Rumor - Falcon w/PowerPC
jyou...@delphi.com
the Falcon. He said that Atari have liscensed the hardware to a third
party and that there was ideas about putting a PowerPC Falcon onto the
market. Is this a substantiated rumor or just smoke circles?
jyou...@delphi.com
STIR...@maine.maine.edu
based on the PowerPC (this was in Current Notes Magazine, I
believe). It seems to me that Wizztronics is too small a
company to actually make a Power PC Falcon.... design it
maybe, but market it? Anyone know if there is any truth to
his rumor.
Also, there is the old rumor that Atari _has_ a Power PC Falcon
and demoed it somewhere. Anyone know about that?
-scott tirrell
Tommi Hietavuo TKKK
> A new PPC Falcon would be even worse than the current PowerMacs.
> *Every* application you ran would be emulated, and there'd be no native
> software coming out.
I quite agree on that - even though some native code software would probably
come out, too.. But why change the camp, when we have MC 68060..???
That thing is bloody fast, relatively cheap (some say..) especially compared to
far too expensive 68040, and more or less compatible to current software.
Fortunately, Atari has no Windows, nor System 7 (well, I don't like Macs at
all) to slow things down. Put MagiC OS into a 68060 Falcon - and there we have
one quite nice computer, I think =-) !
Tommi
Steve Woodford
>come out, too.. But why change the camp, when we have MC 68060..???
>That thing is bloody fast, relatively cheap (some say..) especially compared to
>far too expensive 68040, and more or less compatible to current software.
>Fortunately, Atari has no Windows, nor System 7 (well, I don't like Macs at
>all) to slow things down. Put MagiC OS into a 68060 Falcon - and there we have
>one quite nice computer, I think =-) !
<cringe> Reminds me of the old adage of a company coming out with a new
computer that fits on your wrist, runs rings around a cray, but the
first question people ask is "But does it run DOS?"
I can assure you that if I had a machine with a 68060 in it, I wouldn't
be running TOS/GEM on the thing!
Cheers, Steve
--
Home page under construction:
http://www.eskimo.com/~bug/
Sander Stoks
>In <CynK5...@eskimo.com> b...@eskimo.com writes:
>> >come out, too.. But why change the camp, when we have MC 68060..???
>> >That thing is bloody fast, relatively cheap (some say..) especially compared to
>> >far too expensive 68040, and more or less compatible to current software.
>>
>> >Fortunately, Atari has no Windows, nor System 7 (well, I don't like Macs at
>> >all) to slow things down. Put MagiC OS into a 68060 Falcon - and there we have
>> >one quite nice computer, I think =-) !
>>
>> <cringe> Reminds me of the old adage of a company coming out with a new
>> computer that fits on your wrist, runs rings around a cray, but the
>> first question people ask is "But does it run DOS?"
>>
>> I can assure you that if I had a machine with a 68060 in it, I wouldn't
>> be running TOS/GEM on the thing!
>So what would you run on it ? System 7 ? Linux? CP/M ;-) ?
>People in the USA seem lo love the Mac - one thing I'll probably never
>understand... After using a nicer OS (TOS 4). But as they say, there are many
>different tastes. I like TOS/GEM, even with its problems - and I'm expecting
>that the new MagiC might be just what I need...
>Well - many people use Atari computers, because they (like me) think that
>they're a joy to use. Mostly... So, why wouldn't the same people want a
>computer that is a joy to use - and FAST ? =-)
>Greetings,
>Tommi (disbeliever in REAL computers :-)
I read in this month's ST Computer that the Medusa T60 (guess what
processor is inside that one :-) is ready, and that some company is
working on accelerator boards for *any* ST, incorporating 030, 040 or
even 060's. The 030 board would be <300$.
I would certainly like a 060 in my Falcon. Wow.
Regards,
Sander SToks.
--
/* san...@sci.kun.nl */ main(){char*c="2$$,$$2CD$45$$,$$5(D$4%$$,$$%(D$4%J*/K*%(K,K2MMPL%2HLH,4LLLL$4HLF$4RLLS$4HL%;5MLLD$5HL&<5MLPL$5HLHL2R,/K$2(K,+";
int i=0,j,k;for(;i<10;i++){for(j=0;j<11;j++)for(k=0;k<6;)putchar(c[11*i+j]-36&1<<k++&&j*6+k<65?'#':' ');putchar(10);}} /* ATARI Falcon030 */
jyou...@delphi.com
>different tastes. I like TOS/GEM, even with its problems - and I'm expecting
>that the new MagiC might be just what I need...
version than 2.0 coming out? I haven't heard any whispering...
jyou...@delphi.com
jyou...@delphi.com
>I read in this month's ST Computer that the Medusa T60 (guess what
>processor is inside that one :-) is ready, and that some company is
>working on accelerator boards for *any* ST, incorporating 030, 040 or
>even 060's. The 030 board would be <300$.
stock ST. The addition of a board to allow 256 colors would be a
tremendous breath of life to the ST line...
jyou...@delphi.com
Pekka Saarinen
>I would certainly like a 060 in my Falcon. Wow.
Here's something while you wait for it....
[this message is a copy from a message sent to the cubase-users
mailing list (Nov 4 1994 from Michael Kelsey) ]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ I just recently talked with a person at Wizztronics --- I was ]
[ inquiring about their rack-mount case for the Falcon. He told me ]
[ Wizztronics focus is the music end and that they hope to have their ]
[ 040 board for the Falcon out in a few months. He surprised me by ]
[ stating that they had been in contact with Steinberg because their ]
[ every intent is that the 040 WILL BE compatible with Cubase. He said]
[ the Falcon with the 040 /Cubase Audio in 16 colors was superfast!! ]
[ ]
[ I would post Wizztronic's phone number but I seem to have misplaced ]
[ it for now.............................. ]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So, who has Wizztronics' FAX-number??
Best Regards,
----Pekka Saarinen
Member of the Finnish Radio Symphony Orchestra (Playin' the Bass!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Falcon030/16MbRAM/FPU/ScreenwonderPro/MAG17"Multisync/FDI/Steinbergs
CubaseAudioForFalcon(CAF)2.01/LotsOfMidistuff/200YearsOldBass/Beer!!
PfretzschnerBow/AnOldWolksvagenGolf/BigBedWithFuton/&LivesInHelsinki
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Ridd
MagiC 3.0 is due later this year (hm, there's not much of it left now :-)
--
--Chris
Other email addresses:
X.400: g=chris;s=ridd;o=nhs imc;ou1=cosit;a=attmail;p=nhs imc;c=gb
Cix: chrisridd@cix
jyou...@delphi.com
>>In response to your comments about the new MagiC...Is there a newer
>>version than 2.0 coming out? I haven't heard any whispering...
>
>MagiC 3.0 is due later this year (hm, there's not much of it left now :-)
jyou...@delphi.com
John Townsend
Hietavuo TKKK) wrote:
And who in the world would buy it? The rest of the world demands a stable
software base on top of an operating system that is feature rich and reasonably
stable. TOS (or MagiC or whatever its called) still doesn't have long
filenames,
networking, decent user-interface capabilities, email support, etc. Customers
in the real world demand these sorts of features for their work/business.
What the hell good is a really fast piece of hardware that is hard to find, hard
to buy, and has NO SOFTWARE available for it?
Sure, the computer you described would probably sell to a couple hundred
hacker types throughout the world. That hardly makes a business case.
If you enjoy using the machine you have now.. great. Continue to enjoy it.
But if you think anyone else out there is going to put more money into
developing new Atari computers, you are wasting your time. There is no
money to be made there. The PC clones and lower price Macs have taken
any advantage that an Atari computer possibly had.
Don't get me wrong.. I am still jazzed about Atari. But I think they have a
good shot with the Jaguar machine. But, the computer products.. they
are dead.
Its time to wake up people.. Atari's computer products are now antiques.
Instead of finding Falcon and TT machines in your local dealer, you will
soon be able to find them at your local swap meets, garage sales, and
flea markets. The Atari ST computer line is following directly in the footsteps
of its older realitives... The Commodore 64 and the Atari 800.
Welcome to the Past, folks. I hope you enjoy your stay here.
--
-- John Townsend "I want something, I just don't
Taligent, Inc. know what it is!"
Disclaimer: I don't speak for Taligent, I speak for myself.
Chris Herborth
>Speaking of upgrades, why is there no graphics board available for a
>stock ST. The addition of a board to allow 256 colors would be a
>tremendous breath of life to the ST line...
Where you would put it? What would you connect it to?
--
-------------------======================================-------------------
||| Jaguar 64-bit cher...@semprini.waterloo-rdp.on.ca
/ | \ DO THE MATH Chris Herborth
Rob Schmersel,5215,9768
>Speaking of upgrades, why is there no graphics board available for a
>stock ST. The addition of a board to allow 256 colors would be a
>tremendous breath of life to the ST line...
But there is, even one for the DIY people among us. Have a look at a file called:
vofa??.lzh
If you cann't find it on a.a.u.e then have a look at ftp.tu-clausthal.de.
BTW vofa stands for VolksFarben (or in english color for the people)
Regards
/Rob
Hutch
>
>Its time to wake up people.. Atari's computer products are now antiques.
>Instead of finding Falcon and TT machines in your local dealer, you will
>soon be able to find them at your local swap meets, garage sales, and
>flea markets. The Atari ST computer line is following directly in the footsteps
>of its older realitives... The Commodore 64 and the Atari 800.
Oh boy... you've gone and done it now, John. You've committed the one truly
unforgivable sin here in comp.sys.atari.st... you spoke the TRUTH!
Don't you know that people don't want to hear that here? Let's keep everything
all rosy and pretend that Atari Corp still loves us and are hard at work
developing new and super powerful desktop computers that when released (Real
Soon Now, of course) will take the market by storm and show all those PC and
Mac users a thing or two. Yes, all we need to do is be faithful to the fuji
and in time, all will be well and our neighbors will once again envy us.
Yeh, you've really blown it this time, John. Heretic! Blasphemer! Sooth Sayer!
'aveagoodaymate! :)
-Hutch- @ Fair Dinkum Tech
sinc...@ins.infonet.net
Expect to get flamed over the coals. In Atari's last press release refuting
Dorfman/Sass charges, Atari states that they have been out and has disposed of
the Computer division in '93'.
>
>-Hutch- @ Fair Dinkum Tech
>
-Peter
Alfred Radauer
: In article <396icm$h...@josie.abo.fi>, THIE...@FINABO.ABO.FI (Tommi
: Hietavuo TKKK) wrote:
: |In <H.eg.Aw4...@semprini.waterloo-rdp.on.ca>
: cher...@semprini.waterloo-rdp.on.ca writes:
: |> A new PPC Falcon would be even worse than the current PowerMacs.
: |> *Every* application you ran would be emulated, and there'd be no native
: |> software coming out.
: |
: |I quite agree on that - even though some native code software would probably
: |come out, too.. But why change the camp, when we have MC 68060..???
: |That thing is bloody fast, relatively cheap (some say..) especially compared to
: |far too expensive 68040, and more or less compatible to current software.
: |
: |Fortunately, Atari has no Windows, nor System 7 (well, I don't like Macs at
: |all) to slow things down. Put MagiC OS into a 68060 Falcon - and there we have
: |one quite nice computer, I think =-) !
: |
: |Tommi
: And who in the world would buy it? The rest of the world demands a stable
: software base on top of an operating system that is feature rich and reasonably
: stable. TOS (or MagiC or whatever its called) still doesn't have long
: filenames,
is implemented in Magic3 (and has installable File system drivers)
: networking,
is/will be implemented with mint net/magic net
:decent user-interface capabilities,
I do not get your point here; GEM based Germanprograms are by no means
inmferior to any Windows/Apple programs in terms of "user-interface
capabilities"
: email support,
see Mintnet above
: etc. Customers
: in the real world demand these sorts of features for their work/business.
of course
: What the hell good is a really fast piece of hardware that is hard to find, hard
: to buy, and has NO SOFTWARE available for it?
I know that in the US there is almost no software available. However, the
USA does not comprise the whole world. There are some very good packages
available here over in Germany.
: Sure, the computer you described would probably sell to a couple hundred
: hacker types throughout the world. That hardly makes a business case.
It is the software that counts and for specific purposes, Atari machines
(or better TOS based machines) have proven superior, e.g. take the MIDI
market where Atari held 90% of the market share and even now still has a
good position and good chances. The same is true for the DTP market. Of
course, again in mainland Europe. Atari has made the mistake of
researching, developing a machine for a market, that is thousands of miles
away. They should have moved their ST/TT debelopment crew over to Europe.
: If you enjoy using the machine you have now.. great. Continue to enjoy it.
: But if you think anyone else out there is going to put more money into
: developing new Atari computers, you are wasting your time.
Even now we in Germany have Atari computer fairs with new products being
announced and developed, and the fairs are much larger than probably all
Atarimeetings that happened in the US together
: There is no
: money to be made there. The PC clones and lower price Macs have taken
: any advantage that an Atari computer possibly had.
Go to the ProTOS show in Germany and convince yourself of the opposite.
: Don't get me wrong.. I am still jazzed about Atari. But I think they have a
: good shot with the Jaguar machine. But, the computer products.. they
: are dead.
maybe Atari computers, but not the Operating system. Magic is right now
being ported to the Mac and I would be very surprised, if other RISC
machines would not follow.
: Its time to wake up people.. Atari's computer products are now antiques.
: Instead of finding Falcon and TT machines in your local dealer, you will
: soon be able to find them at your local swap meets, garage sales, and
: flea markets. The Atari ST computer line is following directly in the footsteps
: of its older realitives... The Commodore 64 and the Atari 800.
: Welcome to the Past, folks. I hope you enjoy your stay here.
We do, and are laughing loudly about the DOS /windows machines with their
640k limit etc... but maybe it is the Americans who enjoy the trip into
the future on the back of MS Word and Apple Yuppie toys - in Europe we
certainly do not; and by the time magic is ported to non Atari machines,
e.g. based on RISC, and we still use future versions of our superior TOS
software, you still will wander around chasing for a decent Windows
installation.
: --
Cornelius Krasel
> John Townsend (John_T...@taligent.com) wrote:
> : The PC clones and lower price Macs have taken
> : any advantage that an Atari computer possibly had.
> Go to the ProTOS show in Germany and convince yourself of the opposite.
Any Atari fair in Germany I have seen throughout the last years could not
convince me to stick with Atari. Atari's are currently either too slow or
overpriced (Medusa etc.). Furthermore, there is no freeware for the area
I am working in (gene technology), but there are lots of freeware in the
Mac, PC and Unix areas.
> : Don't get me wrong.. I am still jazzed about Atari. But I think they have a
> : good shot with the Jaguar machine. But, the computer products.. they
> : are dead.
> maybe Atari computers, but not the Operating system. Magic is right now
> being ported to the Mac and I would be very surprised, if other RISC
> machines would not follow.
Even if MagiC is ported to the Mac I doubt that it will become more than
an operating system for people who want to abandon their old, slow Atari
Machines but stick with their programs. A Mac user certainly will not
switch to MagiC. BTW, to my knowledge MagiC is ported to 680x0 Macs, not
to a Power PC platform, so your statement about "other RISC machines"
makes no sense.
> We do, and are laughing loudly about the DOS /windows machines with their
> 640k limit etc... but maybe it is the Americans who enjoy the trip into
> the future on the back of MS Word and Apple Yuppie toys - in Europe we
> certainly do not;
This US <-> Europe controversy does not make any sense to me. Don't forget
that the most innovative free operating system today (Linux) is developed
on a intel-based platform (although ports will become available in the
future). Additionally, the number of Atari vendors in Europe is steadily
declining. Additionally, there is no discussion that System 7 is much
better organized than TOS ever has been. Additionally, ...
Have you ever worked with other computers than your Atari?
--Cornelius.
--
/* Cornelius Krasel, Abt. Lohse, Genzentrum, D-82152 Martinsried, Germany */
/* email: kra...@alf.biochem.mpg.de fax: +49 89 8578 3795 */
/* "Science is the game you play with God to find out what His rules are." */
STIR...@maine.maine.edu
I'd have to disagree with you quite a bit about your statements.
Just because Atari has moved does not mean that the Atari community
will just disappear. There is still a solid base of support which
I think is proven by the number of CD-ROMs coming out for our machines.
I had serious doubts about a market for CD-ROMs on such a small
platform but I have seen many Atari-specific disks.
The Atari market won't stand still as long as there are software
coders out here supporting it. Amazing products have come out
in the shareware market like Griff's MPEG player. Wizztronic's
Barracuda is now available. There is talk of 060 cards, the Medusa
is out, I have heard rumblings of another clone.... The Atari line
is not dead because of the community and not Atari.
As far as the competition goes I cringe at the thought of using
the other OSs out there. Windows is sad. Maybe Chicago (but I
doubt it from things I've heard) but not Windows. And System 7.5?
A 25Mhz 68030 LCIII crawls compared to my Falcon running this beast.
Not to mention the RAM needed to run System 7.x.
One problem with the computer market is that "advances" are coming
too fast. Programs come out that need a mininum of 8 megs of RAM
for instance. In the Mac and PC world one needs to upgrade to
keep up. The current systems are powerful enough to handle most
tasks but the programs need more and more resources. These programs
also seem to be more and more expensive....
Right now what computer system would you suggest, Hutch? There is
always going to be the promise of something "better" around the
corner. If you suggest a PowerMac, I'd suggest waiting for the
Prep compliant machines....
The Atari can handle, I'd say, 90% of users' needs. Would you not
agree, Hutch?
Hope you took this as a friendly disagreement not as an attack.
I am just sick and tired of hearing how outdated my Falcon is and
how great PCs and Macs are considering I have used both and would
not switch for anything. In my experience, PCs are game machines
with an occasional Word session and Macs ae just slower than they
should be (nice software, though, but it is expensive).
-scott tirrell
Mitchel Soltys
Sadly, I have to agree that Atari computer is out of it. I say sadly,
because I really think that the ST was a GREAT machine, if it only had
the availability (marketing and distribution) and software to go with
it. I have a 386 with 4 Megs, CD-ROM, sound card and Windows and many
times long for the things I had with my 520 ST (FM). I had to sell
mine to upgrade (?) to an IBM PC (mainly because of software volume)
about 4 years ago. So if the predictions of the prophets are
true and anyone has even a 520 ST with Degas Elite (Don't even care if
you got a monitor, but I do want the RF output) and is selling it at
swap meet, garage sale or flea market prices, please let me know. I'm
interested. :)
Longing for the days when using a computer was fun and didn't require
500 megabytes of hard disk space,
Mitchel Soltys
sol...@radonc.unc.edu
Roger Sheppard.
>Hutch,
>I'd have to disagree with you quite a bit about your statements.
>Just because Atari has moved does not mean that the Atari community
>will just disappear. There is still a solid base of support which
>I think is proven by the number of CD-ROMs coming out for our machines.
>I had serious doubts about a market for CD-ROMs on such a small
What CD their are none from what I here, unless you regard those
ones filled with out of date PD software, come on lets get real..
>Hope you took this as a friendly disagreement not as an attack.
>I am just sick and tired of hearing how outdated my Falcon is and
>how great PCs and Macs are considering I have used both and would
>not switch for anything. In my experience, PCs are game machines
>with an occasional Word session and Macs ae just slower than they
>should be (nice software, though, but it is expensive).
>-scott tirrell
If you will not believe one of the Last Atari TOS Developers who
will you believe..
The Atari system is way outdated, that is a Real FACT, so take those stupid
blinkers off, then may be you will see the trees from the woods....
As they say dream on.....
*******************************************************************************
* R. W. Sheppard Internet shepp...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz *
* +64-4298-7249 GEnie r.she...@genie.geis.com *
*******************************************************************************
Roger Sheppard.
>Alfred Radauer (h925...@idefix.wu-wien.ac.at) wrote:
>> John Townsend (John_T...@taligent.com) wrote:
>
>> : The PC clones and lower price Macs have taken
>> : any advantage that an Atari computer possibly had.
>> Go to the ProTOS show in Germany and convince yourself of the opposite.
>
Read were the post came from all the Old Atari TOS Programers now
work for Taligent, they have more than likly played with more computers
than we have had dinners...
