I have finally found a good equivalent IBM program that is very similar to
Atariwriter or Atariwriter +. It is pfs:write. Similarly, pfs has equivalent
software to SynCalc, SynGraph, SynFile, etc. I suspect that AW is a clone of
pfs:write or that pfs:write is a clone of AW, and that both are also similar to
Applewriter. pfs:write is probably not the most sophisticated wordprocessor
in the world, but it is simple (KISS) and works! I have about had it with
"enhanced" programs that add more controls, commands, etc. then ten people
could use or figure out.
Back to my original point, I just wish that Atari would become respectable
enough to allow its use at "work"! Still am tempted someday to bring down a
spare 1200XLE (256k upgrade) and use it for my wordprocessing!
--Bill--
==> I hope that the above will generate some discussion, particularly
discussion of experiences with using non-IBM in work environments.
Come on! Thats an AWFULLY BIG statement!
I agree that the PC has a LOT of public domain software (quantity) but I
bet it would STILL lose to CP/M in the quantity department. CP/M was
developed and nutured on PD stuff.
I certainly don't agree that it beats the MacIntosh in the quality
department. I will admit that this has a lot to do with the Mac user
interface. But in both commercial and public domain software, I would say
that the Mac has the PC beat hands down. (Especially in terms of USEABILTY).
>expressed), but it's a plain and simple fact that the 8-bit microprocessor
>is nowhere near the present state of the art in cheap microcomputing.
>For some uses, the 8-bit micros can perform as well as the owner of the
>machine wants or expects it too; however, I personally could not tolerate
>using most of today's 8-bit offerings for the kind of things I do, both
>here at the office and while "playing" at home.
>]]
This is another BIG statement. I always love hearing from PC users bragging
about there 16 bit machines. It remains a fact that ALL software designed
for the PC is designed to be able to run on the original PC using the 8088.
It is also a fact that INTEL(!) describes the 8088 as an 8(!!) bit processor
with some 16 bit facilities. Even the Z80 (8 bit and proud) can do 16 bit
math. - No I'm not an 8 bit user (anymore. I have a 1040ST), but I refuse
to be blind to 8 bit processors
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Santangeli
BIX:psantangeli
USENET:pe...@utcsscb.UUCP
At anyrate, getting back to my original discussion: I have purchased AW+,
SynCalc, SynFile, SynGraph, etc. and they would suit my "business" needs just
as well as the software I have at work for my IBM-XT. Maybe I don't have quite
the memory available, but it is adequate for what I need. There is even a form
of CAD available now for the XE (albeit somewhat crude). So I say that the
XL/XE series are just as useful in business as the ST (unless you really need
the .5 -- 1 Meg of memory). [And the 130XE can be pumped up to 1 MEG if you
need it!]
> Short digression: Owners of 8-bit machines can take that as snobbery
> if they wish (somebody always does, regardless of how tactfully it's
> expressed), but it's a plain and simple fact that the 8-bit microprocessor
> is nowhere near the present state of the art in cheap microcomputing.
> For some uses, the 8-bit micros can perform as well as the owner of the
> machine wants or expects it too; however, I personally could not tolerate
> using most of today's 8-bit offerings for the kind of things I do, both
> here at the office and while "playing" at home.
Not snobbery, but your only advantage is memory and possible IBM
compatibility.
> And now, back to the ST:
> It still doesn't have as much good, cheap software as the IBM PC (unless
> somebody can show me an emulation/communications program as good and
> cheap as ProComm), but it's got enough already to do most of what I do
> every day, it's cheaper, and I like the environment better (using
> Micro C-Shell, not the standard GEM desktop). If Atari could afford to
> provide a bit of IBM-style support, it would be an ideal machine. Instead,
> it's "merely" the best thing around in terms of cheap home computing.
> Unfortunately, my superiors don't want to believe it, so I'm using this
> XT. As you so eloquently stated above: Arghh!
Having never used C or Pascal or Action! I cannot testify to the usefulness of
the 8bitter machines, but these languages are available for the XL/XE's.
> - Joel Plutchak, former 1200XL owner
> uucp: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
> ARPA: oys...@unix.macc.wisc.edu
>
> Can you say "opinion"? I *knew* you could!
- Bill Dippert, current owner of 130XE/800XLE/1200XLE/1200XL
uucp: tektronix!tekigm2!wrd
Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts. (Jack Friday, Dragnet)
You just destroyed your original argument: that IBM's were bad things because
you had to buy add-ons all the time, and that you didn't have to do that
for Atari 8 bit machines...
>> But what about the capabilities as a microcomputer, you ask? Well, the
>> IBM has the 8-bit beat here, too. Say you want to hook a standard printer
>> up to your 1200XL; what do you do? Call mail-order place after mail-order
>> place, trying to find somebody who knows what kind of cable you need; then
>> pay $59.95, only to discover that the 1200XL is different somehow than the
>> rest of Atari's 8-bit machines, so you have to go through the whole cycle
>> again.
>While I was no getting into modems, I will admit that you need an 850 interface
>for almost anything, be it modem or printer. (Or another 850
>equivalent--except that Atari is providing an RS232 port on the new XEP80 for
>printer or whatever.
And how many companies do you think make/support serial (RS232) printers
as opposed to Centronix style parallel printers...?
