amigas with the system on disk. So, if you're really ticked off at Atari's upgrade policies, sure, go somewhere else. Send me your used ST, cause I think Atari's upgrade policy is no worse than any other I've seen the last 20 years. But you'd be advised to really look hard before you leap...
robinson@renoir.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (03/08/87)
In article <831@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes: >Or, to pick a popular 'right-now' comparison: > >My information is that Commodore have explicitly stated that they will >*not* provide upgrades to ROM for their loyal customers who bought the >early Amigas with the system on disk. I personally don't know anyone who would consider this an upgrade. True, there are some who do, but not enough to make it worth Commodore's time. The ROM image on disk makes for easy software upgrades, without locking the user out of software that relied on buggy early versions of the operating system. How many programs out there would be broken if the Atari ROMs got fixed? Are people who get upgrades going to take apart their computer every time they want to run that software? The bugs in the Atari ROM are real bugs, the Amiga Kickstart is a feature. And not only does Commodore provide operating system updates for almost nothing, they are more than happy to provide anyone with detailed instructions on how to upgrade to a ROM system themselves, if they so desire. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "If you study the logistics and heuristics of the mystics, You will find that their minds rarely move in a line" Fifty percent of everything is below average. Mike Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu
hatcher@INGRES.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (03/08/87)
In article <831@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk>, Paul Smee says: >My information is that Commodore have explicitly stated that they will >*not* provide upgrades to ROM for their loyal customers who bought the >early Amigas with the system on disk. Not exactly. Commodore has provided the new upgraded software for a nominal $15 charge, which seems reasonable. What you are thinking of is the *hardware* upgrade of putting this software in ROM rather than the default RAM. Commodore does not ship systems with this option, nor sell such an upgrade. There are third party manufacturers who do provide this enhancement. There are advantages (extra memory & fast boot) and disadvantages (more difficult to upgrade to still later software) to having this stuff in ROM, but keep in mind that the tradeoffs are slightly different than with the ST. The Amiga has an extra memory board for this boot software, so you are not penalized for having it in RAM rather than in ROM. Quite the opposite: it is a nice *bonus* to get that extra RAM if you get the 3rd party ROM upgrade. So a 512K Amiga is actually a 768K Amiga, the way I understand it, but that extra 256K is usually invisible (without the upgrade). Doug
ali@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Ali Ozer) (03/08/87)
In article <831@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> Paul Smee writes: >Or, to pick a popular 'right-now' comparison: >My information is that Commodore have explicitly stated that they will >*not* provide upgrades to ROM for their loyal customers who bought the >early Amigas with the system on disk. Earliest Amigas came with 1.0, later ones came with 1.1, and now they come with 1.2, all on disk. Commodore made alpha and beta versions of the OS available to the developers and anyone else who wanted them; they were shipping new releases every few weeks at one point. Right now anyone who wants to can go and purchase a 3-disk 1.2 operating system can do so; this "Enhancer" kit (as it is known) comes with a ~100 page manual describing the updates, includes some new (and very nice) utilities, the 1.2 version of AmigaBasic, and costs only $15 --- Very reasonable. Commodore incorporated a lot of the wishes of the Amiga community into 1.2, and they also fixed the bugs of 1.0 and 1.1. There are also a lot of performance improvements. Amiga 2000 will be shipping with the same version of 1.2, but in ROM. Thus all Amiga users will have 1.2, some in ROM, some in disk. Amiga 1000 owners who wish to have their OS in ROM can go and purchase third-party kits that allow them to do so. As a Amiga 1000 owner I am excited about the A2000, and in no way feel that Commodore is forgetting about the A1000 owners, even if they discontinue the A1000 someday. After all, we've got the same OS, and the differences in hardware can be remedied by boards that fit on the A1000 expansion. Ali Ozer, decwrl!rocky.stanford.edu!ali, ali@score.stanford.edu
grunau_b@husc4.UUCP (03/08/87)
In article <831@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> pes@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes: > >Or, to pick a popular 'right-now' comparison: > >My information is that Commodore have explicitly stated that they will >*not* provide upgrades to ROM for their loyal customers who bought the >early Amigas with the system on disk. > >So, if you're really ticked off at Atari's upgrade policies, sure, go somewhere >else. Send me your used ST, cause I think Atari's upgrade policy is no worse >than any other I've seen the last 20 years. But you'd be advised to really >look hard before you leap... *sigh* We're not talking about "upgrades". We're talking about "bug fixes". The forty folder limit is not an acceptable feature of any machine. A ROM OS that has such a bug should be replaced, either free or at a minimal charge. That is an ENTIRELY separate thing from an UPGRADE! Enough mixing up of the two, ok? grunau@husc4.UUCP or --- !seismo----- \ --- !rutgers----- !husc6!husc4!grunau / --- !decvax!ihnp4 or BITNET hostname is "harvsc4"; ARPA address is grunau@husc4.harvard.edu.