>/* Cornelius Krasel, Abt. Lohse, Genzentrum, D-82152 Martinsried, Germany */
>/* email: kra...@alf.biochem.mpg.de fax: +49 89 8578 3795 */
Alfred Radauer
: Any Atari fair in Germany I have seen throughout the last years could not
: convince me to stick with Atari. Atari's are currently either too slow or
: overpriced (Medusa etc.). Furthermore, there is no freeware for the area
: I am working in (gene technology), but there are lots of freeware in the
: Mac ...
: Even if MagiC is ported to the Mac I doubt that it will become more than
: an operating system for people who want to abandon their old. A Mac user certainly will not
: switch to MagiC. BTW, to my knowledge MagiC is ported to 680x0 Macs, not
: PPC...
: This US <-> Europe controversy does not make any sense to me. Don't forget
: that the most innovative free operating system today (Linux) is developed
: on a intel-based platform (although ports will become available in the
: future). Additionally, the number of Atari vendors in Europe is steadily
: declining. Additionally, there is no discussion that System 7 is much
: better organized than TOS ever has been. Additionally, ...
: Have you ever worked with other computers than your Atari?
Of course I am working with other computers, too, and I am forced to do so
at the university. We have quite a tile of Macs and Pcs with Windows and
Linux installed. As for the discussion of System 7 as compared to Magic,
there is one going on, on the Mausnet in Atari.soft, the newsgroup is
crossposted to the Internet as maus.sys.atari.software, I won't start a
discussion on that as a follow-up to the original message. But there are
certain features in one operating system, that are not available in the
other, that will b always the case, even with Windows (or did you see
System 7 supporting sth. like OLE 2?). It is your personal believe on how
successful future Magic deelopments may be, but, as compared to
anemulator, it will be a fully featured OS, actively supported and not
just a means for nostalgic people to run there old software, just as they
run maybe XL Software on the XL emulator on the Atari. Mac users might not
switch to Magic (which makes no sense, as Macamagic and System7 run
parallel), they just mightz wish to use good Atarisoftware professionally,
such as Calmus SL, DA products, Papyrus etc... It is true that the first
version will only support 68k macs (68030 upwards), but it is definite
that a PPC verion will follow. There is also no reason, why Magic
could/should not be ported in native code to other RISC plattforms as well
and I take any bets that this will happen. I must admit, though, that my
posting was a little bit too emotional, but this is due to John Townsend,
who has worked for Atari before and who carries thus also a responsibility
for the misery at Atari concerning computers. Do not forget, though, that
Magic has nothing to do with Atari, it is beingprogrammed by the same
people that did NVDI and other well known excellent programmers(Andeas Kromke-
Atari Magic Kernel and AES, Thomas Tempelmann- megamax modula 2, Macmagic
....).
As for the success of operating systems, I do not think that any of us can
really say, which one will be the standard for the future. But I think, as
John Townsend has worked for Atari, it is time that we should talk about
his involvment in the Atari market (see sperately posted article.....)
Bye,
Alfred
Jon A. Lovstad
>In <RS+1zxf....@delphi.com>, jyou...@delphi.com writes:
>>Speaking of upgrades, why is there no graphics board available for a
>>stock ST. The addition of a board to allow 256 colors would be a
>>tremendous breath of life to the ST line...
>Where you would put it? What would you connect it to?
This is where the MultiBoard from Germany comes in as a very fresh breath -
it gives up to 8MB of RAM, an IDE controller and a slot for a PC video
expansion card (ET4000 based seems to be the choice).
Jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snail : Hjortsbergvn. 7, N-1784 Halden. Norway Voice: +47-69-175939
E-Mail: jon.a....@hiof.no / jo...@gyda.hiof.no
Finger: jo...@sofus.hiof.no / jo...@gyda.hiof.no / j...@syd-georgia.hiof.no
Talk : jo...@gyda.hiof.no / j...@syd-georgia.hiof.no
Life is a lemon and I want my money back! (Jim Steiman)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
STIR...@maine.maine.edu
I disagreed with Hutch and Mr. Townsend. There is no "truth" here,
it is subjective. Would you call Windows technically superior to
TOS for most uses? If so, fine, but I refuse to deal with the program
manager instead of simply popping in a disk and clicking on the drive
icon. I like the trash can. I like being able to install programs
simply by copying the file to the drive. Call me crazy if you wish.
As far as the CD scene goes, there are 4 or 5 PD collections out
including a 2 disk collection from Toad and Suzy-B. There's the
Qwikforms CD from Sterling, Audio CD Master to play audio CDs,
there's a program to play the Encarta CDs I believe, and there's
Photo Show from It's All Relative. Not only this but we can get disks
full of GIFs and other pictures, FLI files, and fonts. Not too bad
in my opinion. I don't want games on CDs personally. I'll stick to
my cheap Lynx for these (and my new 7800).
I don't have "blinkers" :-) on (I am not driving a car right now)
and realize that the Atari market is not supported as much as
the Mac and PC markets. So what, though? GEM is so much nicer
than System 7.x (IMO) and Windows (in almost everyone's opinion).
With Macs and PCs you will also be expected to upgrade. Have to
keep up with the times, ya know. These pretty little PowerMacs out
today will be left in the cold when something better (like the Prep
Power PCs) comes out. Do you advocate buying every new gadget that
comes out when the Falcon is a perfectly capable machine? If so,
expect to buy a new system every year. This is just not an option
for me.
TOS may be outdated (althought it is faster than System 7.x and offers
many of the same features) but there is development in the market.
What about Magix? The Atari is not dead as long as people use it
and is not outdated as long as it does the job.
-scott tirrell
Alfred Radauer
Distribution:
Roger Sheppard. (shepp...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz)
: >> John Townsend (John_T...@taligent.com) wrote:
: >> : The PC clones and lower price Macs have taken
: >> : any advantage that an Atari computer possibly had.
: >> Go to the ProTOS show in Germany and convince yourself of the opposite.
: >
: >Have you ever worked with other computers than your Atari?
: Read were the post came from all the Old Atari TOS Programers now
: work for Taligent, they have more than likly played with more computers
: than we have had dinners...
Is this supposed to say anything? John Townsend worked as a systems
programmer for Atari and I am wondering how a person can work for such a
long time and produce so little. Is it clear to you, that those people
never went beyond a control panel and a simple graohics shell while they
were being paid by Atari? They even had to buy the kernel of the
multitasking system from a person programming in his freetime, they never
were able to hold deadlines and they even were not able to produce some
kind of documentation. If you say, they played with more computers than we
had dinners, I am taking it word by word. I even can imagine John playing
Doom on his PC during working hours at Taligent. BTW, did you also notice
that Taligent are far from being on schedule with their operating system?
That people evem did not see anything from Taligent except announcements
on low level routines? To consider him an expert or a professional and
thus giving more weight to his statements is only possible if he can show
references. And a control panel anda TOS 2.06 desktop hardly qualifies
John as such an expert, consiedering the time it took to develop those
"powerful" tools, and his work at Taligent is far frombeing visible to the
public. I stated all the above critics into an open letter to John, let us
see if he hast guts enough to answer it and give an account on what he did
at Atari.
cu,
Alfred
: >/* Cornelius Krasel, Abt. Lohse, Genzentrum, D-82152 Martinsried, Germany */
: >/* email: kra...@alf.biochem.mpg.de fax: +49 89 8578 3795 */
: *******************************************************************************
Timothy Miller
that Taligent will turn out to be any better written than Windows 3.1,
Windows NT, System 7, and OS/2... and we know how blindingly efficient
THOSE OS's are.
The hardware is getting faster, and companies would like us to believe
that it's getting cheaper too (I don't care what you say... a 1gig HD is
NOT cheap!!). Just like Microsoft and everyone else, Taligent is going
to (or already has) get lazy and write LARGE, INEFFICIENT code because
they think the hardware is fast enough and the user has enough memory
that they can get away with producing garbage... just like Microsoft and
Apple has done all along.
Just to run Windows NT (and no apps), you need 16 megs of RAM, hundreds of
megabytes of HD space, and a 66mhz 486. Even then, it's EXTREMELY slow.
To run System 7 at a decent speed, you NEED a Quadra, with a large HD, 4
megs of RAM just ISN'T enough, and the whole mess is still a pain to
use. It's the most sluggish OS I've used.
Taligent has not yet given any reason (than perhaps promises) for us to
believe that their OS will be any better.
Morgoth
> In article <94315.0942...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, <STIR...@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
> >Hutch,
> >I'd have to disagree with you quite a bit about your statements.
> >Just because Atari has moved does not mean that the Atari community
> >will just disappear. There is still a solid base of support which
> >I think is proven by the number of CD-ROMs coming out for our machines.
> >I had serious doubts about a market for CD-ROMs on such a small
If a firm like DMC (Calamus) still bothers to develop professional DTP software
for Atari compatible (!) computers - and now I mean also Medusa T-40 / T-60,
Eagle, etc. - then many others will, too. This is a living market - no matter
if some of us don't seem to like it or not ;-) ...
> The Atari system is way outdated, that is a Real FACT, so take those stupid
> blinkers off, then may be you will see the trees from the woods....
>
> As they say dream on.....
Dreaming on ;-) !
I disagree with you - and (surprise..) believe that we will have Atari
compatible computers for many years, much better operating systems, and some
very good software for them. And you know why? Because people like me will
buy Atari-based soft- and hardware not only today, but also tomorrow.
Stupid, isn't it?
I don't think so.
Here's one thing some people don't seem to understand: some of us buy computers
that we _want_. Unlike those people who buy PCs, because "everybody else
does". That makes a big difference. You may ask me, if I'm crazy for using a
computer "nobody else uses". I really couldn't care less; Atari is the computer
I like to use - and as long as there are lots of people like me, there will be
enough hard- and software support for us. That's a real FACT too, isn't it?
You say the machines are outdated. Maybe they are - maybe they are not. But who
really cares, if they do the job..? Should we become as crazy as those PC and
Mac freaks that buy a new computer every year, when 486-586-686-... based new
models appear? Does that make any sense to you?
By the way, I respect everybody's right to speak his/hers mind - but I can't
say I like messages (in some computer's support area!) that yell: "This
computer you use, is old-fashioned, doomed, its manufacturer is hopeless... So,
come on - let's SAVE ourselves! Let's abandon this ship!!!".
Who does that attitude help? Nobody, I think...
Also, calling people who clearly _like_ their Falcons, etc. blind (willing to
forget the truth that the computer they use is crap..), isn't very nice either.
I think that we would all buy a better computer, if we found one. We're not
really _that_ dumb, or fanatic, are we?
So - I think we use the best computer system (for us, that is..)
- and the other people may use whatever they like to use. It's good that we
still _have_ alternatives ! Otherwise everybody would have to use Windoze (or
maybe Falcons ;-).
Cheers,
Tommi (still a _very_ happy Falcon owner...)
Peter Back
Helle gang.
After following this debate it becomes more and more obvious
that the main problem here is not whetever the Atari Computer
range is dead or not, the problem is that we won't accept it.
I'm not surprised that Atari's given up, just look at the
Falcon, Because of the fact that the Atari user family
*will not* accept an Atari that's not compatible with the
old ST software, the Falcon is a fraction of what it could
have been. There would maybe still be a chance for Atari
Computers (If atari corp. would take it.) And that's jumping
on the train With IBM&Apple and Motorola in creating a totally
new standard for personal computers. I think that Atari could
do a lot of good there, sincehow innovative Hardware has always
been atari's forte'.
And since the new standards going to be as flexible as possible
to different harware setups as possible, Atari could really
revive their Computer section....
But they won't.
Cuase let's facce it, no matter if the Jag's a success or not,
Atari's promise to stay with us is bound to be broken.
and the next computer we buy will be made by apple or IBM.
Maybe we should pump Atari to join in with Apple and IBM
instead of whinging for a new TOS platform...
Besides , thoose new machines will be so tough that they'll
run *any* TOS software under a software emulator faster
then any TOS platform in existence.
I'll keep my Falcon solely for the Music.
(But I do wish that it were really 32 Bit and had bloody
32 bit memory and not this 16 bit crap...:( )
Peter.
--
Here's the Known and Unknown and inbetween are the
Doors....Open the Doors! -Jim Morrison.
##
Christer Gustavsson
Peter Back <pe...@freeport.uwasa.fi> wrote:
>Besides , thoose new machines will be so tough that they'll
>run *any* TOS software under a software emulator faster
>then any TOS platform in existence.
Even faster than the Medusa T60, Eagle (w64040 or 68060) or the coming 040 and
060 boards from Progemtec that can be fitted to ST/STE/TT/Falcon? I think it
will take quite some time before software emulators on PPC's can do this, but
what do I know?
Christer.
--
| Chalmers | USENET: d2...@dtek.chalmers.se | "Today I've started |
| University | SNAIL: Christer Gustavsson | earning my second |
| of | Hasselvagen 6 | million. The first |
| Technology | S-430 91 HÖNÖ | one failed." |
Roger Sheppard.
>olem.wcc.govt.nz>
>Distribution:
>
>Roger Sheppard. (shepp...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz)
>: >> : The PC clones and lower price Macs have taken
>: >> : any advantage that an Atari computer possibly had.
>: >> Go to the ProTOS show in Germany and convince yourself of the opposite.
>: >Have you ever worked with other computers than your Atari?
>
>: Read were the post came from all the Old Atari TOS Programers now
>: work for Taligent, they have more than likly played with more computers
>public. I stated all the above critics into an open letter to John, let us
>see if he hast guts enough to answer it and give an account on what he did
>at Atari.
For one thing People are getting fed up with your Posts here, and another,
John does not have to answer to you or any one, do you think you are some kind
of Atari God..
I sugest you piss off and go and moan to the Amiga people, we don't need people
like you in this group...
>Alfred
>: >/* Cornelius Krasel, Abt. Lohse, Genzentrum, D-82152 Martinsried, Germany */
>: >/* email: kra...@alf.biochem.mpg.de fax: +49 89 8578 3795 */
Pekka Saarinen
>range is dead or not, the problem is that we won't accept it.
>I'm not surprised that Atari's given up, just look at the
>Falcon, Because of the fact that the Atari user family
>*will not* accept an Atari that's not compatible with the
>old ST software, the Falcon is a fraction of what it could
>have been. There would maybe still be a chance for Atari
Maybe Atari as a piece of hardware is "dead", but the fantastic
thing about Atari is, that even if it's dead it's alive and well
on many people's desks - why? Because there are and will be programs
that are so ingenious, effective, well designed and unique and...
they run only on Atari.
The important aspect of being an "Atarian" is, that you have a machine
that is very different compared to the mainstream-computers (= you are
not like 10 million others), and that you have a thorough feel about
what's going on in your computer when you use it:
I hate in every other OS, that the system writes constantly on the
disk, installation procedures that forces you buy a separate book
and an unistaller program, and you have to have all sorts of files
in specific places to e.g to be able to use the printer.
Would IBM user family accept an OS that woudn't run old existing
software? How about the Mac-friend, would they like to get a new Mac
that can't run their favorite applications? Even if the only
sensible thing from both companies would be to write a completely
new OS that would have *nothing* to do with recent snails.
>Maybe we should pump Atari to join in with Apple and IBM
>instead of whinging for a new TOS platform...
Why don't we create a *one* computer model and build *one* shop so that
people have no choice but to buy it? Read your Orwell.
Even if it would be nice to be able to run Atari-programs on e.g. SGI,
I wouldn't want that the only thing you can buy is a SGI.
>Besides , thoose new machines will be so tough that they'll
>run *any* TOS software under a software emulator faster
>then any TOS platform in existence.
Well, there are now computers that are able to do that, if there would
be software to do it. I recall hearing a story about DMC Calamus SL which
was rewritten for Macs - but the developers found out that it ran faster in
TT that in any Mac --- the power (drain) of OS is immense.
>I'll keep my Falcon solely for the Music.
One good program is a perfectly good reason to buy a computer for it.
I have it also as a main tool for composing, but thought the net I've
collected also other software, that has made some of my PC-owners
quite itchy - e.g Connect 2.46 is a program that thay have been looking
for their PC:s - and still are...
>(But I do wish that it were really 32 Bit and had bloody
> 32 bit memory and not this 16 bit crap...:( )
Acclerators etc. are available. Can you really be disturbed about
the number of bits while you're doing somethin' like composing?
Best Regards,
----Pekka Saarinen
Member of the Finnish Radio Symphony Orchestra (Playin' the Bass!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Falcon030/16MbRAM/FPU/ScreenwonderPro/MAG17"Multisync/FDI/Steinbergs
CubaseAudioForFalcon(CAF)2.02/LotsOfMidistuff/200YearsOldBass/Beer!!
PfretzschnerBow/AnOldWolksvagenGolf/BigBedWithFuton/&LivesInHelsinki
--------------------------------------------------------------------
jyou...@delphi.com
>>Speaking of upgrades, why is there no graphics board available for a
>>stock ST. The addition of a board to allow 256 colors would be a
>>tremendous breath of life to the ST line...
>called:
>vofa??.lzh
>If you cann't find it on a.a.u.e then have a look at ftp.tu-clausthal.de.
>BTW vofa stands for VolksFarben (or in english color for the people)
>Regards
>/Rob
Can anyone offer any more specific informationon this file and where I
might find it?
Best wishes,
Jeff
jyou...@delphi.com
Mark Baker
>In response to your comments about the new MagiC...Is there a newer
>version than 2.0 coming out? I haven't heard any whispering...
version 3.0 should be out fairly soon, and the falcon version at much the
same time. It includes some facilities compatible with MiNT, although
apparently it's installable filesystems are incompatible with MiNT's xfs files
:(
--
/\ /\
/ \\ / \\ ark Baker mn...@cam.ac.uk (terms)
/ \\/ \\ mark....@mettav.exnet.com (vacations)
/ \\ \\ * Reality is an illusion caused by alcohol deficiency *
Henrik Lunardi Weide
I think you should keep these kind of comments to a advocacy area anyway. This area is for Atari-owners who likes to help each other and give advise on how to make the most of their machines in their everyday work. AND not destroying each other with pathedic comments that leads to nothing but angry comments.
I say it again - That belongs to an advocacy area, where people who likes to disguss such time-wasting subjects can give their oppinions.
Have a nice day. :-)
Keep Cool and Flying....
ChainXOR....
***** Falcon030, 4 MB Ram, 65 MB HDD, 36 Mhz 68030 CPU *****
BRIDGETT A.P.
>>In <RS+1zxf....@delphi.com>, jyou...@delphi.com writes:
>>>Speaking of upgrades, why is there no graphics board available for a
>>>stock ST. The addition of a board to allow 256 colors would be a
>>>tremendous breath of life to the ST line...
>
>>But there is, even one for the DIY people among us. Have a look at a file
>>called:
>>vofa??.lzh
>
>I have checked a.a.u.e. and could not locate vofa??.lzh.
You can get it from
src.doc.ic.ac.uk//packages/atari/uni-paderborn/tools/screen/vofa_103.lzh
John Townsend
h925...@idefix.wu-wien.ac.at (Alfred Radauer) wrote:
|[... massive parts of post removed...] I must admit, though, that my
|posting was a little bit too emotional, but this is due to John Townsend,
|who has worked for Atari before and who carries thus also a responsibility
|for the misery at Atari concerning computers.
Alfred.. excuse me. I was not in a position of authority at Atari. I fought
with the people who controlled Atari's decision making process on quite
a few occasions. I did everything I could to make the platform better for
the average Atari user. That is because I was an Atari user first, an Atari
employee second. My first computer was an Atari 400 (in 1982) and I
had been faithful to the Atari computer line since that point.
I am NOT responsible for Atari's lack of marketing or development. I
did what I could and I think you should think before you type from
this point on. How can you use the logic that "Person A worked
for Company B, therefore he is responsible for the position that Company
A is in." That's garbage and it tries to oversimplify the situation.
|As for the success of operating systems, I do not think that any of us can
|really say, which one will be the standard for the future. But I think, as
|John Townsend has worked for Atari, it is time that we should talk about
|his involvment in the Atari market (see sperately posted article.....)
Gee, I can hardly wait.
