INFO-ATARI16 Digest         Mon, 13 Nov 89       Volume 89 : Issue 643
 
Today's Topics:
                  What does the TT Buy me?? (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 13 Nov 89 20:56:42 GMT
From: asuvax!hrc!force!covertr@handies.ucar.edu  (Richard E. Covert)
Subject: What does the TT Buy me??
 
In article <2245@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg
 Lindahl) writes:
> In article <46bcb82f.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert)
 writes:
>
> Gee, Richard, I thought people had been explaining to you in detail
> exactly what the TT gives you.
>
> For the present ST home user, the TT is a fast ST.
>
> For the Unix user, the TT is a nice cheap workstation.
 
The TT/P is NOT a UNIX workstation, not as it comes Off The Shelf.
Even John Townsend has said that UNIX will be available for the
TT/Tower and not the TT/Plastic. You COULD add more RAM, a bigger
hard drive and then install UNIX on the TT/Plastic. But, what will
Atari's policy be towards adding more RAM to the TT/Plastic?? If you
extrapolate from Atari's present policy with regards to the Mega ST2,
you won't be able to add more memory to the TT/Plastic. In fact, some
of the later pc boards for the Mega ST2 are NOT traced for 4 megs of
RAM, making it darn near impossible to upgrade a Mega ST2 to 4 megs of
RAM. I know this from my local ST dealer who HAS SEEN the Mega ST2
w/o pc board traces for 4 megs, and also with a special 2 megs only
MMU chip. So, who knows if the TT/Plastic will even be expandable to
more then 2 megs of RAM?? No one until they are released!!
 
Atari's official policy is that to upgrade an Atari computer you "dispose"
of your current Atari computer and buy a new model with more features.
Atari has NEVER supported end-user, or even dealer installed, addons.
Even when it is just a matter of adding RAM ics to a motherboard.
So, who knows if you will be able to expand a TT/Plastic??
 
>
> >And I mean the TT/Plastic as it is the most likely TT to make it
> >to the USA.
 
The latest "rumors" from Europe indicate 2nd Quarter 1990 for European
delivery of the TT/Plastic. and NO DATE for the TT/Tower. So,
when will we in the United States see the TT/Tower?? Who knows?? And there
are still European products which are not sold here in the States. The
entire Atari IBM PC clone line are sold in Europe, but try buying one here
in the States. So, just because a product is sold in Europe (read Germany)
doesn't mean that it will be sold here in the States.
 
>
> Oh, I think it's pretty probable that the TT/X will make it here.
>
> >Except for the higher color rez I don't see anything in the TT
> >that would make me want to dump my investment in my current ST
> >hardware.
>
> So don't. People who NEED the TTs speed will buy it. People who NEED
> Unix will buy it. People who don't need it won't...
>
> >What would make me buy an Atari computer:
> >
> >1) A FAST CPU, at least a 25 Mhz 68030, with an option to go to
> >   33 Mhz or even 50 Mhz as Motorola releases the faster cpus.
>
> You don't understand what a 16 mhz 68030 means. The TT has burst-fill
> mode memory above 2 megs. This means it's faster than the Mac IIcx by
> as much as 50% for typical applications. Apple just released the Mac
> IIci which is capable of running burst-fill ram... the TT is very
> competetive compared to the Mac.
>
> When the TT delivers it will be interesting to benchmark it against
> '386-based Unix boxes. I think you'll find that it won't be that much
> slower than a "33 mhz 386" because of the burst mode and other reasons.
> It will not be two times slower, which you would think from the ratio
> of the "megahertz". Megahertz are relatively meaningless.
 
Once again you didn't understand my comments. I was talking about upgrading the
cpu in the TT not comparing cpus speeds between the Intel and the Motorola
cpus. And it would be nice for Atari to design an upgrade to a faster
68030. Even if it meant replacing the motherboard the way Apple forces
the Mac II users. At least then you could do it. But given Atari's track
record not only will Atari NOT supply a faster cpu but Atari will design the
TT so that a third party vendor won't be able to supply a faster cpu either.
Atari has done this with the Mega STs already. Heck, there are plenty of folks
who can't even use TOS 1.4 because the Mega ST won't drive the 6 EPROM set!!
And other folks who can't drive both a hard drive and the SLM804 because the
DMA port won't drive more then one load!!
 
>
> >2) ability to change to a 68040 CPU without buying a whole new
> >   computer. That is why I can Atari computers disposable. In order
> >   to upgrade to a different CPU you have to "dispose" of your older
> >   computer.
>
> Few if any other vendors supply this sort of capability. It costs
> extra money up front.
 