engst@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Adam C. Engst) (03/08/87)
While I agree entirely that having the ROM image on disk makes it very easy
to uprade, it also chews up a great deal of disk space in most cases. I
detest having to boot with a disk other than the one I wish to use, and I
detest even more having to put (in the case of the Mac) a 400 and some K
system folder on the stupid thing just to get it to boot and print. I love
having all my Atari disks boot without wasting space, and I personally am
willing to wait longer for upgrades because of this. I admit that I don't
know exactly how the Amiga works in this regard, but everything I've been
hearing has pointed towards it being similar to the Mac.
Adam Engst
engst@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu
pv9y@cornella.bitnetkgschlueter@watrose.UUCP (03/08/87)
(poster mentions that Commodore will not be offering ROM upgrades to early amiga owners as evidence that Atari isn't the only one) I'm afraid that you are misrepresenting the facts here. You seem to be implying that early Amiga owners are stuck with buggy ROMS, which will not be ugraded by Commodore. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that the early Amigas had only minimal ROMS -- just enough to load the KickStart disk into memory. Two new versions of the KickStart disk have been released, fixing most of the bugs in the Amiga's system software. What Commodore might be saying (and I haven't heard this) is that they will not offer to put the system software in ROM in the early Amigas -- that is owners of early Amigas will have to continue to use the KickStart disk or find a third party to get the ROMS (such a third party does exist). I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying, but I think I probably wasn't the only one.
rjd@nancy.UUCP (03/09/87)
Kudos to David Meile --- he speaks the truth...
...the first micro that I got my hands on was the old Apple ][, followed
closely by the old TRS-80 Model I and the original Commodore Pet. (A whopping
6K of memory and a cassette recorder data storage system...)
...have any of you even thought what you would *do* with 4 Meg?
- Rob DeMillo
Brown University - Planetary Science Group
UUCP: ...{seismo!harpo}!ihnp4!brunix!rjd
BITNET: GE702000@BROWNVM
SPAN: To Be Announced
CompuServe: 73537,2737
GENie: To Be Announced
------
"...I am not so sure what you want me for!
Either your machine is a fool, or me..." -- "WarGames", CSN
ali@rocky.STANFORD.EDU (Ali Ozer) (03/09/87)
In article <369@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> Adam C. Engst writes: > >While I agree entirely that having the ROM image on disk makes it very easy >to uprade, it also chews up a great deal of disk space in most cases. >I don't know exactly how the Amiga works in this regard, but everything >I've been hearing has pointed towards it being similar to the Mac. > Adam Engst Amiga's OS lies in a disk of its own, known as the "kickstart" disk. When you turn the system on, you stick in the kickstart disk, and the OS is loaded from the disk into 256 kilobytes of "protected" memory. I say "protected," because it is impossible for your software to do anything to this memory space. Thus, once the OS is loaded, as long as you don't turn your Amiga off (and you can reset the Amiga fully without turning it off) the OS remains in the machine and doesn't have to be reloaded. I have some friends who haven't kickstarted their machines in weeks. I agree with you - putting the 256 k OS in a disk with applications would've been real horrible. As it is, "cold boot" takes an extra few seconds, but you have all of 880 k free on your application disks. Ali Ozer, ali@rocky.stanford.edu
braner@batcomputer.UUCP (03/12/87)
[]
> ... have you ever thought of what you would *do* with 4 megs?
- I could run a multi-tasking shell. The main advantage of that is that
I will get to type in a _password_ when logging in to my _personal_computer_!
(ARGHHH!!!)
(Alternatively, I might spend the $250 on a used 520ST to run the long
number-crunching programs on while I edit/compile on my main ST...)
(Has anybody developed a method to run one ST as a 'slave' from another?
The MIDI ports seem ideal for that, and ideally the slave ST would not
need a disk drive nor a monitor (for text-only output).)
Seriously now: 1 meg is just right for me now, but I'm _sure_ 4 megs would
be useful! 4 megs of _protected_ RAM would be even better! (an external,
protected, _huge_ RAMdisk with it's own power and bootable...)
- Moshe Braner