John Townsend
("John Watkins") wrote:
|
|But it does seem strange to slag off your previous employers in such a
|way - perhaps it wasn't any of his own work?!
|
Yes, I did write that post. And no I didn't "slag" my previous employer.
I didn't say anything bad about Atari. I simply said that Atari's computer
products are a thing of the past. I don't think Atari will be producing
computers any longer.
Think about this for a moment.. Look at Atari's actions. It hasn't done
anything with computer products for well over a year. It has told its
customers that is is concentrating all of its efforts on Video Game
products. Do you honestly think that Atari can drop from the highly
competitive computer market for a year, return to it, and actually
compete? If they can, then they are an amazing company that I
have underestimated.
I still like Atari. I like the company. I think Jaguar is a great product.
I just hate to see people get their hopes up for the "Falcon060" or
something like that. I don't think it will happen.
John Townsend
Saarinen) wrote:
|
|Maybe Atari as a piece of hardware is "dead", but the fantastic
|thing about Atari is, that even if it's dead it's alive and well
|on many people's desks - why? Because there are and will be programs
|that are so ingenious, effective, well designed and unique and...
|they run only on Atari.
And I will be the first to tell you to continue to use that hardware and
that software for as long as it suits your needs. Just don't expect to see
new Atari computers any time soon.
I think Atari computers are great and I am proud to have been a part of
that. I am really glad that so many people enjoyed them and continue
to enjoy them.
John Townsend
h925...@idefix.wu-wien.ac.at (Alfred Radauer) wrote:
|Is this supposed to say anything? John Townsend worked as a systems
|programmer for Atari and I am wondering how a person can work for such a
|long time and produce so little.
You don't know anything about what I did at Atari. How dare you attempt
to accuse me of "sitting on my hands" during my time at Atari. Atari had a
small staff of systems programmers (their choice, not ours) and we did
pretty good considering the constaints we worked with.
|Is it clear to you, that those people
|never went beyond a control panel and a simple graohics shell while they
|were being paid by Atari? They even had to buy the kernel of the
|multitasking system from a person programming in his freetime, they never
|were able to hold deadlines and they even were not able to produce some
|kind of documentation.
I was responsible for a number of things including pieces of the new Control
Panel. But, you consider that small potatoes eh? Well, I think if you ask around
on the net and in the Atari community, I think you will find that many people
like it.
As for the multitasking system, when Atari started to investigate adding
multitasking
support to TOS, they looked at what it would take and also looked at what
solutions already existed. MiNT looked to be a pretty good solution and so
we made a deal to get it. Why should Atari recreate what has already been done?
As for deadlines and documentation, we did produce documentation. And you
show me you announced deadline that Atari's systems software group didn't
meet and I will call you a liar to your face.
|If you say, they played with more computers than we
|had dinners, I am taking it word by word. I even can imagine John playing
|Doom on his PC during working hours at Taligent.
Oh, this is good. You don't even know me and you are questioning my work
ethic? How dare you! Who the hell do you think you are? I work very hard
at Taligent and Taligent has nothing to do with this discussion. I appreciate
your effort to sidetrack my comments into a personal issue, but you can just
forget it. I am not going to fall for it.
|BTW, did you also notice
|that Taligent are far from being on schedule with their operating system?
|That people evem did not see anything from Taligent except announcements
|on low level routines?
Taligent is far from being on schedule? That's funny.. the dates that I have
seen in press releases can that Taligent plans to ship something during
(and I quote) "the mid 90s." How can we be behind schedule? Anyway, I
do not plan to comment on Taligent release plans or products, so you can
continue to bait me, but I will ignore anything on this subject from this
point on.
|To consider him an expert or a professional and
|thus giving more weight to his statements is only possible if he can show
|references. And a control panel anda TOS 2.06 desktop hardly qualifies
|John as such an expert, consiedering the time it took to develop those
|"powerful" tools, and his work at Taligent is far frombeing visible to the
|public. I stated all the above critics into an open letter to John, let us
|see if he hast guts enough to answer it and give an account on what he did
|at Atari.
And what have you done for the Atari community? What gives you the right
to question my "professionalism?" Let's just put it this way.. I did enough
interesting work at Atari that I was able to get myself a position at Taligent.
And I don't have to answer to you or anyone else. So, if you don't like me
or what I have done, that's too bad for you. Frankly, I don't give a damn.
David Stevenson
>In article <3a3e30$7...@osiris.wu-wien.ac.at>, h925...@idefix.wu-wien.ac.at (Alfred Radauer) writes:
>...
>>see if he hast guts enough to answer it and give an account on what he did
>>at Atari.
>For one thing People are getting fed up with your Posts here, and another,
The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" come to mind.
>* R. W. Sheppard Internet shepp...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz *
PSD2?
--
David Stevenson, JET Joint Undertaking +44 1235 465028
Email: d...@jet.uk or ho...@cix.compulink.co.uk
- Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
be construed as an official comment from the JET project.
Alfred Radauer
Distribution:
Roger Sheppard. (shepp...@ix.wcc.govt.nz) wrote:
: For one thing People are getting fed up with your Posts here, and another,
:John does not have to answer to you or any one, do you think you are some kind
:of Atari God..
:I sugest you piss off and go and moan to the Amiga people, we don't need people
:like you in this group...
: >Alfred
There are educated people and there are not so much educated people. I
leave it to others to judge, where Roger belongs ;-)
I would also suggest that people, who do not have anything to say and
whose message do not carry any information other than pure insults should
go to the repsective newsgroups.
: *******************************************************************************
: * R. W. Sheppard Internet shepp...@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz *
: * +64-4298-7249 GEnie r.she...@genie.geis.com *
: *******************************************************************************
Roland Givan
> that Atari's given up, just look at the Falcon, Because of the fact
> that the Atari user family *will not* accept an Atari that's not
> compatible with the old ST software, the Falcon is a fraction of what
If the Falcon was non ST compatible then I could see your point. However
it runs *so* much ST software that its bound to be considered a glorified
ST in some quarters. The TT suffers from exactly the same problem. It would
have made a nice little UNIX workstation if it hadn't have been ST
compatible. OTOH Atari still wouldn't have sold any - and the TT would be
even more marginal than it is now.
> promise to stay with us is bound to be broken. and the next computer
> we buy will be made by apple or IBM. Maybe we should pump Atari to
> join in with Apple and IBM instead of whinging for a new TOS
Good idea. I'm on the verge of buying a PC, only because I don't think my
TT will be a viable *single* machine solution in 2 years time. Two years
is at *least* what it will take IBM/Apple to get their act together on the
new style Prep machines - if they don't hurry.
But before anybody thinks I've gone PC soft - I do know how bad PCs are.
I've just spent 2 evenings trying to fit a CD-ROM and soundcard into a
basic 486 machine. It just doesn't want to play. Didn't have this much
trouble with the Atari CD-ROM, and that a combination of spare parts and
shareware! But thats not the point. Untill recently it was a question of
stay with Atari or wait out for the Prep machines. However all the time
this thriving PC market was surrounding me. So its more a case of having
the best of both worlds than jumping ship.
Certainly I am by no means abandoning the Atari range. Whilst people are
interested/interesting, I'll happily stay along for the chat :-)
:-)
Roland.
@CiX
jyou...@delphi.com
>This is where the MultiBoard from Germany comes in as a very fresh breath -
>it gives up to 8MB of RAM, an IDE controller and a slot for a PC video
>expansion card (ET4000 based seems to be the choice).
information on this product and its availability?
Thanks for you response...
Jeff
Werner Laass
AR> From: h925...@idefix.wu-wien.ac.at (Alfred Radauer)
AR>
AR> John Townsend (John_T...@taligent.com) wrote:
AR> : In article <396icm$h...@josie.abo.fi>, THIE...@FINABO.ABO.FI
AR> (Tommi : Hietavuo TKKK) wrote:
AR>
AR> : |In <H.eg.Aw4...@semprini.waterloo-rdp.on.ca>
AR> : cher...@semprini.waterloo-rdp.on.ca writes:
: |>> A new PPC Falcon would be even worse than the current PowerMacs.
: |>> *Every* application you ran would be emulated, and there'd be no
: |>> native software coming out.
. . . and all the comments to this message....
Why dont ATARI-insider talk about the new ATARI?
They have no permission!
Why dont talk Developers / dealers about?
They have to sell their clones and MagiC / MacMagic
Why does not ATARI USA talk about a new machine ??
They try to sell their Falcons and Jaguars, cause a new
machine will be contain both . . . and more.
Cant you understand them ceeping silence about their BOMB they tries
to fire on CEBIT , march 95 ?
AND when there will be no MILAN or anything else, I 'll buy a MAC and
MacMagic too :-[
Werner Laass Anwender Kreis Atari AKA Freiburg
GEORGE GAGHON
old', 'get a real machine', and everything else that has been floating
around.
I usually don't say anything, but I think something needs to be said.
What makes a computer old? What does a Real machine look like?
Does it really make a difference if you are running at 5mips 20mips or
100mips?
I just don't understand the need to be 'in the times'. To me it sounds like
we are trying to say, 'but, everybody else uses one.' What determines a
real machine or a new one is how many people use it? To me, that does not
make a machine good! What if everyone wanted the same car? Would that
mean that I am crazy for wanting a different one, even if it is slower than
what everyone one else is driving?
All this talk is subjective, with No substance whatsoever. What is happening
in the market today is sad. We are losing the freedom of selecting a
computer (TOOL) that fits our discription of what it should look like and
run like. Many of us choose Atari for that reason alone. (not everyone wants
the fasssest Car, so why all of the sudden should we what the fasssest
Computer, or one with the biggest OS)
Pretty soon, if you like it or not when you select your computer, you
will have the 'COLOR of choice' but not choice at all. It's either computer
A no matter how dressed up or different it looks, or no computer at all...
I have other computers, but I favor my Atari. I barely use the other ones.
It does not make them bad. I just don't like the way it 'feels.' The Atari
computer, currently fits MY discription of what a Personal Computer should
work like.
Vince
P.S. John, this is not directed at you. For what I have heard Taligent
sounds like a promising OS. Also if the Atari became a PReP Machine, it
could use any software....
Denesh Bhabuta
: >In <RS+1zxf....@delphi.com>, jyou...@delphi.com writes:
: >>Speaking of upgrades, why is there no graphics board available for a
: >>stock ST. The addition of a board to allow 256 colors would be a
: >>tremendous breath of life to the ST line...
: I have checked a.a.u.e. and could not locate vofa??.lzh.
:
Maybe you should also try micros.hensa.ac.uk, in your searches. We have
this file. :-)
Path:
micros/atari/tos/p/p037/vofa_103.lzh
Danny
--
Denesh Bhabuta (Danny) ..... The CyberSTrider =);-) #include <std.disclaimer>
---: HENSA/Micros, Lancaster University, Lancashire, UK. (01524) 594287 :---
da...@micros.hensa.ac.uk; dbha...@cix.compulink.co.uk, vc...@wmin.ac.uk,
HENSA Mode: pddanny, syspds, postmaster, pdnews @micros.hensa.ac.uk
Denesh Bhabuta
: >src.doc.ic.ac.uk//packages/atari/uni-paderborn/tools/screen/vofa_103.lzh
: Is this stuff in German or English ?
In German....of course... :-)
Pity I don't know any German though. :-(
Timothy Miller
On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Clinton N. Keith wrote:
> Over the last 12 months 1 gig drives have been halved in price and size.
> Same as the previous year.
The point is that I shouldn't NEED such a large hard drive, especially
for just an OS. I read an article once in 1986 that said that an OS
should not use up excessive system resources. This I whole-heartedly
agree with, so it's funny and disgusting at the same time that most modern
OS's use up excessive system resources. The OS should be the most highly
optimized part of the system. It's there as a facility to be used by
other software. The OS is not a package of software like a
wordprocessor; it's the heart of the system, and therefore, it should be
made to allow the other software to take optimal advantage of the system
resources. When an OS is so big that you can't run your apps or it's so
slow that your apps, even efficient ones, find the OS to be a major
bottleneck in some way or other, then the OS is not fullfilling its
purpose. These inefficiencies do not allow software to take optimal
advantage of the system resources.
Windows, OS/2, System 7, UNIX and others suffer from these problems to
some extent or other. Windows is too big and very slow. OS/2 is too big
and a little slow. System 7 is too bog and EXTREMELY slow (40k of code
to perform a context switch? Come on!). UNIX is HUGE, but it's fast and
if you're running a very large network, it's not so bad.
>
> As for getting lazy and writing large inefficient code..., you are partly
> right. The executable size for programs has ballooned with advanced
> GUI's. However, having written GEM and Windows programs that do the same
> thing, I can truthfully say that I was *far* more productive when I was
> writing for Windows.
Define 'more productive'. Do you get more work done faster? Is it
easier? I rather like programming my Atari, and after I developed myself
an application framework than handles windows and windowed dialogs and
other thing autmatically for me, I became yet even easier, and I can
throw together a simple GEM app in minutes because either the facilities
are in the OS or in my library.
People who I know who develop for both Atari and Windows have almost
consistently told me that programming an Atari is MUCH nicer and easier.
Well, I don't recall if they said anything about faster, but if something
like this is nicer and easier do, the development time is probably much
faster. Just ask Damien M. Jones (of dmj sofware). He programs all say
on PC's, and comes home to and programs his Atari to RELAX.
> Much of this has to do with the tools which
> pack in alot of stuff which should be dynamically linked, but also with
> the idea that the most critical cost measurement of software is the
> programmer's time.
Oh, and another part of the system that should be HIGHLY optimized and
very well built is the compiler. Of course, Microschmuck and Borland
produced for us complete crap. At least Borland's stuff was fast, but
some of their optimization techniques are questional at best, and the
object code it produces is HUGE for even the smallest programs. The
Microsoft compilers are awful. Sure they have relatively plush
development tools, but the results suck.
Compare "hello world" programs:
68000 ASM: 92 bytes
Watcom Fortran: about 300 bytes
Laser C: about 6k
Borland C: about 12k
DBase III: about 100k
Doubtless, Microsoft visual C++ would produce something on the order of
40 or 50k.
> If I have the choice between 1/2 the time or 1/2 the
> size, I'll choose 1/2 the time. Lazy? No. I still put in 20 hour
> days as deadlines approach. My ultimate value (at least in terms of
> my job) is functionality produced over time. Besides, a 200K executable
> on a 1 meg Atari is worse than a "bloated" 1 meg exe on a 8 meg Windows
> machine. Memory is a relative resource.
>
You should NOT need more memory simply so you can run your OS. More
memory should be there for the USER so he can make more effective use of
his system. As a result of inefficiencies in OS design, you get nothing
out of 16 megs with Windows NT, while you can't fill 16 megs of RAM on a
TT, even while running several programs at once.
I agree that development time is important. As a result of my
application framework that I use for my Atari, my applications have a
minimum size of about 26k, rather than about 12k for programs that had to
be developed from scratch and took on the order of 10 times longer to
develop. That 20+k library is a worthwhile sacrifice.
On the other hand, when an OS is so large that your size sacrifice is on
the order of megabytes or tens of megabytes, then it IS laziness. There
is no other reason for the flagrant inefficiencies in Windows and System
7 than simply extremely lazy developers. Maybe not the individual
programmers, but the company that pushes the programmers to develop
software that may come close to working, regardless of size or speed.
UNIX is an exception because it's an OS written by hackers originally for
machines with 64k. The name UNIX is a play on the name Multix. At the
time, Multix had gotten so big that some people decided that they wanted
to do better. Multix was designed for large systems and many users, so
they designed Unix to be small and for single users on small systems.
This was back in about 1970. Over 24 years, Unix has grown
continuously. Independant contributors each developed utilities some of
which had overlapping capabilities. Additionally, the core of the OS has
been improved and adapted to countless different systems and
requirements. Memory protection, threading, and virtual memory were
certain not part of the original design of Unix. Considering the time
it's been around and the number of contributors, I'm surprised it's not
larger. The biggest reasons that Unix is so efficient is that is had to
start that way. Originally, you had to fit the OS into a small space,
and you had to make it very efficient, or it would be very slow. Unix
is also very capable for its relative efficiency since, to some extent,
programs that compile on one UNIX machine should be compilable on
another. This isn't always true, but it's due to slight differences in
different implementations of Unix which don't usually pose that much of a
problem.
The large apps and OS's being produced by awful companies like Microsoft
are that large not simply due to an interest in reducing development
time. It's due to stupidity and the fact that they can fool most idiot
Americans into buying any crap they want to sell. It's like selling
refridgerators to Eskimos, except Eskimos probably have some intelligence.
Timothy Miller
On Wed, 16 Nov 1994, Clinton N. Keith wrote:
>
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Clinton N. Keith wrote:
> >
> > > Over the last 12 months 1 gig drives have been halved in price and size.
> > > Same as the previous year.
> >
> > The point is that I shouldn't NEED such a large hard drive, especially
> > for just an OS. I read an article once in 1986 that said that an OS
> > should not use up excessive system resources.
>
> Define excessive. If I can store an OS using 1-2% of a $500 drive,
> would you call that excessive? If so, then my ST broke that law in
> '85. You cannot use fixed numbers for evaluate resources. If you
> did then computer progress would be diminishing since 1960.
>
Excessive: You could make a tightly coded Quicksort with a module for
compare, and another for swap, but instead, you make a bubble sort that
puts everything together, and has redundant code. Due to the modularity,
the quick sort would be MUCH faster and turn out smaller. Instead, you
didn't want to think, and threw together a bubble sort.
Excessive: You have to write blitting code. You could think about the
problem and write a small, fast routine in assembly, but instead, you
write it in Pascal and take the laziest approach. It ends up much bigger
and MUCH slower.
Sure, writing an OS in C is fine. However, you need to actually think
about what it is that you're doing, and develop your critical code in
assembly (ultimately... prototypes done in BASIC would be fine and very
helpful). Then you use those low-level modules to build more complex
modules that you write in a higher level language and where the
processing in C and the function-call time is not critical. If the
problem is conceived correctly, the code will not turn out to be a huge,
slow mess.
Of course, not everything has to be optimal. For example, in my AF, I
have a routine which closes all windows. I COULD traverse my linked list
and close them all in that routine. However, I have another routine
which deletes a specific window and it's used more often. So, my
close_all routine keeps calling my close_window routine, telling it to
close the window which is the head of the list, until the head of the
list is NULL. Either way, neither routine has to be particularly fast
because window manipulation of that sort isn't done very often, and the
OS calls themselves take far more processing time than any of my code.
So, I save space AND development time by (perhaps inefficiently) reusing
already existing routines.
In fact, things like this happen all throughout my AF. I considered all
the low level things first, and then then built on them. When I
discovered that there was something repeated, potentially useful for
other purposes, or something I'd forgotten, I ripped the code out,
generalized it, and made it into a seperate function.
>
> >
> > Windows, OS/2, System 7, UNIX and others suffer from these problems to
> > some extent or other. Windows is too big and very slow. OS/2 is too big
> > and a little slow. System 7 is too bog and EXTREMELY slow (40k of code
> > to perform a context switch? Come on!). UNIX is HUGE, but it's fast and
> > if you're running a very large network, it's not so bad.
> >
> When I went from my TT running GEM at 640x480 16 colors to Windows
> on a cheaper PC clone 486 DX250 at 800x600 256 colors with Norton desktop,
> the Norton desktop was *much* faster. I like both machines, Atari and PC.
> I think Windows with just the Program Manager _sucks_. Thats why I use
> Norton.
Depends on your view of 'fast'. A Mac Quadra can redraw the contents of
a window MUCH faster than a Falcon, for example, but there are delays in
the user interface (flashing of the menu selection, zoom effects for
opening/closing windows, timed software delays for UI effects, etc.) that
make some of the more important parts (like instant responce) unbearably
sluggish to work with. This is a psychological problem. When I make a
selection, I want the system to react instantly. When the system is
doing actual work, I'm distracted by watching the work being done. The
Mac may take less time overall, but the delays where the system does
nothing are quite obvious and irritating.