>And trying to find cables to connect a IBM into anything
>as simple as a Epson printer can be just as much a pain. I have an easier time
>locating Atari cables then IBM cables unless I go to mailorder.
Are you serious? The Centronix parallel cable with a DB25 connector has
got to be *the* most common cabling connection available...
>> And speaking of software, the IBM has just about every micro I know about
>> beat cold in both public domain software and commercial software, in both
>> quality and quantity. That may be only because of the perceived usage of
>> the respective machines, but frankly, I would not even *think* of trying
>> to market a serious program for the 8-bit Atari, if only because of what
>> I know about the, um, "habits" of local Atari users with regard to software
>> piracy.
>I think that there is as much public domain software out there for the Atari 8
>bitter as there is for IBM.
...um, again, I ask: are you serious? Atari 8 bits may have a lot of software,
but nowhere near the about IBM PC/XTs do. There is a book published that lists
useable PD software for the IBM, sources, and where to find it. It is 1210
pages of very, very tiny print...
> And the software that you buy at the dealer (read:
>commercial software) is a heck of a lot cheaper for Atari then IBM. Although
>they are getting closer!
Well, that's true. IBM software has always been *way* out of line, because
IBM knows there are a lot of niave people (and business people) who will,
and have been, pay for it.
>> There's a guy who gets pissed when, for example, Analog states
>> that there isn't much Atari software because of piracy, but who has a
>I agree that piracy is deplorable, but I doubt that anyone does not have some
>pirated software.
...excuse me?
> My feeling is that if it is still available at the dealer,
>then you should pay for it. (Dealer being anything from your local computer
>store, to mailorder, to the publisher of the software). But, and this is a big
>but, if it no longer is available anywhere legitimately, then I will used a
>socalled "pirated" copy.
Yea, and if I want out-of-print books, I usually rip them off from
the library, rather than looking for them in used book stores...
> This generally applies to games, as they seem to be
>the most pirated software. I don't think that I have ever seen real useful
>software pirated (ala Syncalc, SynFile, etc.), these are currently available
>and are reasonably priced so there is no incentive to pirate them. Or am I
>being undully naive?
You are undully niave...
>
>At anyrate, getting back to my original discussion: I have purchased AW+,
>SynCalc, SynFile, SynGraph, etc. and they would suit my "business" needs just
>as well as the software I have at work for my IBM-XT. Maybe I don't have quite
>the memory available, but it is adequate for what I need. There is even a form
>of CAD available now for the XE (albeit somewhat crude). So I say that the
>XL/XE series are just as useful in business as the ST (unless you really need
>the .5 -- 1 Meg of memory). [And the 130XE can be pumped up to 1 MEG if you
>need it!]
Give me a break! So, try writing/using something where machine precision
counts...it should be, for instance, relatively easy for an 8-bit computer
to miss connecting the lines of a triangle, because the calculation had
a huge precision error in it. Or, in large business applications, how much of
a spread sheet do you think you could fit into 64K or 128K? The real world
has more uses for a computer than balancing checkbooks...
>
>> Short digression: Owners of 8-bit machines can take that as snobbery
>> if they wish (somebody always does, regardless of how tactfully it's
>> expressed), but it's a plain and simple fact that the 8-bit microprocessor
>> is nowhere near the present state of the art in cheap microcomputing.
>> For some uses, the 8-bit micros can perform as well as the owner of the
>> machine wants or expects it too; however, I personally could not tolerate
>> using most of today's 8-bit offerings for the kind of things I do, both
>> here at the office and while "playing" at home.
>Not snobbery, but your only advantage is memory and possible IBM
>compatibility.
...sigh...
Don't get me wrong, but I have both an IBM XT and an Atari ST. The ST is
superior to the XT (even though I have the XT "suped-up") in almost
every way, shape and form. But if you believe that any 8 bit machine
is every bit as useable as a 16 bit machine, you must not use the machine
for anything more than hobby computing...
...and if that sounds snobbish, I apologize...but I think, per chance, that
it is true...
--
--- Rob DeMillo
Madison Academic Computer Center
usenet: {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,topaz,decvax}!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo
ARPA: dem...@unix.macc.wisc.edu (now isn't that easier?)
----------------------------------------
"I am not so sure
what you want me for! 'War Games'
Either your machine is a - Crosby, Stills and Nash
fool, or me..."
One other comment, since when is the IBM PC a 16 bit machine? I always thought
of IBM PC (and XT) as being 8 bitters, also. I believe that the IBM AT is a 16
bitter, albeit not a 68000 chip.
--Bill Dippert--
Disclaimer: I do not have stock in Atari, Commodore or IBM, my opinions
expressed are my own and do not represent Tektronix, or any computer vendor,
manufacturer or supplier. And I definitely support the viewpoint of ADAPSO.
--Bill--
Are you saying that you would rather program on a 24 x 80 terminal than a 19"-
screen, bit-mapped workstation? (e.g. Sun) If so, either you have never used one,
or are a super-human programmer.
--
Kenneth Chiu UUCP: princeton!chiu
Princeton University Computer Science Department BITNET: 6031801@PUCC
My guess? The version of ROGUE for the ST wasn't finished by the time the
advertising deadlines were in... Did I hit the target?
Guessing is my middle name, and in Hawaii, it is a fact of life.
Aloha,
Jonathan Spangler
{ihnp4,vortex,dual}!islenet!jons