Tell that the Mac users!! Heck, a MAC SE can be upgraded to a Mac SE/30.
sure it costs money but you can do it!! And Apple has made a fortune selling
MAC SE to SE/30 upgrade kits!! So, Mac SE users can change from a 68000 cpu
to a 68030 cpu w/o "disposing" of their current computer. That is definitely
cheaper then trying to sell a used computer and then paying full-stroke for
a new computer. But, once again, Mac users get more out of their used Macs
than Atari users get out of their used STs!!
 
Why can't Atari LEARN from Apple?? I guess Atari will be synonymous with
CHEAP in the future!!
 
>
> >3) A true multi-tasking, multi-windowing OS. I mean, heck the Amiga
> >   has had multi-tasking since the first A1000 was released.
>
> Unix plus X windows (or your favorite windowing system, I happen to be
> partial to mgr ;-) gives you this. It's clear that GEMDOS will NOT become
> a multi-tasking multi-windowing OS in the near future, not only because
> it's a lot of $$ to write, but also because current GEM programs are
> incompatible with multi-tasking in all sorts of little ways.
>
> Asking for things which can't be delivered is a bit strange. Unix is
> the future, Richard.
 
What is so strange about asking for a multitasking multiwindowing OS??
Geez, if commodre can do it on a 68000 A2000 then why can't Atari do it
on a 68030 TT??
 
And just how FAR off in the future is UNIX for the TT?? given the fact
that the TT/Plastic won't be here in next summer, and the fact that UNIX
is intended for the TT/Tower, I would say sometime next century :-).
 
 
> >6) Real color graphics ala the Macintosh. 640x480 in 16 colors is a joke,
> >   and Atari should be ashamed for introducing a new machine with such
> >   limited grpahics?? The TT will be the Atari machine for the early 1990s
> >   and should be better then that!!
>
> Monitors that show resolutions greater than 640x480 in color are very
> expensive.  Not very suitable for a small-business machine. You can
> always buy some PC Klone with one if you want it.
 
Color monitors capable of 800x600 are under $700. And are getting cheaper all
the time. The problem is that you are locked into with cheap color graphics
Atari decides to put in the TT because the Atari market is too small for third
party vendors to design Atari specific hardware. So the lousy 640x480x16 color
graphics is ALL you will see for YEARS on the TT. It is a shame that Atari
 didn't
make the graphics better then that!! The price of monitors is NOT the critical
 factor
that it used to be. The TT was an opportunity for Atari to LEAP ahead of the
competition in graphics instead falling behind. That
alone says a lot about Atari Management. Make a cheap computer and sell it
to the yokels!! Don't make a State of the Art computer (you can NOT tell me
the TT is forcing the state of the art, not with a single tasking OS, and
crummy graphics).
 
>
> Price high resolution monitors for the Mac. Note that they require a card.
> Note that the TT/P has a card slot.
 
Yes, EXACTLY ONE, and that is only a half-VME card slot at that!!
 
>
> >7) A replacement for GDOS. Something that uses outline fonts. The Mac system
> >   beats GDOS all the way to the North Pole!! GDOS is such a memory hog that
> >   even 4 megs in my ST is limiting!!
>
> A third party could do that... it would sell and probably make money.
 
Is that your answer for everything?? Wait for third party vendor support of
basic OS features?? Doesn't say much for Atari does it??
 
Unless Atari Corp supports a GDOS replacement it will NOT be a standard
that software developers will use. Atari HAS to develop and SUPPORT a
GDOS replacement before SW vendors will develop for it. So, a 3rd party
vendor GDOS replacement won't fly. The only reason that GPLUS is viable is
that it is plug replacement for GDOS. If GPLUS's fonts were incompatible with
GDOS fonts GPLUS wouldn't have sold either.
 
> >All in all, everything about the TT says if it had been released in Jan 1989
> >instead of July 1990 it MIGHT have been an acceptable computer. But by the
> >Summer of 1990, when we can reasonable expect to see the TT on USA shelves,
> >it will already be outdated by the Amiga A3000, and the Mac IIcx, Mac IIci.
>
> The Mac IIcx and Mac IIci hardly outdate the TT, especially since it seems
> that they cost a lot more money (assuming the TT arrives, of course.)
 
what does cost have to do with obsolete hw?? Even if the Macs were CHEAPER than
the TT they would still be more ADVANCED then the TT. A cheaper TT is NOT more
advanced than an EXPENSIVE MAC.
 
> Looks like Atari has a very interesting product, if they do bring out
> Unix for it and ship both in a timely fashion.
 