Now, Windows doesn't have many of these INTENTIONAL software delays... or
any at all that I can perceive. On a 66mhz 486, Windows 3.1 is actually
quite fast. Aside from the fact that I simply don't like the style of
the user interface, there are delays in windows that are due to a
combination of consistently poor video hardware and poor programming.
Now, considering some of the FAST stuff I've seen done with standard VGA,
I would have to say that much of the sluggishness if due to poor
programming.
Consider a typical session in Windows, using Word. I choose Word because
I like it, and because it's a good example of a nice Windows application.
I have to CLICK on a menu title, and then it takes a humanly observable
amount of time to first draw the frame for the window, and then fill it.
Then I click on a selection. The menu instantly disappears, but what's
behind it doesn't get instantly redrawn. Over another observable time
period, the portion obscured by the menu is slowly redrawn by the
application, first the toolbar, then the ruler, then slowly, the text in
an already open window. Next, the file selector pops up (because I wanted
to open a file), first the frame of the window, then the objects in the
dialog appear one by one. The disk is accessed and after another of those
observable units of time, the file names finally appear. Using the dialog
(file selector) isn't that bad. When I click on a filename, it highlights
with unnoticable speed. Of course, if I want to select a different
wildcard, I have to click on the box and wait for the pop-up to appear,
select it, wait for it to disappear, etc. When I click on the OK button
on the dialog, parts of the window contents disappear, then the rest
slowly are overwritten when the application slowly redraws its window
contents. The new windows appears. The borders instantly show up, but
Word has to take a moment to draw the contents. No big deal. As I edit
my new document, it isn't that bad. It's not too jump, and I can get my
work done.
Now, the above is a bit exaggerated for a 486, while it's very generous
to a system like a 25mhz 386 with 4 megs of RAM. But considering that
the 386, although horribly designed, it NOT a particularly slow
processor. Your average DOS application, even using graphics, will fly
on a 386.
Now consider a typical session with Atari Works' WP. I choose this
because I hate it and it's an awful example of an Atari application. I
move the mouse to the File menu and it instantly pops down. I select the
option, and the menu instantly disappears with the stuff behind it being
restored at the same time. The disk is accessed for a relatively short
period of time (even for floppies), and the file selector appears on the
screen. It's not instantaneous. You can tell that things are being drawn
on it, rather than it magically appearing, but it's much faster than the
Windows thing. I select the file and click OK. If it's UIS, what was
behind the selector instantly reappears. Then the new Window opens, the
borders appearing instantly. If I use the Atari file selector, it takes a
moment while Atari Works SLOWLY dedraws the window contents, line by line,
making awfully inefficient use of the capabilities of SpeedoGDOS. First
the top window, and then when I don't care any more and I'm paying
attention to other things, any unobscured portion of a background window
is slowly redrawn, if necessary. Typing is awful. Things take forever
to update, and Works has weird design flaws like Shift-Backspace deleting
the whole line before the cursor... what if I'm typing in all caps and I
hit BS? Boom! And then there's the Ctrl-A. Now, Ctrl-A for select-all on
a PC makes perfect sense, but on an Atari it's lunacy. Ctrl and A are
right next to each other and the Atari keyboards have too little
inter-key spacing (the caps should taper up to a slightly smaller size).
Too often for comfort, when trying to hit A or Control, my weak little
finger will slip and hit both keys. Since I would naturally be in the
process of typing something, I the next thing I will hit is another key,
thereby wiping out my whole document and replacing it with whatever is
left of the word I word I was typing, following the A.
What does this suggest? Looking only at the OS's part of each ordeal,
Windows is taking a much less efficient approach to dealing with Windows,
dialogs, and menus, albeit quite often more flexible. For a menu, the
Atari's is an object tree that gets drawn. On Windows, it's actually a
window that contains a dialog. On the Atari, what's behind the window is
stored in a buffer. On Windows, what's behind the window is redrawn by
the application in the same way information is redrawn after any window
is closed. On the Atari, the file-selector is modal, while on Windows,
it's not (which is good), but Windows' method for drawing and handling
dialogs is awful and crawls compared to my own code for doing amodal
dialogs. Secondly, an Atari can pull up a directory from a disk almost
instantly from an HD, regardless of size, while, for some odd reason,
Windows (and even DOS without Windows) takes an unusually long time.
Lastly, Atari makes window redraw requests in order of top-down so that
your top window has been restored and you think you can go about your
work, even though the other windows still aren't drawn yet.
Nevertheless, you're fooled into thinking that you can, for example, make
another menu selection, and by the time you get the mouse pointer back up
to the menu bar, the drawing is finished. Windows, on the other hand,
seems to do it in some random or merely unoptimal order, as well as
having slow facilities for doing the actual drawing.
Another reason for Windows' sluggishness is that VM is done very poorly
and is a major bottleneck in the system. If things weren't so damn
large, we wouldn't need all that memory (most of which is filled by
Windows itself and NOT applications), and, in at least that area, Windows
would be a lot faster.
>
> > >
> > > As for getting lazy and writing large inefficient code..., you are partly
> > > right. The executable size for programs has ballooned with advanced
> > > GUI's. However, having written GEM and Windows programs that do the same
> > > thing, I can truthfully say that I was *far* more productive when I was
> > > writing for Windows.
> >
> > Define 'more productive'. Do you get more work done faster? Is it
> > easier? I rather like programming my Atari, and after I developed myself
> > an application framework than handles windows and windowed dialogs and
> > other thing autmatically for me, I became yet even easier, and I can
> > throw together a simple GEM app in minutes because either the facilities
> > are in the OS or in my library.
> >
> YES! YES! You get to enjoy what you get used to. For every GEM
> application you develop, you have to include a portion of the
> non-recurring cost of developing your AF. You sound quite intellegent
> and capable, but I'm sure it no where near appraoches the capability
> of Borland 4.0 AF.
I'm QUITE certain that my AF is not nearly as advanced as some of the
others for the Atari. It's something that I think is ellegantly
designed, but applicable to only myself because it contains only what I
want in it. I don't have to make is mega-powerful and flexible because
I'm not worried about someone else wanting some other feature that I
don't have, and when I need a new feature, I have the source so I can just
add it.
>
>
> > People who I know who develop for both Atari and Windows have almost
> > consistently told me that programming an Atari is MUCH nicer and easier.
> > Well, I don't recall if they said anything about faster, but if something
> > like this is nicer and easier do, the development time is probably much
> > faster. Just ask Damien M. Jones (of dmj sofware). He programs all say
> > on PC's, and comes home to and programs his Atari to RELAX.
> >
> Well...I'm not one of them. I found GEM to be limiting, non-extensible
> in many ways and the environments within which to develop quite dated.
> It was quite a challenge to get used to a message based GUI like Windows
> and learn about DLL's. I enjoy OO-Motif programming FAR better on my
> SGI. PC/Macs/Ataris are mere shadows of that kind of environment IMO.
> I'm certainly not a PC enthusiast, but waited to switch over when the
> platform had passed the TOS/GEM platform which has been crawling slowly
> for 8+ years now. It was rather like being a Edsel mechanic. It may
> have been an advanced car, but hardly anyone bought it, and the lasting
> mechanics found themselves unemployed.
I do not argue that other systems are more flexible and more powerful. I
am pointing out the other drawbacks in the systems, why I don't like them,
and why my Atari does it better. But development and use are two
different things. You may be able to develop a Windows app in minutes,
while it may take me 1/2 hour to do the same thing. Without optimization,
I'm sure that mine would be more efficient. Not necessarily faster
(because of processor speed differences, but that may not be fair,
especially when the Atari would be faster than the PC if they were both
running at the same clock speed), and not necessarily easier to use (aside
from personal preferences about UI style), but more efficient in design.
Additionally, it runs under an OS that is efficiently designed and not a
bottleneck to the apps running under it.
>
> > > Much of this has to do with the tools which
> > > pack in alot of stuff which should be dynamically linked, but also with
> > > the idea that the most critical cost measurement of software is the
> > > programmer's time.
> >
> > Compare "hello world" programs:
> > 68000 ASM: 92 bytes
> > Watcom Fortran: about 300 bytes
> > Laser C: about 6k
> > Borland C: about 12k
> > DBase III: about 100k
> >
> > Doubtless, Microsoft visual C++ would produce something on the order of
> > 40 or 50k.
> >
> You are probably being conservative. I also recall similar horrors
> when going from the 800 to the 1040. Do you claim the 800 is a better
> machine/environment?
Well, the difference between 50 bytes and 100 bytes is not as profound as
the difference between 500k and 1 meg. Assuming that you could optimize
both to get to the smaller ones, optimizing the 100 bytes isn't as
important as shrinking the 1 meg, especially when the code COULD be
smaller. On the other hand, if that 1 meg is composed of many
optimizable 100 bytes units, then you should optimize them.
The difference between the 800 and 1040 is this: When you're DOING MORE,
it's ok to get bigger. When you're being a lazy dork, it's not. Of
course, cutting corners and making something a little inefficient isn't
always laziness, but we should not be excessive about it, and certainly
not when writing an OS.
>
>
> > > If I have the choice between 1/2 the time or 1/2 the
> > > size, I'll choose 1/2 the time. Lazy? No. I still put in 20 hour
> > > days as deadlines approach. My ultimate value (at least in terms of
> > > my job) is functionality produced over time. Besides, a 200K executable
> > > on a 1 meg Atari is worse than a "bloated" 1 meg exe on a 8 meg Windows
> > > machine. Memory is a relative resource.
> > >
> >
> >
> > On the other hand, when an OS is so large that your size sacrifice is on
> > the order of megabytes or tens of megabytes, then it IS laziness. There
> > is no other reason for the flagrant inefficiencies in Windows and System
> > 7 than simply extremely lazy developers. Maybe not the individual
> > programmers, but the company that pushes the programmers to develop
> > software that may come close to working, regardless of size or speed.
> >
> I can't understand why people think that this is the result of some
> MS/IBM/Apple conspiracy to make bloated OS's.
No, not a conspiracy. Well, yeah, there is to the extent that they don't
want to write good OS's, and as a result of THAT, they use the media to
get people to THINK that buying more and more and more and more hardware
is fine and necessary, when in fact, it should not be. The root
of the problem is that they just don't want to write good code.
> There is a reason
> for memory requirements to grow with capability.
Definately. If a program has more power and it's larger, fine. Program
size should grow because of increase in capability, NOT because
programmers figure they don't have to worry about size constaints and
speed limitations.
With this new PPC and the falling prices of memory, developers are NOT
going to spend their time writing good software to take advantage of the
system. App and OS developers are going to believe that since the CPU is
10 times faster and the available memory is 10 times larger, that writing
code that is 10 times bigger and 10 times slower is acceptable. The idea
behind getting a faster CPU is so you can run all software at a faster
speed, NOT so that you can run the new software as a normal speed.
The problem is that there is an undeniable trend toward ABUSING your
system resources, rather than taking advantage of the extra resources
for added power.
> There is a reason
> why the number of titles for each OS has grown wildly beyond that
> of the entire Atari base over it's entire lifetime.
Yeah... Atari management was clueless, didn't know how to market a good
machine, and let it die. If Atari had had good management, they would
have keep their machines beyond the capabilities of competitors (every
time they came out with a machine, it was better than much else with a
comparable price, unless it was late like the Falcon). By now, their OS
would probably be no larger than a Meg, but it wouldn't matter because
most of it would be in ROM, so it takes up no significant amount of disk
space or RAM. Additionally, it (or it with various additions like NVDI)
would be smaller and faster than competitor OS's.
> The 400/800
> machines made their owners concern themselves with 16-48K
> boundaries. ST 1Meg, PC 4-8 Meg....See a trend? Either the entire
> race of programmers is sliding into a comatose or the cost of
> productivity and advanced capability is resources.
The cost of advanced capability is resources. The cost of productivity is
effort, something that people don't like to put forth. Not all
programmers... just the ones from Microsoft, Apple, Borland, WordPerfect,
and countless others that hold the Dollar as more important than ETHICS.
Microsoft's marketing is very unethical. They take stuff which they know
to be flawed, slow, overly bloated, and poorly designed and promote it as
some wonderful new thing, selling it to millions of stupid Americans who
hardly know how to turn on a computer.
But unlike what you suggest, I do not concern myself with my boundary of 4
megs in my Falcon. It is the most advanced Atari computer with a number
of multitasking OS's available for it (some better than others). I have
never run out of memory. Yet, people with 8 megs in PC's and Macs often
find themselves dealing with memory limitations.
> That's OK, as long as
> the resource costs keep up or outpace, which they have. IMO having a
> copy of Mosaic running under Winsock is worth 4 megs as opposed to
> having the TT that _can't_run_Mosaic_at_all_.
The declining costs of resources should be an advantage, not a
necessity. The laziness of Microsoft is FORCING us to buy more memory,
faster CPU's, and larger hard drives. I shouldn't NEED 8 megs of RAM
just to run a WP. I shouldn't need to keep buying resources merely to
keep pace. This is an OS we're talking about here. I should only want
more memory or speed if I'm running software that intrinsicly requires
that much, like ray-tracing or regression modeling of huge data sets.
>
> > UNIX is an exception because it's an OS written by hackers originally for
> > machines with 64k. The name UNIX is a play on the name Multix. At the
> > time, Multix had gotten so big that some people decided that they wanted
> > to do better. Multix was designed for large systems and many users, so
> > they designed Unix to be small and for single users on small systems.
> > This was back in about 1970. Over 24 years, Unix has grown
> > continuously. Independant contributors each developed utilities some of
> > which had overlapping capabilities. Additionally, the core of the OS has
> > been improved and adapted to countless different systems and
> > requirements. Memory protection, threading, and virtual memory were
> > certain not part of the original design of Unix. Considering the time
> > it's been around and the number of contributors, I'm surprised it's not
> > larger. The biggest reasons that Unix is so efficient is that is had to
> > start that way. Originally, you had to fit the OS into a small space,
> > and you had to make it very efficient, or it would be very slow. Unix
> > is also very capable for its relative efficiency since, to some extent,
> > programs that compile on one UNIX machine should be compilable on
> > another. This isn't always true, but it's due to slight differences in
> > different implementations of Unix which don't usually pose that much of a
> > problem.
> >
> I administer a Unix network. I agree with you. (BTW Windows is
> a GUI, compare it to Motif). In fact , on my PC I run Linux, probably one
> of the best implementations of Unix. And it was free.
> None of my Unix machines have less than 8 meg for good reason, and
> they all scream.
If only Linux for Atari didn't cause so many people so much difficulty
for people who try to use it... or so I get the impression of.
>
> > The large apps and OS's being produced by awful companies like Microsoft
> > are that large not simply due to an interest in reducing development
> > time. It's due to stupidity and the fact that they can fool most idiot
> > Americans into buying any crap they want to sell. It's like selling
> > refridgerators to Eskimos, except Eskimos probably have some intelligence.
> >
> c'mon! I _know_ I'm intelligent, and I would advise any friend to
> buy a PC over an Atari (got hassled after I talked a friend into an Atari
> 5 years ago). It's not wrong to fight for your Atari. I did. It's
> a great hobbiest machine! The community of people is great too!
> But it's a mistake to support it by trying to shoot down PC's.
> Subjective stereotyping is no way to reach the truth.
>
If someone wanted to do Music or DTP, I would still recommend an Atari,
because there is nothing that beats the array of MIDI software for Atari,
and there is nothing with can compare to Calamus SL... well, except
Calamus NT, but to run that, you'd spend a fortune. Also, if someone
wanted a nice development environment that didn't make them put up with
all the crap that Windows, X Windows, System 7 and others give you, I'd
recommend an Atari. Also, some of the graphics manipulation software is
quite excellent.
Unfortunately, the best machine for WP and Spreadsheet and other kinds of
mid-level production is the PC. Software for Atari that is worth
considering is usually far too high-end for the average user. For
example, many Atari users don't want to put the time into learning
Calamus SL to see how powerful it really is. It takes effort (hmmm..
effort.. there's that word again).
Fun discussion about software engineering philosophy. Keep it coming. :)
John Watkins
>>: >> John Townsend (John_T...@taligent.com) wrote:
>
>For one thing People are getting fed up with your Posts here, and another,
>
Actually, I'm not fed up with Alfred's posts.
>John does not have to answer to you or any one, do you think you are some kind
>of Atari God..
>
But it does seem strange to slag off your previous employers in such a
way - perhaps it wasn't any of his own work?!
>I sugest you piss off and go and moan to the Amiga people, we don't need people
>like you in this group...
The words black, pot and kettle spring to mind here!
>
>>Alfred
John W.
James Wood
On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Timothy Miller wrote:
> The large apps and OS's being produced by awful companies like Microsoft
> are that large not simply due to an interest in reducing development
> time. It's due to stupidity and the fact that they can fool most idiot
> Americans into buying any crap they want to sell. It's like selling
> refridgerators to Eskimos, except Eskimos probably have some intelligence.
Microsoft's operating systems are not perfect, but they are far
from "awful." I find it difficult to believe that Microsoft's selling of
its operating systems being "due to stupidity" and "selling crap to idiot
americans." I rather find it more likely that you are out on a lunatic
fringe. I suppose you'd attempt to reason that Microsoft's stupidity has
made their name a household word and made the PC architecture by FAR the
world's most popular - and $9 billion for Gates. Yes, I'm sure you're
correct....Microsoft is a fledgling company based on stupidity....ha ha ha!
James Wood
Phillip Davey (Path)
>On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Timothy Miller wrote:
>> The large apps and OS's being produced by awful companies like Microsoft
>> are that large not simply due to an interest in reducing development
>> time. It's due to stupidity and the fact that they can fool most idiot
>> Americans into buying any crap they want to sell. It's like selling
>> refridgerators to Eskimos, except Eskimos probably have some intelligence.
> Microsoft's operating systems are not perfect, but they are far
>from "awful."
>I suppose you'd attempt to reason that Microsoft's stupidity has
>made their name a household word and made the PC architecture by FAR the
>world's most popular - and $9 billion for Gates. Yes, I'm sure you're
>correct....Microsoft is a fledgling company based on stupidity....ha ha ha!
Based on the stupidity (gullability?) of it's *customers* not microsoft
themselves.
Take for example Microsoft Word for windows. A word processor.
It just happens to take up over 25mb of HD space here at work.
If that's not ridiculous nothing is.
PC developers must be in close contact with Intel, because they always
seem to write programs which need the latest most expensive processor to
do anything useful. Take games for instance. They started off saying 286
recommended, then 386 and now it's need at least a 486 or Pentium! The
games aren't even *that* much better either!
I agree with Timothy, developers use the speed of the processor rather
than speed of their code. PC customers are easy to persuade they need
huge amounts of memory/diskspace/processor speed.
The only reason why things are any different on Atari's is that most
Atari owners have little money to spend on their machines, and so
developers have to make the best use of the limited resources available.
This makes much better programs. When you can add the processor speed you
really see the difference. (ie Calamus on a Medusa!).
I feel much better now! :)
Phil
[E-mail p...@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk]
--
Kryten (When Cat says why don't we raise the defensive shields?) "A superlative
suggestion sir,with only two drawbacks: one,we don't have any defensive shields
and two,we don't have any defensive shields.I know that,technically,that's only
one drawback,but it was such a *big* one I thought I'd mention it twice".
Graham Beint, 321
> ...
>fringe. I suppose you'd attempt to reason that Microsoft's stupidity has
>made their name a household word and made the PC architecture by FAR the
>world's most popular - and $9 billion for Gates. Yes, I'm sure you're
>correct....Microsoft is a fledgling company based on stupidity....ha ha ha!
>
>James Wood
>
in the sense that people buy it because they like it. but the biggest seller because of market
domination due to corporate sales originally based on the reputation of IBM and bought by
managers who didn't know what they were buying.
John Townsend
<mil...@csee.usf.edu> wrote:
|Sure, writing an OS in C is fine. However, you need to actually think
|about what it is that you're doing, and develop your critical code in
|assembly (ultimately... prototypes done in BASIC would be fine and very
|helpful). Then you use those low-level modules to build more complex
|modules that you write in a higher level language and where the
|processing in C and the function-call time is not critical. If the
|problem is conceived correctly, the code will not turn out to be a huge,
|slow mess.
This is my personal opinion.. I should have said that throughout this
post, but I didn't.. so I say it now. This is how I feel about these issues...
You may not agree, or you may agree. Let's have a friendly discussion.
This could be fun!
The most important thing in operating systems development is that the
OS be designed properly and implemented correctly. Second consideration
is maintainability. Its very important that the operating system be able to
be updated and modified without a tremendous learning curve.
One reason that C is popular for OS development is because it is fairly
easy to understand (redirect C code flames to /dev/null please) and it
compiles to pretty tight code. If you have a decent C compiler (like
Lattice C v5 or Pure C), it will be hard to beat its optimized code with
hand-written assembler. And even if you did, you would spend 3-4
times more work/time developing the same functionality.
I do agree with you that certain parts of the operating system have to
be in assembly language. In my mind critical code is code like BLiT
operations, time critical operations like MIDI timing, the code that
reads a sector off of a disk. Critical code is not the the code that draws
dialog boxes on the screen. You should be able to speed this code up
by looking at the design and performance analysis of the system to
increase the performance of the system.
But.. again, when you are working on a team of engineers that can (and
will) change over time.. the most important thing is that the code be
maintainable. There is nothing worse than a section of code that no
one is willing to touch because they can't figure out how it works. That
code might as well be dead. Usually what will happen is that someone
will come in a completely re-write the code based on its behavior and
then modify that. That's a significant time and cost right there.
|
|Of course, not everything has to be optimal. For example, in my AF, I
|have a routine which closes all windows. I COULD traverse my linked list
|and close them all in that routine. However, I have another routine
|which deletes a specific window and it's used more often. So, my
|close_all routine keeps calling my close_window routine, telling it to
|close the window which is the head of the list, until the head of the
|list is NULL. Either way, neither routine has to be particularly fast
|because window manipulation of that sort isn't done very often, and the
|OS calls themselves take far more processing time than any of my code.
|So, I save space AND development time by (perhaps inefficiently) reusing
|already existing routines.
Cool! The best code to write is the code you don't have to write. Every
minute you are saved from writing something that isn't needed is a minute
you can spend adding more features to your application (or spending more
time ensuring that you deliver a high quality product!).
I have to be honest. I have been using a Quadra 800 for almost 2 years now.
Sure, there are times that I really hate the Mac OS and I hate some of the
delays
that I see. But, overall.. the experience has been fairly positive. I
guess each person
has his/her own idea of what is acceptable. I find the Quadra 800 to be
acceptable.
However, I know that I couldn't live with some of the smaller machines. No way.
One thing to think about.. there is alot more things the Mac has to worry about
than the Atari. For example, the Mac can have multiple monitors on the same
machine with different video cards that are displaying at different pixel
depths.
The possible cases here alone can be a cause for some of the extra processing
time needed for things. This is just one case, there are lots of others.
|Another reason for Windows' sluggishness is that VM is done very poorly
|and is a major bottleneck in the system. If things weren't so damn
|large, we wouldn't need all that memory (most of which is filled by
|Windows itself and NOT applications), and, in at least that area, Windows
|would be a lot faster.
Yes, but the windows system has VM available. The Atari doesn't (on Atari
base models, yes I know there are third parties that do it) and some people
might consider that important. On the Mac, you can turn off the VM, can you
do this on Windows? I honestly don't know, I am not a big Windows user.
|
|I'm QUITE certain that my AF is not nearly as advanced as some of the
|others for the Atari. It's something that I think is ellegantly
|designed, but applicable to only myself because it contains only what I
|want in it. I don't have to make is mega-powerful and flexible because
|I'm not worried about someone else wanting some other feature that I
|don't have, and when I need a new feature, I have the source so I can just
|add it.
My experience is that the most important part of development is design.
If you think you got the design right, awesome! You are 90% there. The
other 10% is just code ;-)
Hey, as long as it suits your needs it doesn't really matter does it?
|Fun discussion about software engineering philosophy. Keep it coming. :)
I agree. Let's continue. Its been fairly interesting..
Panjandrum
>its operating systems being "due to stupidity" and "selling crap to idiot
>americans." I rather find it more likely that you are out on a lunatic
>made their name a household word and made the PC architecture by FAR the
>world's most popular - and $9 billion for Gates. Yes, I'm sure you're
>correct....Microsoft is a fledgling company based on stupidity....ha ha ha!
Well... I think there is something a little bit stupid about buying without
investigating all the possible choices. For example, shortly after Windows
came out there was another product that was hailed as "Everything Windows
Should Have Been" by Byte (I think). I can't remember the product name though.
Anyway, it was far smaller, far faster, far nicer to use, and, had all of the
same features plus some. Problem was, the company had no money for advertising
(sound familiar?) and thus the product did not sell well. If the 'system' for
shopping was a bit different; if more people checked out all options instead of
just shelling out $$$ for whatever has the most name recoginition, then maybe a
lot better products would be the 'standards' today.
Maybe it is a bit like the
American car thing. I was one of the people who refused to believe that
American cards had become crap, and that the Japaneese had far superior
quality. Of course, as it turns out, around 1972 American cars did begin a fast
downward spiral that they are (I hope) just now pulling out of. Despite all
information to the contrary, most americans still persisted in believing that
American cars were 'best', and it took many years to turn that around. When the
mass populace began to turn to Japanese cars more and more, it finally forced
the Big 3 to begin making *better cars again*! That same principle would work
for software and hardware if consumers were (collectively) sharp enough.
Of course, now everyone has realized that, in fact, the best cars are old VW
Bugs, circa 1968 for example ;-)))))
Anyway, if people started buying smaller faster operating systems, and smaller
faster applications, even if the product did not have big name recognition,
then pretty soon Microsoft and Apple and such would have to make their products
smaller and faster to compete. The power of the (collective) informed consumer
is something the Big 3 learned the hard way! I doubt Microsoft or Apple would
be as stupid.
_________________________________________________________________
|-! -David Butler- dhbu...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
"It's supposed to be automatic but actually you have to press this button."
- John Brunner
Gregory Bernath
one, it's a design flaw) of the Pentium processors have serious
bugs in the floating point division code.
I've verified this on my Pentium at work. For the latest details,
go see comp.sys.intel. For a quick demo, try doing
x = 4195835
y = 3145727
z = x-(x/y)*y
on a Pentium and any other x86 chip. The Pentium gives an
answer of z=256; the others give the correct answer of z=0.
If you were planning on getting a Pentium, better put it off
until this gets resolved. Hopefully a software fix will be
forthcoming; otherwise I've got a number crunching machine
that can't do number crunching reliably.
--
Greg Bernath gber...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
David Paul Forrai
not included to preserve sanity :-) >
Some argue that inefficient OSs are marketed because of the
availability if faster hardware. I argue that human nature desires
the faster hardware and with it they demand more sophisticated OSs and
programs. Thus development views optimization as low priority and
adding features is high. Debugging hooks are added which makes the
code bigger and often slower. Downward compatibility is also a big
issue.
It took Atari 4 years (from 1985 to 1989) to release TOS 1.4, which
was basically a bug fix of TOS 1.0 (1.2) that would fit in 192k ROMs.
And despite this length of time, there were still bugs (although not
as severe) and a smal but significant number of programs were
incompatible. Although there are many other reasons for why it took
so long, one might have been the 192k restriction. Optimization is
also much more important on a platform like the Atari since the TT
(Atari's only machine that offers a significant amount of raw compute
power over the original ST) is a tiny share of the Atari market.
IBM has persisted in optimizing OS/2. It's current version requires
less resources than the previous 32 bit versions. To have
Presentation manager, DOS, and Windows support still requires large
resources. But as I pointed out to someone who complained about the
lack of a 32 bit DOS, OS/2 in it's minimal configuration requires
about 2 megs of hard disk space and offers a pre-emptive multitasking
command line environment.
--
David Forrai
Internet: gt1...@prism.gatech.edu
James Wood
On 17 Nov 1994, Phillip Davey wrote:
> Take for example Microsoft Word for windows. A word processor.
> It just happens to take up over 25mb of HD space here at work.
> If that's not ridiculous nothing is.
25Mb is a lot for a word processor - and I am unable to verify
that because I don't have Word. However, what little I've used Word was
importing pictures, faxes, and many fonts onto the same document - all in
color, and in the space of a few seconds and mouse clicks. Is there some
mighty and powerful Atari program which does the same?
>
> PC developers must be in close contact with Intel, because they always
> seem to write programs which need the latest most expensive processor to
> do anything useful. Take games for instance. They started off saying 286
> recommended, then 386 and now it's need at least a 486 or Pentium! The
> games aren't even *that* much better either!
Intel has lots of competitors now. Games are becoming
increasingly complex. DOOM is the first game that I find is less than
acceptable on a PC less than a 486DX2/66. I suppose the fact that a
64-bit Jaguar is the necessary TV video game that is DOOM-capable speaks
for the fact that the new games *ARE* processor-intensive by nature,
rather than a secret Intel alliance. DOOM, I would say, is *THAT* much
better than other games.
> I agree with Timothy, developers use the speed of the processor rather
> than speed of their code. PC customers are easy to persuade they need
> huge amounts of memory/diskspace/processor speed.
>
> The only reason why things are any different on Atari's is that most
> Atari owners have little money to spend on their machines, and so
> developers have to make the best use of the limited resources available.
> This makes much better programs. When you can add the processor speed you
> really see the difference. (ie Calamus on a Medusa!).
I suppose lazy programming might be to blame for some of the HUGE
hard disk requirements, but with wholesale quantities of processor power
AND harddrive space for little money, its not so crippling on the PC.
Since most of the Falcons I see being mentioned on some people's
signature files (here on the net) boast of 4MB RAM and 65MB hard drives,
such occurances in the Atari world would indeed be ridiuculous. My
latest 486DX2/66 cost only $1200 and included 8MB RAM and 420MB drive -
so I'm fairly positioned to contend with large programs for little
money. I'm surprised at some of the system requirements, but I'm happy
that the vast array of software is available, and content that my $1200
system will run it to my satisfaction.
James Wood
James Wood
On Thu, 17 Nov 1994 gra...@insignia.co.uk wrote:
> >
> They happened to be in the right place at the right time. The PC is not the most 'popular'
> in the sense that people buy it because they like it. but the biggest seller because of market
> domination due to corporate sales originally based on the reputation of IBM and bought by
> managers who didn't know what they were buying.
It's one thing to discuss how the Intel/Microsoft/ISA
architecture was formulated eons ago. It's quite another thing to
discuss which system gives you the most BANG for the BUCK in this day and
age. Today, $1200 buys you a COMPLETE PC system with 486DX2/66Mhz
processor, 8MB RAM, 256K cache, 420MB hard drive, 15" non-interlaced
1024x768 monitor with 32-bit local bus card to drive it, high-density
floppy drive, mouse, keyboard, operating system, and all necessary
accoutrements. That's $1200...today! (perhaps even less in the near future)
Along with that, the WORLD'S largest software base, bar none!
A powerful computer (by today's standards) with all the software
available that one could dream of. The best BANG FOR THE BUCK one could
ask for. Is that not what personal computing is about? Who cares WHY
the PC architecture got where it is. The definition of "popular" can be
twisted to mean anything....but it won't dispute the fact that the PC
**IS** the most popular microcomputer architecture. Have any questions
about that? Walk into a COSTCO warehouse and look at the software table.
James Wood
William Wong
>You can get it from
>src.doc.ic.ac.uk//packages/atari/uni-paderborn/tools/screen/vofa_103.lzh
Is this stuff in German or English ?
Regards
Willam
+========================================================================+
William Wong --- ST user in Singapore | Want a GUI that | ||| 520ST 4Meg
Internet Email: won...@lobby.ti.com | works ?.... | ||| Tos 2.06
MCI Email: 467...@mcimail.com | Get an Atari !! |/ | \ 44M Syquest
+========================== Disclaimer: What I say here is my own view ==+
Phillip Davey (Path)
> 25Mb is a lot for a word processor - and I am unable to verify
>that because I don't have Word. However, what little I've used Word was
>importing pictures, faxes, and many fonts onto the same document - all in
>color, and in the space of a few seconds and mouse clicks. Is there some
>mighty and powerful Atari program which does the same?
I don't now as I personally have never wanted to do that. (I only have a
b+w bubblejet printer so working in colour is a bit pointless for me)
> Intel has lots of competitors now. Games are becoming
>increasingly complex. DOOM is the first game that I find is less than
>acceptable on a PC less than a 486DX2/66. I suppose the fact that a
>64-bit Jaguar is the necessary TV video game that is DOOM-capable speaks
>for the fact that the new games *ARE* processor-intensive by nature,
>rather than a secret Intel alliance. DOOM, I would say, is *THAT* much
>better than other games.
OK I have to agree with you there. :)
BUT, do these new games actually *need* the processor speed and memory to
do what they do, or would it be *possible* to do it with much less? (with
admittedly more time needed to optimize the code)
>> The only reason why things are any different on Atari's is that most
>> Atari owners have little money to spend on their machines, and so
>> developers have to make the best use of the limited resources available.
>> This makes much better programs. When you can add the processor speed you
>> really see the difference. (ie Calamus on a Medusa!).
> I suppose lazy programming might be to blame for some of the HUGE
>hard disk requirements, but with wholesale quantities of processor power
>AND harddrive space for little money, its not so crippling on the PC.
You can use exactly the same memory and hard drives on atari's (maybe
with an adaptor, depends which machine). However, they are still not
cheap. Maybe cheap compared to what they were a few years ago but still
not cheap!
>Since most of the Falcons I see being mentioned on some people's
>signature files (here on the net) boast of 4MB RAM and 65MB hard drives,
>such occurances in the Atari world would indeed be ridiuculous. My
>latest 486DX2/66 cost only $1200 and included 8MB RAM and 420MB drive -
Me and my house mate bought a 486DX2/66 VLB with 4mb RAM and 240mb
drive. This was a week ago and it cost 810 pounds. I'm not sure how that
compares but it was the cheapest we could find in the adverts.
My Falcon which I bought about 18months ago cost around 900 (I can't
remember exactly how much) for 4mb RAM and 65mb drive (Pagestream DTP was
included in this price).
The PC could do with another 4mb of RAM and a soundcard. (also missing SCSI)
The Falcon (now with blowup+NVDI) is pretty good as it is. For me anyway.
My point is that the minimum requirements for PC's and Atari are much
different, but the programs themselves have a similar amount of
features/capabilities.
>so I'm fairly positioned to contend with large programs for little
>money. I'm surprised at some of the system requirements, but I'm happy
>that the vast array of software is available, and content that my $1200
>system will run it to my satisfaction.
My 486 is pretty good too. I just need some decent software for it now. I
have been busy trying out the PD games so far!
Trouble is software is very expensive too now. (For both machines)
Hutch
>In article AA0...@ilmen.lanl.gov, hu...@ilmen.lanl.gov (Hutch) writes:
>> In article 02119411...@townblue.taligent.com, John_T...@taligent.com (John Townsend) writes:
>> >
>> >Its time to wake up people.. Atari's computer products are now antiques.
>>
>> Oh boy... you've gone and done it now, John. You've committed the one truly
>> unforgivable sin here in comp.sys.atari.st... you spoke the TRUTH!
>>
>
>I think you should keep these kind of comments to a advocacy area anyway. This
>area is for Atari-owners who likes to help each other and give advise on how
>to make the most of their machines in their everyday work. AND not destroying
>each other with pathedic comments that leads to nothing but angry comments.
>I say it again - That belongs to an advocacy area, where people who likes to
>disguss such time-wasting subjects can give their oppinions.
Heinrik --
OK, OK... Just as YOU have said before, _I_ was the one joking this time.
I DO wholeheartedly agree that this area (comp.sys.atari.st) should be kept to
discussions about Atari and questions/answers about helping each other get the
most out of these marvelous machines. I was, however, amused at how much flack
John Townsend got for speaking the truth (like it or not). He did not flame
Atari users, after all. Perhaps we should try not to be so defensive.
While it may be true that we are rapidly approaching the uneviable status(?)
of owning orphaned computers, I must ask, so what??? Does that make them any
less useful? Of course not. Be happy with what you have and keep on enjoying
it. No problem. If others prefer PC's or Mac's or SGI's or Fujitsu 1000XLD's
or whatever, who cares? Life is too short to fret over it, gang.
All --
I _would_ like to suggest, however, that the recent discussions on the merits
of PC's (Pentiums et al) vs Ataris (680x0 et al) be removed to the .advocacy
groups as that is _certainly_ where they belong. All this nonsense revolving
around childish arguments like 'my computer is better than your computer' is
the _real_ waste of bandwidth here, even worse than those tremendously long
.signatures some of you seem to be so partial to. :)
The PC-oriented newsgroups wouldn't appreciate a bunch of pro-Atari messages
so please be considerate of our desires, too. You know who you are so please
cease and desist the deluge of pro-PC posts here, OK?
Thanks,
-Hutch- @ Fair Dinkum Tech
John Townsend
Paul Forrai) wrote:
|It took Atari 4 years (from 1985 to 1989) to release TOS 1.4, which
|was basically a bug fix of TOS 1.0 (1.2) that would fit in 192k ROMs.
|And despite this length of time, there were still bugs (although not
|as severe) and a smal but significant number of programs were
|incompatible. Although there are many other reasons for why it took
|so long, one might have been the 192k restriction. Optimization is
|also much more important on a platform like the Atari since the TT
|(Atari's only machine that offers a significant amount of raw compute
|power over the original ST) is a tiny share of the Atari market.
|
During the 1985 to 1989 timeframe.. Atari released the 520ST, 1040ST,
the Mega2 and Mega4 as well as work on things like STPad and STBook
as well as the ST Portable. When you add the Laser Printer, GDOS, the
CD-ROM player, and some networking stuff that never made it, you have
quite an array of hardware projects that were produced.
For each one of those computers than was released, TOS had to be brought
up and tested on each one. This took time. In the case of the Mega machines,
this meant a BLiTTER chip. The addition of this chip required a complete
rewrite of the lower levels of the VDI subsystem.
When you consider than Atari had a staff of about 12 people working on
TOS (at the most, usually less than that).. you begin to understand that
we are dealing with a resource problem. Atari simply didn't have the staff
to do everything it wanted to do. Now, remember.. I am not slamming
Atari for this. Every single company in the world has this problem. They
have to make decisions on what they need to do and what they have the
resources to do.
So, please.. don't get the idea that the engineers at Atari were sitting around
drinking coffee and playing video games during the four years between TOS
releases. They were actually doing alot of stuff.
Chris Herborth
>Windows, OS/2, System 7, UNIX and others suffer from these problems to
>some extent or other. Windows is too big and very slow. OS/2 is too big
>and a little slow. System 7 is too bog and EXTREMELY slow (40k of code
>to perform a context switch? Come on!). UNIX is HUGE, but it's fast and
>if you're running a very large network, it's not so bad.
UNIX is not huge, it just comes with a zillion great utilities (you
know, "useless" bells and whistles like networking, compilers, etc).
Most modern UNIX kernels are around 1M, aren't they? Now, when you add
networking, pre-emptive multitasking, etc to your ST, MiNT is sucking
back about 1M just for itself, the network extensions, minixfs, etc.
I guess now you'll say MiNT is huge and inefficient.
>Define 'more productive'. Do you get more work done faster? Is it
>easier? I rather like programming my Atari, and after I developed myself
>an application framework than handles windows and windowed dialogs and
>other thing autmatically for me, I became yet even easier, and I can
>throw together a simple GEM app in minutes because either the facilities
>are in the OS or in my library.
I'd certainly be more productive if I had a cross-compiler running on a
faster computer; it takes me ~6 minutes to compile a C++ source module
on my Atari, _if_ it's small enough to compile in "only" 4M of RAM.
One of the many, many reasons why I haven't "upgraded" to a '486 system
running Linux is that I'd only use it for networking (UUCP and possibly
SLIP onto the Internet), cross-compiling, and a little ray-tracing.
Definitely not worth the effort or the cost, though it would be neat to
NFS-mount the drive of the Linux box on my Atari, and telnet to it for
cross-compiling my GEM++ apps, then run them off the NFS-mounted
drive...
>People who I know who develop for both Atari and Windows have almost
>consistently told me that programming an Atari is MUCH nicer and easier.