Oh come on!! The MacIIci has a 25 MHZ 68030 in it!! The TT will have a 16 MHZ
 68030.
Which is outdated before it is even on the shelf!!! Hey if you are looking for a
cheap computer buy a used IBM PC XT. Heck you can buy them for under $500. If
 you
want a POWERFUL computer, state of the art computer, an expandable computer,
 then
DON'T buy an Atari!!
 
Why can't Atari release different models of the TT like Apple does the Mac?? And
 that's
another complaint. the differences between the Mega ST and the 1040ST are just
cosmetic (a better keyboard, a different cabinet, a blitter chip). But the
differences between the Mac II, MacIIc, MacIIci are MAJOR. Different CPUS,
faster CPUS, different graphics. What will the difference between the TT/Plastic
and the TT/Tower be?? Again cosmetic. The Tower will be in a different cabinet,
but will have the SAME cpu, same graphics, same IO, same everything else. It
 would
make more sense to make the TT/Tower have a 25Mhz or even 33MHZ 68030 to make it
DIFFERNT from the TT/Plastic. Or to give the TT/Tower higher rez color graphics.
Something more then just more RAM, and a couple of VME slots.
 
Why can't the TT/Tower be designed to use the FASTEST available 68030??
 
Why can't the TT/Tower be designed with hi rez color graphics??
 
That would make the TT/Tower more then just a TT/Plastic in a different
cabinet.
>
> And to repeat: WHY DON'T YOU JUST SHUT UP AND LET THE MARKET DECIDE IF THE
> TT IS A GOOD MACHINE INSTEAD OF FLOODING COMP.SYS.ATARI.ST WITH MESSAGES
> ABOUT SOMETHING YOU'VE NEVER SEEN?
 
Hey, you are "flooding" the USENET system with your "ProAtari" messages,
so why shouldn't I add my own comments?? Also, UPPERCASE doesn't make your
comments any more correct, they just make you look foolish!!
 
also, I am just stating what I would like to see in a new Atari computer.
If Atari were to design and MARKET a computer that meets my needs I would
consider it. But, from the Atari product descriptions, the TT/Tower looks to be
just a souped up Game machine to me!! And I don't need to spend $XX thousands
just to play Flight Simulator!!
 
>
> >What has happened to Atari Corp??
>
> They are making money selling computers.
 
Yes, but only in EUROPE :-)
 
>
> ------
> Greg Lindahl
> gl8f@virginia.edu                                             I'm not the NRA.
 
Richard Covert
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 14 Nov 89 03:04:19 GMT
From:
 gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!shadooby!sharkey!math.lsa.umich.edu!hyc@tut.cis.
ohio-state.edu  (Howard Chu)
Subject: What does the TT Buy me??
 
This is really getting tiresome. Richard, don't you have better things to
be doing than wasting your time and hours writing long complaints? Has
anyone mailed you yet, agreeing with your statements? Is there any reason
why all of this screaming derision of Atari must be broadcast all over the
net? If you don't like what you've got, write Atari, don't bother us folks
who are happily using and developing stuff for Atari hardware...
 
In article <46d16986.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert)
 writes:
>The TT/P is NOT a UNIX workstation, not as it comes Off The Shelf.
>Even John Townsend has said that UNIX will be available for the
>TT/Tower and not the TT/Plastic. You COULD add more RAM, a bigger
>hard drive and then install UNIX on the TT/Plastic. But, what will
>
Sun-2s with 68010s and 1 MB of RAM ran Unix, why can't a 68030 with 2MB?
Answer - no reason. If Atari doesn't release an official option, someone
else will. It'd be trivial.
 
>Once again you didn't understand my comments. I was talking about upgrading the
>cpu in the TT not comparing cpus speeds between the Intel and the Motorola
>cpus. And it would be nice for Atari to design an upgrade to a faster
>68030. Even if it meant replacing the motherboard the way Apple forces
>the Mac II users. At least then you could do it. But given Atari's track
>record not only will Atari NOT supply a faster cpu but Atari will design the
>TT so that a third party vendor won't be able to supply a faster cpu either.
>Atari has done this with the Mega STs already. Heck, there are plenty of folks
>who can't even use TOS 1.4 because the Mega ST won't drive the 6 EPROM set!!
>And other folks who can't drive both a hard drive and the SLM804 because the
>DMA port won't drive more then one load!!
>
Y'know, for the price they charge for new motherboards, ya might as well get
a new case, keyboard & power supply as part of the deal. Mac pricing is so
ridiculous it really isn't relevant in this regard.
 