>Well, I don't recall if they said anything about faster, but if something
>like this is nicer and easier do, the development time is probably much
>faster. Just ask Damien M. Jones (of dmj sofware). He programs all say
>on PC's, and comes home to and programs his Atari to RELAX.
After programming GEM for so long, there's no way in hell I'll ever
program Windows or OS/2. I have no idea how nice or gross X is to
program, though I imagine Motif is just as sick as Windoze (but without
the stupid "near" and "far" pointers, and 64k segments).
>Oh, and another part of the system that should be HIGHLY optimized and
>very well built is the compiler. Of course, Microschmuck and Borland
>produced for us complete crap. At least Borland's stuff was fast, but
>some of their optimization techniques are questional at best, and the
>object code it produces is HUGE for even the smallest programs. The
>Microsoft compilers are awful. Sure they have relatively plush
>development tools, but the results suck.
Microsoft's C is brutal. I was just trying to help a guy yesterday; no
matter WHAT we did, we couldn't get MS C 7.0a to print out "unsigned long"
numbers properly; it kept printing either unsigned shorts or signed
longs, which were way off...
>Compare "hello world" programs:
> 68000 ASM: 92 bytes
Strange, wouldn't it be closer to ~560 bytes if you did it properly? I
mean, if you shrunk your memory chunk and all that?
> Watcom Fortran: about 300 bytes
> Laser C: about 6k
> Borland C: about 12k
> DBase III: about 100k
That's a pretty stupid comparision. Who writes "hello world"
applications? I mean, beside FSF? :)
>Doubtless, Microsoft visual C++ would produce something on the order of
>40 or 50k.
C++ produces huge "hello world" on any platform with any compiler. It's
because we're still using C linkers that include the whole object
instead of just what you used; the C++ stream objects are pretty large
because they do a lot of work.
>You should NOT need more memory simply so you can run your OS. More
>memory should be there for the USER so he can make more effective use of
>his system. As a result of inefficiencies in OS design, you get nothing
>out of 16 megs with Windows NT, while you can't fill 16 megs of RAM on a
>TT, even while running several programs at once.
Ah, but due to the stupid memory design of the TT, there'll be at least
2M of "ST RAM" sitting there doing nothing but holding the screen data
(assuming you're not using a video card) and doing ACSI DMA...
>I agree that development time is important. As a result of my
>application framework that I use for my Atari, my applications have a
>minimum size of about 26k, rather than about 12k for programs that had to
>be developed from scratch and took on the order of 10 times longer to
>develop. That 20+k library is a worthwhile sacrifice.
The overhead of object-oriented programming (slower compiles, larger
executables) is worth it, too, no matter what platform you're working
on. I can produce a GEM application with 1/2 the work, and about 1/8
the hassle using GEM++ than I could using *any* GEM library written for
C.
>On the other hand, when an OS is so large that your size sacrifice is on
>the order of megabytes or tens of megabytes, then it IS laziness. There
>is no other reason for the flagrant inefficiencies in Windows and System
>7 than simply extremely lazy developers. Maybe not the individual
>programmers, but the company that pushes the programmers to develop
>software that may come close to working, regardless of size or speed.
I think it has a LOT to do with trying to kludge something modern onto
something incredibly crappy, like DOS, or the original Mac System.
These days, backwards compatibility is crippling _hardware_ design, not
just software design.
>This was back in about 1970. Over 24 years, Unix has grown
>continuously. Independant contributors each developed utilities some of
>which had overlapping capabilities. Additionally, the core of the OS has
>been improved and adapted to countless different systems and
>requirements. Memory protection, threading, and virtual memory were
>certain not part of the original design of Unix. Considering the time
>it's been around and the number of contributors, I'm surprised it's not
>larger. The biggest reasons that Unix is so efficient is that is had to
With increased functionality comes increased size. Look at DOS; it
doesn't do anything, and it takes up less than 64k.
>The large apps and OS's being produced by awful companies like Microsoft
>are that large not simply due to an interest in reducing development
>time. It's due to stupidity and the fact that they can fool most idiot
>Americans into buying any crap they want to sell. It's like selling
>refridgerators to Eskimos, except Eskimos probably have some intelligence.
I guess you'd rather wait two years for me to develope a tool in C (and
have it maybe 20k smaller for a non-trivial application) than to have it
done in 4-6 months in C++... Personally, I develope things I want to
_use_, so I want 'em done as fast as possible. Once it's working, then
maybe I'll think about making it smaller and more efficient (that's what
both IBM and MS did with OS/2 and WindowsNT... the latest versions are
smaller and faster than the older versions, not that anyone sane would
bother with NT).
--
-------------------======================================-------------------
||| Jaguar 64-bit cher...@semprini.waterloo-rdp.on.ca
/ | \ DO THE MATH Chris Herborth
Canter and Siegel had nothing to do with this. I don't need a Green Card.
jyou...@delphi.com
>I just don't understand the need to be 'in the times'. To me it sounds like
>we are trying to say, 'but, everybody else uses one.' What determines a
>real machine or a new one is how many people use it? To me, that does not
>make a machine good! What if everyone wanted the same car? Would that
>mean that I am crazy for wanting a different one, even if it is slower than
>what everyone one else is driving?
they fit his style. Why shouldn't a computer have similar appeal to users?
I like my Atari and enjoy using it day after day. I do not feel I am
losing ground to anyone or anything. My Atari is like a pair of
comfortable slippers that I know I can depend on...
Take Care,
Jeff
Pekka Saarinen
James Wood <jam...@CSOS.ORST.EDU> wrote:
>age. Today, $1200 buys you a COMPLETE PC system with 486DX2/66Mhz
>processor, 8MB RAM, 256K cache, 420MB hard drive, 15" non-interlaced
>1024x768 monitor with 32-bit local bus card to drive it, high-density
>floppy drive, mouse, keyboard, operating system, and all necessary
>accoutrements. That's $1200...today! (perhaps even less in the near future)
>
>Along with that, the WORLD'S largest software base, bar none!
Quantity, no quality...
>A powerful computer (by today's standards) with all the software
>available that one could dream of. The best BANG FOR THE BUCK one could
There are lot of software for e.g. Falcon, which has innovations and quality
that has never been rivalled by PC-programmers.
You must be talking about the dreams of a average user that has very limited
expectations, does not know much about software (apart what he's seen at work)
and thinks that Ami Pro is a DTP-program...
One excellent program will be enough to justify the purchase of a computer.
Getting 10 000 programs you don't really need does not.
Best Regards,
----Pekka Saarinen
Member of the Finnish Radio Symphony Orchestra (Playin' the Bass!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Falcon030/16MbRAM/FPU/ScreenwonderPro/MAG17"Multisync/FDI/Steinbergs
CubaseAudioForFalcon(CAF)2.02/LotsOfMidistuff/200YearsOldBass/Beer!!
PfretzschnerBow/AnOldWolksvagenGolf/BigBedWithFuton/&LivesInHelsinki
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Herborth
> . . . and all the comments to this message....
> Why dont ATARI-insider talk about the new ATARI?
> They have no permission!
More like, they have nothing to talk about. Atari's having a hard time
getting the Jaguar CD-ROM unit out (and hell, they showed it what, two
years ago when the Jag first came out?)... you think they're wasting any
of their time working on new ST-compatible computers?
> Why dont talk Developers / dealers about?
> They have to sell their clones and MagiC / MacMagic
There are very few developers and dealers still doing Atari. They sell
what they can get, but it isn't much.
> Why does not ATARI USA talk about a new machine ??
> They try to sell their Falcons and Jaguars, cause a new
> machine will be contain both . . . and more.
The Jaguar will sell anyway (hey, I'm not concerned with games on a new
computer; I've got a Jaguar to play games on). The Falcon doesn't sell
in North America.
> Cant you understand them ceeping silence about their BOMB they tries
> to fire on CEBIT , march 95 ?
You're much more optimistic than I am. I just hope they have the Jaguar
CD-ROM out by then. :-(
A new Atari machine would be terrible, unless it used the 68040. *All*
current Atari machines with CPUs > 68000 just use the CPU as a fast
68000, much like DOS machines use those '486 and Pentium chips like fast
8088s.
If Atari moved to PowerPC or any other RISC CPU, *all* applications
would be emulated... who'd be re-releasing things like PageStream, 1st
Word+, WordWriter II, Calamus, etc to take advantage of the new CPU?
There are hardly any developers left. I'm sure the MiNT community would
be overjoyed, and start producing RISC binaries the second the machine
was released, but I doubt anyone else would do anything.
Knowing Atari, TOS would still be 68000, and emulated on the RISC chips,
like Apple's MacOS is on the PowerMacs. :-(
Warwick Allison
>What is happening in the market today is sad. We are losing the
>freedom of selecting a computer that fits our discription of what it
>should look like and run like.
The crunch comes when you NEED a faster machine but there is none
available from the manufacturer you prefer. This is a result of the
computer industry today: the most common brand computers is the
fastest for the price. Apple is fighting back with the PowerPC line.
But Atari could not keep up.
Hence, they lose the enthusiasts with high-demand.
And guess who keeps a model of computer alive? Those high-demand enthusiasts.
Without high-demand enthusiasts doing software development, the userbase
slowly fades away.
I had buy a TT to continue GEM NetHack development. And I gladly paid for
it. But then, when I had an even more demanding project, I had nowhere to
turn. I started using the University's workstations to do more and more of
the work my project demanded. Finally, I had to buy a Linux Pentium to
continue development at home. And I gladly paid for it. If Atari had a
high-end machine, I would have bought that and run 680x0 Linux. But there
is nothing above a Medusa (which is not even made by Atari).
--
Warwick
--
_-_|\ war...@cs.uq.oz.au / Microsoft is not the answer.
/ * <-- Computer Science Department, / Microsoft is the question.
\_.-._/ University of Queensland, /
v Brisbane, Australia. / NO is the answer.
Warwick Allison
> 25Mb is a lot for a word processor - and I am unable to verify
>that because I don't have Word. However, what little I've used Word was
>importing pictures, faxes, and many fonts onto the same document - all in
>color, and in the space of a few seconds and mouse clicks. Is there some
>mighty and powerful Atari program which does the same?
Yes, and they too use huge quantities of disk space. Someone got a figure
for Calamus SL?
>> do anything useful. Take games for instance. They started off saying 286
>> recommended, then 386 and now it's need at least a 486 or Pentium! The
>> games aren't even *that* much better either!
True... because they are just using the CPU power for GLITTER. Sadly,
glitter sells games. DOOM is crap. I've played it full-screen on a
90MHz Pentium with 16bit sound card, so there is no excuse. It's a
puerile shoot-em-up with no mental skills required. The world is full
of puerile, braindead adolescents, so it sells well. What saddens me is
seeing so many netusers drooling over it: this says something about the
changing demographics of USENET.
>> I agree with Timothy, developers use the speed of the processor rather
>> than speed of their code.
That is correct. That has always been the trend. It is more logical to
buy a faster machine than to spend HUMAN resources. That is why I bought
my Pentium: I have better things to do with my life than wait for a
program to compile and to hack ASM code.
>> The only reason why things are any different on Atari's is that most
>> Atari owners have little money to spend on their machines, and so
>> developers have to make the best use of the limited resources available.
>> This makes much better programs.
But fewer programs. Programmer only have so much time. And the smaller
the market audience, the less the get back.
Claus Brod
> It took Atari 4 years (from 1985 to 1989) to release TOS 1.4, which
> was basically a bug fix of TOS 1.0 (1.2) that would fit in 192k ROMs.
IMHO, this is one of the most important reasons, if not the most
important of all, why Atari got into so much trouble later on.
The time between 1985 and 1989 was essentially lost, at least
in terms of system software. In 1985, TOS was superior to *any*
OS on the PC, and it wasn't too far away from the MacOS. It had
an elegant UI for the time, it was quite fast (at least when you
compare it to Windows on a small PC), and it was a lean'n'mean
OS which everybody could understand and configure. A real beauty,
I'd say.
I never quite understood what was going on at Atari during those
four years. Maybe one day an ex-insider speaks up and enlightens
us, but personally I believe that they were simply overwhelmed
by the ST's initial success. They didn't manage the growth
properly. They should have turned the incoming bucks into R&D
money immediately, but not for out-of-focus projects such as
the Abaq, the various CD-ROM attempts, the STE, and whatnot.
> And despite this length of time, there were still bugs (although not
> as severe) and a smal but significant number of programs were
> incompatible.
One official reason for all the delays actually was that Atari
tried to avoid incompabilities, but I never bought that story.
--
--cl...@hpbeo79.bbn.hp.com-----------------------------------------------
Claus Brod, MDD, HP Boeblingen Magic is real unless declared integer.
--#include <std_disclaimer>-----------------------------------------------
Chris Herborth
> Microsoft's operating systems are not perfect, but they are far
>from "awful." I find it difficult to believe that Microsoft's selling of
>its operating systems being "due to stupidity" and "selling crap to idiot
>americans." I rather find it more likely that you are out on a lunatic
>fringe. I suppose you'd attempt to reason that Microsoft's stupidity has
>made their name a household word and made the PC architecture by FAR the
>world's most popular - and $9 billion for Gates. Yes, I'm sure you're
>correct....Microsoft is a fledgling company based on stupidity....ha ha ha!
MS sells DOS and Windows because:
1) people don't know any better
2) momentum
3) it's "free" with their new PC
If the people who buy 95% of home computers knew *anything*at*all* about
computers, they certainly wouldn't be picking up a copy of DOS with
their shiny new 32-bit computer systems. If they had lots of DOS crap
that they needed to run (ie, they'd pirated DOS WordPerfect and Lotus
from work), they could choose OS/2 and still not have to worry about
"extended", "expanded" or "conventional" memory... it's all just a
couple of clicks away for OS/2, no fiddle with config.sys/autoexec.bat
and reboot...
Peter Heyd
>investigating all the possible choices. For example, shortly after Windows
>came out there was another product that was hailed as "Everything Windows
>Should Have Been" by Byte (I think). I can't remember the product name though.
>Anyway, it was far smaller, far faster, far nicer to use, and, had all of the
>same features plus some. Problem was, the company had no money for advertising
Yes, I know exactly the product you are refering too, did everything Windows
did, but better, and on a 640K machine. Sound impossible? Look at the
operating and system requirements of any Atari program (ie. Papyrus)
and compare it to the equivalent MS-DOS/Windows program (ie.WordPerfect) mondo
kludge?
>(sound familiar?) and thus the product did not sell well. If the
'system' for >shopping was a bit different; if more people checked out all
options instead of>just shelling out $$$ for whatever has the most name
recoginition, then maybe a>lot better products would be the 'standards' today.
Windows is a marketing success story, not a programming success story.
Bill Gates rode IBM coattails to fame and fortune, then abandoned IBM to push
a DOSshell called Windows
>Maybe it is a bit like the
>American car thing. I was one of the people who refused to believe that
>American cards had become crap, and that the Japaneese had far superior
>quality. Of course, as it turns out, around 1972 American cars did begin a fast
>downward spiral that they are (I hope) just now pulling out of. Despite all
>information to the contrary, most americans still persisted in believing that
>American cars were 'best', and it took many years to turn that around. When the
>mass populace began to turn to Japanese cars more and more, it finally forced
>the Big 3 to begin making *better cars again*! That same principle would work
>for software and hardware if consumers were (collectively) sharp enough.
Unfortunately(?) people want to follow the herd, it's safer. Computers are a
scary thing for most people I've met. They are sure they won't understand
something and destroy everything, so it seems safer to get what everyone
else gets
Kristoffer Lawson
: Intel has lots of competitors now. Games are becoming
: increasingly complex. DOOM is the first game that I find is less than
: acceptable on a PC less than a 486DX2/66. I suppose the fact that a
: 64-bit Jaguar is the necessary TV video game that is DOOM-capable speaks
: for the fact that the new games *ARE* processor-intensive by nature,
: rather than a secret Intel alliance. DOOM, I would say, is *THAT* much
: better than other games.
I think Doom works quite nicely with a 33 Mhz machine, nice enough to be
at least acceptable! Now with the new machines consumers' demands have grown
too.. and Doom isn't that brilliant. Really, it's not. I got bored of
playing it after a week. All it was was searching around endless corridors
for that damn missing key. Pretty boring.
--
******************************************
** Kristoffer Lawson **
** krla...@xgw.fi **
** -=-= KASVUA =-=- **
** For more info mail: **
** kas...@freenet.hut.fi **
******************************************
Morgoth
> gag...@nevada.edu (GEORGE GAGHON) writes:
>
> >What is happening in the market today is sad. We are losing the
> >freedom of selecting a computer that fits our discription of what it
> >should look like and run like.
Why? I don't think so. It _is_ true that we don't have direct equivalents to
486- or Pentium PCs made by Atari. But these comparisons disturb me, since the
OS isn't the same, either. Falcon under Windows would be pretty awful, I guess.
Just like those 386..486SX PCs. But TOS isn't Windows - fortunately. Falcon
works quite happily even unaccelerated. With some Afterburner accelerator card
(68040/66 MHz) it probably behaves like a dream.
Falcon _is_ reality. We can buy it - and it is a good computer, no matter what
some people think about it. TT is reality, too. Accelerated to 48 MHz and
equipped with a good graphics card, like new Spectrum cards (up to 6 Mb VRAM
and huge resolutions, accelerated ;-), that machine is worth its price.
And then there are Medusa T-40, T-60 (68060 !!!), and Eagle Atari clones
available. So, can we really say there's "no hope" ? I really don't think so.
Our problem, however, seems to be this: we look at those PC technical specs
(forgetting that Windoze _requires_ much more horsepower than TOS!), and feel
that Atari is unusable old-fashioned, slow and so on. What matters is that the
machine _works_. Atari compatible computers do work today. There are lots of
fine programs available, and with OSs like Geneva, MiNT and MagiC (not
forgetting Dextrous ;-), the future doesn't look bad either.
> The crunch comes when you NEED a faster machine but there is none
> available from the manufacturer you prefer. This is a result of the
> computer industry today: the most common brand computers is the
> fastest for the price. Apple is fighting back with the PowerPC line.
> But Atari could not keep up.
>
> Hence, they lose the enthusiasts with high-demand.
>
> And guess who keeps a model of computer alive? Those high-demand enthusiasts.
> Without high-demand enthusiasts doing software development, the userbase
> slowly fades away.
>
> I had buy a TT to continue GEM NetHack development. And I gladly paid for
> it. But then, when I had an even more demanding project, I had nowhere to
> turn. I started using the University's workstations to do more and more of
> the work my project demanded. Finally, I had to buy a Linux Pentium to
> continue development at home. And I gladly paid for it. If Atari had a
> high-end machine, I would have bought that and run 680x0 Linux. But there
> is nothing above a Medusa (which is not even made by Atari).
Why should it be made by Atari? Are all the PCs made by IBM today? And can you
_really_ say that Medusa T-60 with 68060 processor (yes, it _is_ reality!)
isn't fast enough for you ?? Somehow I doubt that ;-) Especially, after
I saw Calamus running on both Medusa T-40 (68040) and on a 486-66 PC (under
Windows NT). Guess, which one worked _much_ faster..?
This is getting serious, if the PC world has really brain-washed us to measure
Atari computers on PC scale, don't you agree? If this goes on, soon we'll all
want a 786-PC because of its "raw power" - even though its OS and software
don't necessarily run any faster than Atari TT.
Disagree, if you want to - but somehow I feel that _we_ Atari owners lack
self-confidence. We don't have guts to be satisfied - we only complain...
:-(
By the way; when will the next (hopefully 68030-optimized ;-) NetHack be out ?
I really can't wait for that -
Don't surrender - fight back. Because otherwise all we'll have tomorrow will
be Windoze-PCs. And, I think, most of us bought an Atari because we really
_did NOT_ want to buy a PC. That's something to think about, no matter what
kinds of 786-processors they develop. If we buy Atari-compatible machines like
Medusa, we support Atari computing. Even if Atari itself didn't care...
The PC world don't need IBM either, does it?
Tommi
David Paul Forrai
>investigating all the possible choices. For example, shortly after Windows
>came out there was another product that was hailed as "Everything Windows
>Should Have Been" by Byte (I think). I can't remember the product name though
>same features plus some. Problem was, the company had no money for advertising
I think this was called GeoWorks or something like that. It was a
very good product, written in assembly, and worked on an 8086. There
was much interest in the OS at the time. A coworker was interested in
becoming a developer but Geo never delivered the developer's kit. He
believes this was the main reason it was a failure in the market.
Remember too that HP introduced New Wave then. I think GEM/3 was
available too.
Steve Wells
] _really_ say that Medusa T-60 with 68060 processor (yes, it _is_ reality!)
] isn't fast enough for you ?? Somehow I doubt that ;-) Especially, after
] I saw Calamus running on both Medusa T-40 (68040) and on a 486-66 PC (under
] Windows NT). Guess, which one worked _much_ faster..?
The thing is, PC's etc. are supported by a huge quantity of companies,
Atari compatibles are supported by comparitively very few, and the
Medusa is hardly a fully standardised machine, I've still yet to see
the full specifications of the thing.
] This is getting serious, if the PC world has really brain-washed us to meas
] Atari computers on PC scale, don't you agree? If this goes on, soon we'll
] want a 786-PC because of its "raw power" - even though its OS and software
] don't necessarily run any faster than Atari TT.
If you want to buy a new computer these days, it's basically a PC clown,
or nothing. A shame considering they are so bad.
] Disagree, if you want to - but somehow I feel that _we_ Atari owners lack
] self-confidence. We don't have guts to be satisfied - we only complain...
] :-(
After using Atari's for years, we just expect something better than what
we get if we buy a PC.
] Don't surrender - fight back. Because otherwise all we'll have tomorrow wi
] be Windoze-PCs. And, I think, most of us bought an Atari because we really
What is a tiny user base like Atari owners going to do to fight back
against the PC's? The manufacturers of the hardware/software couldn't
care less what the customers want. They *tell* the customers what
they want, and the poor old consumer assumes they must be correct....
] _did NOT_ want to buy a PC. That's something to think about, no matter wha
] kinds of 786-processors they develop. If we buy Atari-compatible machines l
] Medusa, we support Atari computing. Even if Atari itself didn't care...
] The PC world don't need IBM either, does it?
PC's are available in pretty much every computer store all over the
planet, how many stock Medusas? People aren't going to buy them if
they don't have a use for the particular features, look at the Falcon,
it was marketed (ahem) on a larger scale than the Medusa, and it has
virtually faded into obscurity already (shame, I'd be quite happy
to own one). We'll just either have to stick with what we've got, or
join the masses and buy the machines which aren't going to become
obsolete any time soon. The dreaded PC-clone.
I can't be bothered, I've never needed anything more than my STe, so
that's what I'll stick with! Sure, I wouldn't mind if it was a bit
quicker, and if I can ever afford it, maybe I'll try & find one of
these STe Ad-Speeds, and maybe even a graphics card which will give
me at least a maximum of 640*480*256 on my SC1224 monitor (IS there
such a beast!?). But, for what I use it for, it's fine.
WEL...@IX.WCC.GOVT.NZ I am in no way affiliated with the Government
Steve Wells. or City Council.
Kristoffer Lawson
: On Thu, 17 Nov 1994 gra...@insignia.co.uk wrote:
: > >
: > They happened to be in the right place at the right time. The PC is not the most 'popular'
: > in the sense that people buy it because they like it. but the biggest seller because of market
: > domination due to corporate sales originally based on the reputation of IBM and bought by
: > managers who didn't know what they were buying.
: It's one thing to discuss how the Intel/Microsoft/ISA
: architecture was formulated eons ago. It's quite another thing to
: discuss which system gives you the most BANG for the BUCK in this day and
: age. Today, $1200 buys you a COMPLETE PC system with 486DX2/66Mhz
: processor, 8MB RAM, 256K cache, 420MB hard drive, 15" non-interlaced
: 1024x768 monitor with 32-bit local bus card to drive it, high-density
: floppy drive, mouse, keyboard, operating system, and all necessary
: accoutrements. That's $1200...today! (perhaps even less in the near future)
Wow, now that sounds brilliant.. pity I have yet to see a PC sound
system which is as nice as the Falcons. Oh, and having a big hardrive and
all that is pretty useless when you can fit approx. the same progs for the
Falcon in half the space or less. No, not even fiddling around for ages
with IRQs and the 640Kb limit makes me want a PC. (Let's hope IBM's
new OS is as good as it seems because previous OSes on the PC don't
exactly make me want to rush to my local PC dealer).
Panjandrum
>at least acceptable! Now with the new machines consumers' demands have grown
>too.. and Doom isn't that brilliant. Really, it's not. I got bored of
>playing it after a week. All it was was searching around endless corridors
>for that damn missing key. Pretty boring.
I have to agree with this. I tired of Doom on the PC extremly quickly (Ultima
Underworld is, IMHO, far superior). Aliens vs. Predators suffers from the same
problem, too much action and very little intelligence. I hope something Dungeon
Masterish comes out for the Jag RSN.
Those that have Jags have probably noticed that except for startup screens and
such, everything seems to be done in 320x240 (approximately) instead of the
full resolution, what a bummer. AvP is also *not* 24bit for the most part. It
looks more like 8bit (look at the 'gradients' in the walls, rust spots etc...
those would be extremely smooth in 24bit). Maybe the Jag can't really keep up
with full-speed 24bit high-rez, or maybe they just didn't bother in AvP.
Just my 2cents worth...
_________________________________________________________________
|-! -David Butler- dhbu...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
"In effect, applying the yardstick of extremism leads one to conclude that the
human species itself is unlikely to last very long."
- Chad C. Mulligan
Roland Givan
> This is getting serious, if the PC world has really brain-washed us
> to measure Atari computers on PC scale, don't you agree? If this
> goes on, soon we'll all want a 786-PC because of its "raw power" -
> even though its OS and software don't necessarily run any faster than
> Atari TT.
This is a comparison I thought I'd never have to do - but my PC will turn
up at the end of the week and so I will see. My TT has more RAM and an FPU,
but I sincerely hope the TT *thrashes* the PC. Actually even if it doesn't
I still can't really lose.
> Disagree, if you want to - but somehow I feel that _we_ Atari owners
> lack self-confidence. We don't have guts to be satisfied - we only
> complain... :-(
I read in a magazine some years ago that high end machines (like the TT) had
a much more significant value than pure sales. They inspired *confidence*
in the ranks of ordinary ST owners. Knowing that serious people spent
serious amounts of money on Atari equipment made then feel like the ST was
taken seriously. Also these high end machines were an upgrade path which
although 99% of ST owners were never going to take - still felt better
because it was there.
This feeling has been lost IMO. Sure we now have the Falcon as well as the
TT, but many people in this news group already have these powerful
machines. Sure the Medusa is good - but how many have actually been sold?
Also rightly or wrongly I suspect people feel a lot more wary about
investing such large sums of money into Atari based equipment nowadays,
*especially* from such a small 3rd part supplier.
> tomorrow will be Windoze-PCs. And, I think, most of us bought an
> Atari because we really _did NOT_ want to buy a PC. That's something
Also remeber that STs predate 'modern' PCs. In 1986 when I bought my ST,
Windows was unheard of, and a powerful PC had a 12Mhz 286! The PC just
wasn't a choice. I couldn't have afforded one even if I had wanted one.
> computing. Even if Atari itself didn't care... The PC world don't
> need IBM either, does it?
But there has to be a certain inertia before the instigator can drop out.
Without Atari - there is precious little money in the Atari economy for
R&D. Also unlike IBM, Atari *didn't* make it easy for clone manufacturers
to make ST clones.
Roland.
@CiX
Roland Givan
cher...@semprini.waterloo-rdp.on.ca said:
> Most modern UNIX kernels are around 1M, aren't they? Now, when you
Well DEC Ultrix for the R3000 is about 3-4Mb. Not bad IMO considering it
can quite happily deal with a hundred or so users and all the other
associated stuff.
Roland.
@CiX
Cornelius Krasel
> Why should it be made by Atari? Are all the PCs made by IBM today?
> And can you _really_ say that Medusa T-60 with 68060 processor
> (yes, it _is_ reality!) isn't fast enough for you ??
A 486DX2/66 comes for 3000,- DM. A Medusa costs more than twice of this.
That's the problem. (And you can run a decent, rather bug-free OS on the
PC: Unix.)
--Cornelius.
--
/* Cornelius Krasel, Abt. Lohse, Genzentrum, D-82152 Martinsried, Germany */
/* email: kra...@alf.biochem.mpg.de fax: +49 89 8578 3795 */
/* "Science is the game you play with God to find out what His rules are." */
Morgoth
> ] Disagree, if you want to - but somehow I feel that _we_ Atari owners lack
> ] self-confidence. We don't have guts to be satisfied - we only complain...
> ] :-(
>
> After using Atari's for years, we just expect something better than what
> we get if we buy a PC.
We get something better. For us, that is.. I prefer Falcon over a 486, and I
don't think that's silly at all. Would you buy a turbo-charged Wartburg, if
you could buy an Opel too? Yes; that Wartburg 686 GTi would have a lot more
horsepower, all the luxuries one can imagine, and everybody would buy one (of
course; it's nice to have a Wartburg 686 GTi!). But it _would_ still be a
Wartburg, under its cosmetic and technical changes... And horrible to drive,
even if very fast! I think "better" means "better to use"?
> What is a tiny user base like Atari owners going to do to fight back
> against the PC's? The manufacturers of the hardware/software couldn't
> care less what the customers want. They *tell* the customers what
> they want, and the poor old consumer assumes they must be correct....
Simple: buy what _WE_ want - not what THEY want us to buy... Thinking that way,
we'd all drive Wartburg GTi, drink Coke, and eat Mc Donald's stuff. It's
ridiculous, if we don't have any freedom of choice. Well, we do have - whether
we believe it, or not. We still have, but how long?
> PC's are available in pretty much every computer store all over the
> planet, how many stock Medusas? People aren't going to buy them if
> they don't have a use for the particular features, look at the Falcon,
> it was marketed (ahem) on a larger scale than the Medusa, and it has
> virtually faded into obscurity already (shame, I'd be quite happy
> to own one). We'll just either have to stick with what we've got, or
> join the masses and buy the machines which aren't going to become
> obsolete any time soon. The dreaded PC-clone.
One has to start somewhere; Medusa and The Eagle (68040 machine, too) are only
the beginning. And in some way, they're much smarter machines than "real"
Ataris never were. They use graphics cards like PCs, and that forces
programmers to use "legal" code. No more programs that can expect that "this
machine has 640x400 monochrome graphics, I'm sure... Let's try. What? What is
this? No screen memory where it should be?? More colors than 2??? HELP!"
And about the Falcon... Why do some of us think that Falcon "was" some kind of
a disaster that came, saw and disappeared? Perhaps here in Finland things are
a bit different - but _most_ of my friends use Atari, and most of them
(surprise) own a Falcon... I can easily count over 10 Falcons owned by people I
meet regularily. And (again, surprise): I've yet to meet a dissatisfied Falcon
owner. Yes, there are ones, too. But who do you want to believe? Do you think
that I'm just one of those who "wasted their money on a useless computer, and
now desperately want to prove themselves and the others that the thing isn't
complete crap..." ?
I've noticed that most of people who dislike Falcon don't own one. Do you
believe this? The bird _is_ easy to dislike at first sight; that clumsy box,
only a 16-bit bus, 16 MHz, etc etc. But somehow it is a very charming computer
to use... I've seldom seen people _in love_ with their computer, like many
Falcon owners I know, are... Well, computing should be more than cold, hard
numbers and business, too - shouldn't it?
> I can't be bothered, I've never needed anything more than my STe, so
> that's what I'll stick with! Sure, I wouldn't mind if it was a bit
> quicker, and if I can ever afford it, maybe I'll try & find one of
> these STe Ad-Speeds, and maybe even a graphics card which will give
> me at least a maximum of 640*480*256 on my SC1224 monitor (IS there
> such a beast!?). But, for what I use it for, it's fine.
Glad to hear you're satisfied. I wouldn't change back to my old accelerated
Mega ST 4, even though it had a much better keyboard and more CPU power.
Instead, I upgrade this bird - make it a better, faster, prettier computer. It
takes money and time, I know - but for me, computing is a hobby among the more
serious stuff. This is fun, after all =-) ! Well, mostly at least..
Greetings,
Tommi
Graham Beint, 321
>
>Those that have Jags have probably noticed that except for startup screens and
>such, everything seems to be done in 320x240 (approximately) instead of the
>full resolution, what a bummer. AvP is also *not* 24bit for the most part. It
>looks more like 8bit (look at the 'gradients' in the walls, rust spots etc...
>those would be extremely smooth in 24bit). Maybe the Jag can't really keep up
>with full-speed 24bit high-rez, or maybe they just didn't bother in AvP.
>
Morgoth
> Morgoth (THIE...@FINABO.ABO.FI) wrote:
> > Why should it be made by Atari? Are all the PCs made by IBM today?
> > And can you _really_ say that Medusa T-60 with 68060 processor
> > (yes, it _is_ reality!) isn't fast enough for you ??
>
> A 486DX2/66 comes for 3000,- DM. A Medusa costs more than twice of this.
> That's the problem. (And you can run a decent, rather bug-free OS on the
> PC: Unix.)
In a way I think you're right, Cornelius. Most of us doen't use Unix (or even
Linux), though.. So what's left is this: a fast PC with a very heavy, and not
absolutely bug-free, slow OS. When doing some heavy counting (raytracing for
instance), that requires lots of raw horsepower, a Pentium PC does have its
advantages over any Atari in the same price class. 68060-Medusa is another
story, though. It should have muscles enough to kick many P5 PCs in the ass - I
don't know for sure..
But I don't think it's fair to compare Motorola and Intel-based computers side
by side, using only PC benchmarks i.e MHz, megabytes, etc. It's the OS that
counts. And TOS, though far from perfect, runs pretty nicely on much smaller
machines than decent Windows-PCs are. One can multitask programs on a 16 MHz
68030 Falcon better than on a 486-33 PC with Windows. That counts too, I think.
If we look at numbers (MHz etc..) most Atari, Amiga and even Mac computers are
"losers". But they really don't _need_ that much hardware to work ok..
What do you think?
Greetings,
Tommi
Alen Milkovic
Well the thing that makes AvP superior to other games is the resolution on
the texturemapping. I suspect AvP is at least 16 bit look at the Z shading
(every pixel is shaded) but the original digitized picture may be 8 bit to
save some space. Look at the walls when youre close up. It doesn't get
blocky, that's what's good about AvP. Nice game though. Good atmosphere
Alfred Radauer
: In article <3a3e30$7...@osiris.wu-wien.ac.at>,
: h925...@idefix.wu-wien.ac.at (Alfred Radauer) wrote:
: |Is this supposed to say anything? John Townsend worked as a systems
: |programmer for Atari and I am wondering how a person can work for such a
: |long time and produce so little.
: You don't know anything about what I did at Atari. How dare you attempt
: to accuse me of "sitting on my hands" during my time at Atari. Atari had a
: small staff of systems programmers (their choice, not ours) and we did
: pretty good considering the constaints we worked with.
: |Is it clear to you, that those people
: |never went beyond a control panel and a simple graohics shell while they
: |were being paid by Atari? They even had to buy the kernel of the
: |multitasking system from a person programming in his freetime, they never
: |were able to hold deadlines and they even were not able to produce some
: |kind of documentation.
: I was responsible for a number of things including pieces of the new Control
: Panel. But, you consider that small potatoes eh? Well, I think if you ask around
: on the net and in the Atari community, I think you will find that many people
: like it.
: As for the multitasking system, when Atari started to investigate adding
: multitasking
: support to TOS, they looked at what it would take and also looked at what
: solutions already existed. MiNT looked to be a pretty good solution and so
: we made a deal to get it. Why should Atari recreate what has already been done?
: As for deadlines and documentation, we did produce documentation. And you
: show me you announced deadline that Atari's systems software group didn't
: meet and I will call you a liar to your face.
: |If you say, they played with more computers than we
: |had dinners, I am taking it word by word. I even can imagine John playing
: |Doom on his PC during working hours at Taligent.
: Oh, this is good. You don't even know me and you are questioning my work
: ethic? How dare you! Who the hell do you think you are? I work very hard
: at Taligent and Taligent has nothing to do with this discussion. I appreciate
: your effort to sidetrack my comments into a personal issue, but you can just
: forget it. I am not going to fall for it.
: |BTW, did you also notice
: |that Taligent are far from being on schedule with their operating system?
: |That people evem did not see anything from Taligent except announcements
: |on low level routines?
: Taligent is far from being on schedule? That's funny.. the dates that I have
: seen in press releases can that Taligent plans to ship something during
: (and I quote) "the mid 90s." How can we be behind schedule? Anyway, I
: do not plan to comment on Taligent release plans or products, so you can
: continue to bait me, but I will ignore anything on this subject from this
: point on.
: |To consider him an expert or a professional and
: |thus giving more weight to his statements is only possible if he can show
: |references. And a control panel anda TOS 2.06 desktop hardly qualifies
: |John as such an expert, consiedering the time it took to develop those
: |"powerful" tools, and his work at Taligent is far frombeing visible to the
: |public. I stated all the above critics into an open letter to John, let us
: |see if he hast guts enough to answer it and give an account on what he did
: |at Atari.
: And what have you done for the Atari community? What gives you the right
: to question my "professionalism?" Let's just put it this way.. I did enough
: interesting work at Atari that I was able to get myself a position at Taligent.
: And I don't have to answer to you or anyone else. So, if you don't like me
: or what I have done, that's too bad for you. Frankly, I don't give a damn.
: --
: -- John Townsend "I want something, I just don't
: Taligent, Inc. know what it is!"
: Disclaimer: I don't speak for Taligent, I speak for myself.
Frankly speaking, if you would have made your comments (in your original
posting) by using a more "dry" vocabulary (this is also what I refer to as
"professionalism), I would not have written in that style to you and many
others would not have flamed at you, either. Fact is, however, that the
all-knowing tone you used in your posting could VERY WELL be interpreted
as an insult towards those people working with Atari computers and those
who are programming for it. I truly and wholeheartedly apologize for my
comments,
but I also suppose you to use your vocabulary more cautiously, when you
explicitly write YOUR opinions.
Alfred
P.S: this is is also for all the other follow ups from John
Kim Andersen
>Yes, I did write that post. And no I didn't "slag" my previous employer.
>I didn't say anything bad about Atari. I simply said that Atari's computer
>products are a thing of the past. I don't think Atari will be producing
>computers any longer.
>
>Think about this for a moment.. Look at Atari's actions. It hasn't done
>anything with computer products for well over a year. It has told its
>customers that is is concentrating all of its efforts on Video Game
>products. Do you honestly think that Atari can drop from the highly
>competitive computer market for a year, return to it, and actually
>compete? If they can, then they are an amazing company that I
>have underestimated.
>
>I still like Atari. I like the company. I think Jaguar is a great product.
>I just hate to see people get their hopes up for the "Falcon060" or
>something like that. I don't think it will happen.
>
And it doesn't have to happen, at least not coming from Atari. With the
falcon we have now, Atari has done their part of the deal. What we really
need a cheap, (well, i had to say cheap) choices to bring our Falcon's up
to a standard where we can be proud of mention the name Atari again. This
upgrade can come from another company or from Atari, i really don't care
who does the upgrade. What i care about is, how easy is it to upgrade,
(do you have to travel around the world by phone to get an upgrade), and
whats the price. As far as i have heard untill now, those 68040 cards which
are available now is far to expencive for us. We pay almost doubbel the
price it would take to buy a new 'standard' Falcon, and thats way out of
line. The producers excuse them selves with low maket statements and high
prices on the komponents, but thats just a lie. A 68040 card isn't really
that expencive to build when you look at the komponents used. And if they
feel they got a low market, a high price on a upgrade is not gona do any
good to their market at all. It will do much worse.
So whats really the deal here ? In my opinion it's cold buisness and profit.
Something Atari can't compete with in a lowend price of personal computers.
Just saw an offer on a PC. Read and dream:
486DX2 66Mhz
4Mb ram
420Mb harddrive
14" SVGA monitor
DUAL SPIN CD-ROM drive
16Bit sound card included 2 small speaker.
DOS 6.20 and Windows (latest version), installed and ready to go.
And a few Cd's to play around with.
Price.... 9.995 Kr. (Danish crowns)
Recalculated to other countries.
Price.... about 995£ (UK pounds)
Price.... about 1700$ (US Dollars)
I wonder what a 'standard' Falcon will cost if all the included devices
such as CD-ROM drive, monitor and 420Mb harddrive, speakers was suppose to
be included. And just to make things even worse, you can find a PC dealer
at almost every corner here in Denmark, and we only got 1 (maybe 2) atari
dealers left in the hole country.
So the last thing I (we) need is expencive upgrades. It'll do more damage
to our market to produce expencive upgrade, than not to produce them at
all, if you know what i mean ?
Greets
Kim
--
/------------------------------------------------------------------------\
-/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\-
| DK-Soft BBS phone +45 43 71 70 75 | Kim Andersen email k...@dksoft.ping.dk|
| The scandinavian board when you | 5 Atari computers including a Falcon. |
| have Atari problems or requests. | Modem handle 19200 Zyxel baud. |
| CD-Roms online Free download limit.| Many years of experiences. |
-\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/-
\------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Steven Constantine
: >I think Doom works quite nicely with a 33 Mhz machine, nice enough to be
: >at least acceptable! Now with the new machines consumers' demands have grown
: >too.. and Doom isn't that brilliant. Really, it's not. I got bored of
: >playing it after a week. All it was was searching around endless corridors
: >for that damn missing key. Pretty boring.
: I have to agree with this. I tired of Doom on the PC extremly quickly (Ultima
: Underworld is, IMHO, far superior). Aliens vs. Predators suffers from the same
: problem, too much action and very little intelligence. I hope something Dungeon
: Masterish comes out for the Jag RSN.
I think you're both wrong. I played Doom into the early hours of the
next day, last weekend, until I finished it. Worn out and weary I felt
no need to play it for another few weeks, having tired of looking for
that missing and elusive key. Next day, switched on, "Yeah, give it a
little tickle" - Bang! Instant readdiction. Nothing so satisfying as
loosing off a few rounds of the shotgun and splatting those bad-guys. In
fact, I find the Alien modified version pretty scarey, hissing sounds
etc. REAL ATMOSPHERE. Noise, music, FX blaring out my stereo courtesy of
Mr Soundblaster!
Now I've done the levels, i shall just download a load more .wads for
sounds, levels, badguys and woosh, I'm off again. On a 486 DX2 it's
slick and smooth. My atari's long since gone......
Steve
: Those that have Jags have probably noticed that except for startup screens and
Mark Rathwell
: full resolution, what a bummer. AvP is also *not* 24bit for the most part. It
: looks more like 8bit (look at the 'gradients' in the walls, rust spots etc...
: those would be extremely smooth in 24bit). Maybe the Jag can't really keep up
: with full-speed 24bit high-rez, or maybe they just didn't bother in AvP.
More likely, it's a case of TV's having difficulty handling that
kind of resolution. Most Jag owners don't have monitors and TV's (as we
all know) run into problems when the resolution passes 320 X 200.
>> Mark <<
Timothy Miller
People can afford more memory, so the software grows to fill the extra space.
The processor's get faster, so the software slows down to compensate.
Have a nice day. :)
Cornelius Krasel
> [as a reply to John Townsend (John_T...@taligent.com)]
> Frankly speaking, if you would have made your comments (in your original
> posting) by using a more "dry" vocabulary (this is also what I refer to as
> "professionalism), I would not have written in that style to you and many
> others would not have flamed at you, either. Fact is, however, that the
> all-knowing tone you used in your posting could VERY WELL be interpreted
> as an insult towards those people working with Atari computers and those
> who are programming for it.
Fact is, that the only person who has flamed at John Townsend is Alfred.
Fact is, that Alfred did get the reply he asked for. If he now complains
about the tone of it, that's his personal problem.
Simon Gornall
(Cornelius Krasel) writes:
% Morgoth (THIE...@FINABO.ABO.FI) wrote:
% > Why should it be made by Atari? Are all the PCs made by IBM today?
% > And can you _really_ say that Medusa T-60 with 68060 processor
% > (yes, it _is_ reality!) isn't fast enough for you ??
%
% A 486DX2/66 comes for 3000,- DM. A Medusa costs more than twice of this.
% That's the problem. (And you can run a decent, rather bug-free OS on the
% PC: Unix.)
%
He said 68060. Not 040. The 060 will eat a dx66 for breakfast. You're talking
> Pentium-60 speed here.
Now I only know of 2 060 machines, both are still under development, a
both
are atari clones. I also know of someone in the Linux-68k camp who is
going to port Linux-68k to the 060 next week or so, and was asking about X11
servers for the Atari range.
Once we have 060/X11 You have a machine faster than my DECstation 5000/133
here in KCL. Not bad really.
Why oh why are we only *now* seeing the sort of Atari machines I've beÔ0
for years!
Simon.
--
>>> Simon Gornall - Kings College London. Email: s...@phlem.ph.kcl.ac
Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. NO is the answer <
Chris Herborth
>One reason that C is popular for OS development is because it is fairly
>easy to understand (redirect C code flames to /dev/null please) and it
>compiles to pretty tight code. If you have a decent C compiler (like
>Lattice C v5 or Pure C), it will be hard to beat its optimized code with
>hand-written assembler. And even if you did, you would spend 3-4
Besides easier maintainability, C also has the feature of being easily
portable to newer processors. Assembly definitely doesn't have that
feature, unless the processor has major amounts of compatibility (like
68000->68030, 8088->80[12345]86)... even then, though, C would have the
advantage of _using_ the new processor's new features, where the
assembly code would probably be less than optimal on the new processor.
>Cool! The best code to write is the code you don't have to write. Every
>minute you are saved from writing something that isn't needed is a minute
>you can spend adding more features to your application (or spending more
>time ensuring that you deliver a high quality product!).
This is one of the GREATEST things about C++, Smalltalk, Objective-C and
other object-oriented languages.
>Yes, but the windows system has VM available. The Atari doesn't (on Atari
>base models, yes I know there are third parties that do it) and some people
>might consider that important. On the Mac, you can turn off the VM, can you
>do this on Windows? I honestly don't know, I am not a big Windows user.
My experience has been that if you turn off VM in Windows (even if
you're got lots of physical memory) the system gets _really_ unstable.
If you thought Windows 3.1 was unstable most of the time, turn off
virtual memory for a good laugh. It's terrible.
One of the most annoying (IMHO) things about the Windows UI is that
stupid concept of "every app has its own desktop in a window". If you
minimize a document in Word, for example, it minimizes to the inside of
the Word main window, rather than to the Windows desktop. Now, given
the stupid way the Windows desktop is handled, I can see why it was done
like this, but that doesn't make it less stupid. Os/2 merely hides the
window (it's available from the Minimized Window Viewer or the Task
List), so your desktop doesn't get cluttered. Motif just dumps an icon
at the bottom of your screen, dunno about other X window managers (Motif
is pretty sick, but that's due to its CUA-'89 roots).
Chris Herborth
>Why? I don't think so. It _is_ true that we don't have direct equivalents to
>486- or Pentium PCs made by Atari. But these comparisons disturb me, since the
>OS isn't the same, either. Falcon under Windows would be pretty awful, I guess.
Huh? Why would you want to run Windoze on your Falcon? Or on anything,
for that matter?
>Just like those 386..486SX PCs. But TOS isn't Windows - fortunately. Falcon
>works quite happily even unaccelerated. With some Afterburner accelerator card
>(68040/66 MHz) it probably behaves like a dream.
How many times do we have to say this? Listen carefully: There is NO
SUCH THING as a 66Mhz 68040 chip.
>Falcon _is_ reality. We can buy it - and it is a good computer, no matter what
>some people think about it. TT is reality, too. Accelerated to 48 MHz and
>equipped with a good graphics card, like new Spectrum cards (up to 6 Mb VRAM
>and huge resolutions, accelerated ;-), that machine is worth its price.
No, it's not. To buy a "decent" TT setup, you need:
TT, 2M RAM 0 disk -> ~$1500 US
500M SCSI disk -> ~ 500 US
16M RAM SIMMs -> ~ 1280 US
RAM adapter card -> ~ 300 US
2M VRAM video card -> ~ 800 US
External SCSI CD-ROM -> ~ 600 US
17" Sony Trinitron -> ~ 900 US
Total -> ~$5880 US
Prices are higher in Canada. If you can find someone to sell you the TT
or the TT video card.
>And then there are Medusa T-40, T-60 (68060 !!!), and Eagle Atari clones
>available. So, can we really say there's "no hope" ? I really don't think so.
And where can you go to see any of these? Given the price, there's no
way I'd order one without using it first.
I'm pretty sure nobody in Canada even _owns_ one, unless it's DMC
Publishing. Certainly no "hobbyist" owns one.
>Our problem, however, seems to be this: we look at those PC technical specs
>(forgetting that Windoze _requires_ much more horsepower than TOS!), and feel
>that Atari is unusable old-fashioned, slow and so on. What matters is that the
>machine _works_. Atari compatible computers do work today. There are lots of
>fine programs available, and with OSs like Geneva, MiNT and MagiC (not
>forgetting Dextrous ;-), the future doesn't look bad either.
My 4M ST certainly doesn't _work_ for say, C++ development, or
raytracing, and it barely works for simple UUCP networking. With MiNT
going, it won't compile even simple C++ code because of the lack of RAM
in my machine.
>Why should it be made by Atari? Are all the PCs made by IBM today? And can you
>_really_ say that Medusa T-60 with 68060 processor (yes, it _is_ reality!)
Where can I see one? How many thousands more than a similar Pentium
system would it cost, without approaching Pentium performance?
>isn't fast enough for you ?? Somehow I doubt that ;-) Especially, after
>I saw Calamus running on both Medusa T-40 (68040) and on a 486-66 PC (under
>Windows NT). Guess, which one worked _much_ faster..?
We're not talking about NT. Warwick's running Linux on his PC; Linux is
VERY VERY fast. NT is a major resource hog, and requires massive
hardware just to prop up the operating system, let alone an application
as well. And even then, you could run Calamus on a 300Mhz Alpha AXP
system if you weren't satisfied with the speed of Calamus on NT.
>This is getting serious, if the PC world has really brain-washed us to measure
>Atari computers on PC scale, don't you agree? If this goes on, soon we'll all
>want a 786-PC because of its "raw power" - even though its OS and software
>don't necessarily run any faster than Atari TT.
If you buy a PC to run Windows because that's what everyone else has,
you're an idiot. If you buy a PC to run Windows because you need to use
particular software, you've made a good decision (though it'd be much,
much more sensible to run OS/2).
_Software_ should drive computer purchases. Linux 68k will never
support the Medusa '040 or th4e '060-based system... nobody else is
using the '060 for _anything_. You'd have to pay too much for too
little power if you wanted to run Linux on an Atari system.
>Disagree, if you want to - but somehow I feel that _we_ Atari owners lack
>self-confidence. We don't have guts to be satisfied - we only complain...
>:-(
I'd definitely be satisfied with my ST if it had reasonable graphics for
1994, and a reasonable amount of RAM (enough to compile C++ code), and
reasonable speed (enough to compile C++ code in less than a few minutes
for a trivial object, and enough to render an image with POV-Ray in less
than a few hours).
Unfortunately, there's no way to upgrade my ST to this level, and it's
completely impractical from a cost perspective to even consider a TT or
Falcon, due to the high cost of the required upgrades I'd need.
>By the way; when will the next (hopefully 68030-optimized ;-) NetHack be out ?
>I really can't wait for that -
Why wait, run it now. NetHack isn't processor-bound, so why wait for an
'030-optimized version?
>Don't surrender - fight back. Because otherwise all we'll have tomorrow will
>be Windoze-PCs. And, I think, most of us bought an Atari because we really
>_did NOT_ want to buy a PC. That's something to think about, no matter what
>kinds of 786-processors they develop. If we buy Atari-compatible machines like
>Medusa, we support Atari computing. Even if Atari itself didn't care...
>The PC world don't need IBM either, does it?
The Medusa is FAR TOO EXPENSIVE for, say, 99% of the Atari community.
VERY FEW will be sold, and even then it'll only be to people that
(basically) need a better platform to run Calamus SL on; that's
definitely not going to spur software development for the Atari
platform.
IBM hasn't been in control of the PC industry since before the TT made
it to market.
I certainly wouldn't buy a PC to run Windows, but I would consider it
for NEXTSTEP or Linux. I'd _prefer_ a RISC system (PowerPC, PA-RISC,
MIPS, Alpha AXP, I don't really have a favourite) but there's no way a
normal hobbyist like myself can afford one... workstation prices in
Canada are almost 2x what they are in the 'states.
Tommy Jonaeson
Distribution:
Timothy Miller (mil...@babbage.csee.usf.edu) wrote:
: This is the PC world:
: People can afford more memory, so the software grows to fill the extra
: space.
: The processor's get faster, so the software slows down to compensate.
Well, another kick in microsoft's butt:
How many microsoft programmers do you need to change a broken light?
None, because they only set a new computer standard.
Regards, Tommy
Joan O'Bryan
Chris Herborth <cher...@semprini.waterloo-rdp.on.ca> wrote:
> In <3arfrf$r...@josie.abo.fi>, Morgoth writes:
>
> >equipped with a good graphics card, like new Spectrum cards (up to 6 Mb VRAM
> >and huge resolutions, accelerated ;-), that machine is worth its price.
>
> No, it's not. To buy a "decent" TT setup, you need:
I'd just like to correct a few of Chris's prices with a reality check
from here in the U.S.:
> TT, 2M RAM 0 disk -> ~$1500 US
...actually, $1,200 (or less)
> 500M SCSI disk -> ~ 500 US
...actually $275 (or less)
> 16M RAM SIMMs -> ~ 1280 US
...actually $560 (or less)
> RAM adapter card -> ~ 300 US
...I don't know about this one
> 2M VRAM video card -> ~ 800 US
...this is about right
> External SCSI CD-ROM -> ~ 600 US
...wow! try $199 for double-speed units from a dozen places
> 17" Sony Trinitron -> ~ 900 US
...or maybe $650 for an excellent 17" CTX (flat screen, full scan...)
> Total -> ~$5880 US
...actually, under $4,000 (so, you were off by 50%, what's $2k amongst
friends? :-)
> Prices are higher in Canada. If you can find someone to sell you the TT
> or the TT video card.
This may be true, but most U.S. dealers are happy to ship to Canada.
You are correct in that there is a premium attached to certain aspects
of TT systems, namely video cards (around 4x PC costs) and RAM adapter
cards (not needed on a PC). Plus, the base system is rather pricey,
considering what you're getting. But all the peripherals are no more
expensive than for any other platform. In fact, they're interchange-
able.
Of course, if you could run ST software on the Mac hardware, there are
plenty of configurations with as much or more raw horsepower than the
TT (and better video built-in), at a much lower price. Perhaps, some
day, you will be able to.
--
Mark T. O'Bryan Internet: obr...@gumby.cc.wmich.edu
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI 49008
Ofir Gal
>plenty of configurations with as much or more raw horsepower than the
>TT (and better video built-in), at a much lower price. Perhaps, some
>day, you will be able to.
You already can with MagicMac which has gone on sale in Germany yesterday!
It's still under dev and doesn't work 100%, but they are very close to a
final release version. From what I understand this is a public test
version.
-------------------------------
Ofir og...@cix.compulink.co.uk
-------------------------------
Alfred Radauer
: Alfred Radauer (h925...@idefix.wu-wien.ac.at) wrote:
: > [as a reply to John Townsend (John_T...@taligent.com)]
: > Frankly speaking, if you would have made your comments (in your original
: > posting) by using a more "dry" vocabulary (this is also what I refer to as
: > "professionalism), I would not have written in that style to you and many
: > others would not have flamed at you, either. Fact is, however, that the
: > all-knowing tone you used in your posting could VERY WELL be interpreted
: > as an insult towards those people working with Atari computers and those
: > who are programming for it.
: Fact is, that the only person who has flamed at John Townsend is Alfred.
: Fact is, that Alfred did get the reply he asked for. If he now complains
: about the tone of it, that's his personal problem.
Fact is, only sentence 2 of yours is true. Proove at least for sentence 3:
Read line 1 and 2 of the follow up you quoted. I did not complain about
the tone of the reply, I complained about the tone of his original posting.
Simple conclusion:
READ FIRST, THEN WRITE!
Till then
Alfred
Alfred Radauer
: During the 1985 to 1989 timeframe.. Atari released the 520ST, 1040ST,
: the Mega2 and Mega4 as well as work on things like STPad and STBook
: as well as the ST Portable. When you add the Laser Printer, GDOS, the
: CD-ROM player, and some networking stuff that never made it, you have
: quite an array of hardware projects that were produced.
: For each one of those computers than was released, TOS had to be brought
: up and tested on each one. This took time. In the case of the Mega machines,
: this meant a BLiTTER chip. The addition of this chip required a complete
: rewrite of the lower levels of the VDI subsystem.
: When you consider than Atari had a staff of about 12 people working on
: TOS (at the most, usually less than that).. you begin to understand that
: we are dealing with a resource problem. Atari simply didn't have the staff
: to do everything it wanted to do. Now, remember.. I am not slamming
: Atari for this. Every single company in the world has this problem. They
: have to make decisions on what they need to do and what they have the
: resources to do.
When I look at Magic I see a staff of 3 people working on it. They have
designed that operating system during the last, say, 4 years. The
operating system is stable and comatible. Besides, 2 of the programmers
have developed NVDI 3.01, a full rewrite of the buggy full rewrite of the
atarigraphicsroutines called VDI, and at the same time replaced Speedo
GDOS. They have manaaged to port that system onto another plattform, the
Macintosh. They have succeeded in supporting (see NVDI) an array of
graphics cards with different grpahic processors. Let us take two more
people into account, T. Tempelmann and the guy, who wrote Ease, we have at
total 5 people working on Magic/NVDI/Ease. Add anaother programmer for
systems extensions (WinCom) we have at MOST 6 people working on Magic and
essential tools nearby.
These people have to do a lot of work besides programming. B&B, the 2
programmers, have to run their own company, meaning doing customer and
programmer support, arrange for packaging, doing the accounting, dealing
with lawyers on some occasions etc.; one other guy is responible for a lot
of system tools, and still supports and develops a Modula 2 development
system.
Conclusion: these people are also hard on work. Counting at most 6
programmers having done a better job than the 12 at atari, having done
the work from scratch and in only half the time, they have worked 6 to
seven times more productively than their counterparts at atari.
How do you explain that?
:So, please.. don't get the idea that the engineers at Atari were sitting around
: drinking coffee and playing video games during the four years between TOS
: releases. They were actually doing alot of stuff.
I am certain that those guys developing hardware were really into it. I
also think that Eric Smith is doing an excellent job there.
BTW, it was said by you, that Atari had a special person, full time paid,
to do the documentation. What happened to his work? (although, it seems
odd that atari having that much ressource problems pays a person just for
documentation...)
Alfred
Panjandrum
>It's still under dev and doesn't work 100%, but they are very close to a
>final release version. From what I understand this is a public test
>version.
So far I've seen a number of posts concerning this subject but no information
about *who to contact*! Could someone who knows please post all important
information about htis porduct. Who makes it? Who are the distributors? What
Macintosh platforms will it run on? And, most importantly, what is their
telephone #, address, and e-mail address?
Thanks!
_________________________________________________________________
|-! -David Butler- dhbu...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
"To my mind the most frightening book ever published is Lewis F. Richardson's
'Statistics of Deadly Quarrels'. You've probably never heard of it even though
its relevance to the mess you're in is at least as great as that of Darwin's
'On the Origin of Species,' which you learned about in fourth grade. And that's
because it's so completely terrifying only those 'experts' who are adequately
armoured with preconceived contrary ideas which will enable them to disregard
Richardson's work completely ever get to study it."
- Chad C. Mulligan