The weak drivers are a real pain, must admit. My Mega-4 won't operate the
floppy drive if my hard drive is plugged in but powered off. My old 1040
never had any problems of this sort. No buffering. Definitely seems like
pinching too many pennies there.
 
>>
>> >2) ability to change to a 68040 CPU without buying a whole new
>> >   computer. That is why I can Atari computers disposable. In order
>> >   to upgrade to a different CPU you have to "dispose" of your older
>> >   computer.
>>
>> Few if any other vendors supply this sort of capability. It costs
>> extra money up front.
>
>Tell that the Mac users!! Heck, a MAC SE can be upgraded to a Mac SE/30.
>sure it costs money but you can do it!! And Apple has made a fortune selling
>MAC SE to SE/30 upgrade kits!! So, Mac SE users can change from a 68000 cpu
>to a 68030 cpu w/o "disposing" of their current computer. That is definitely
>cheaper then trying to sell a used computer and then paying full-stroke for
>a new computer. But, once again, Mac users get more out of their used Macs
>than Atari users get out of their used STs!!
>
>Why can't Atari LEARN from Apple?? I guess Atari will be synonymous with
>CHEAP in the future!!
 
Pointless. Rip out the guts and jam in new ones.  As far as the Mac is
concerned, when you do an upgrade you *have* thrown away your computer
and bought a brand new one, at Apple's prices. THis whole argument is
pointless.
 
>And just how FAR off in the future is UNIX for the TT?? given the fact
>that the TT/Plastic won't be here in next summer, and the fact that UNIX
>is intended for the TT/Tower, I would say sometime next century :-).
>
Unix is wonderful for many reasons, among which are:
        a) it's readily portable
        b) it's readily accessible
 
Don't sweat this issue. It's not worth worrying about. You're screaming about
an OS not being available for a machine that's not available.  Doesn't that
seem just a little bit foolish to you?
 
>Yes, EXACTLY ONE, and that is only a half-VME card slot at that!!
>
So what, so you buy a bus-expansion chassis and throw in however many
bezillion cards your power-hungry little hands can get hold of... (Don't
get me wrong, that's exactly what *I* intend to do...  ?-)
>
>Is that your answer for everything?? Wait for third party vendor support of
>basic OS features?? Doesn't say much for Atari does it??
>
Computer companies don't live and die on their own. Computers don't stand
alone, particularly not in today's world of networking and interoperability.
Third party solutions are the key to any computer's success. It's tough for
a company to keep ahead in both the hardware and software ends of things
simultaneously. Apple's been trying for a long time, but they've failed
pretty miserably. Look at how dismal MacWrite is. It spreads resources too
thin to have to handle both ends of the system. (In Apple's case, they've
spun off their software group as an independent, called Claris.) It's tough
to do both the hardware and the software right. Look at DEC - they certainly
very popular hardware, but they didn't write Berkeley Unix, the most popular
Vax operating system... Look at DEC again, when they tried to release their
own version of Unix. It's taken them how many tries, to get it close to right?
(Must admit, the current Ultrix stuff is Very Slick...)
 
>Hey, you are "flooding" the USENET system with your "ProAtari" messages,
>so why shouldn't I add my own comments?? Also, UPPERCASE doesn't make your
>comments any more correct, they just make you look foolish!!
>
For some people's comments it doesn't matter which case they're typed in.
So it goes...
 
>also, I am just stating what I would like to see in a new Atari computer.
>If Atari were to design and MARKET a computer that meets my needs I would
>consider it. But, from the Atari product descriptions, the TT/Tower looks to be
>just a souped up Game machine to me!! And I don't need to spend $XX thousands
>just to play Flight Simulator!!
>
Tell that to Atari, directly. Doesn't do us or them any good here.
 
>>
>> >What has happened to Atari Corp??
>>
>> They are making money selling computers.
>
>Yes, but only in EUROPE :-)
 
So it goes. MSDOS is so deeply entrenched in the US, there's no way that
a technologically superior machine could compete here anyway. That's part
of the problem with this industry, "no one ever got fired for buying IBM."
People are afraid of innovations, and only go for things with the Big Blue
seal of approval. Apple's first foray into the area, the Lisa, was such a
poor piece of engineering the stigma from that has slowed the Mac market
penetration for a long time...
 
Of course, now may very well be the best time for Atari to hit the scene,
and hit it big, as the DOS world scrambles to define a DOS standard for
"graphical user interfaces" (god what a disgusting phrase...). Now, mainly
because there are no established standards, a newcomer actually has a fair
chance at winning itself a share of the market.
 
Given that perspective, TOS isn't so bad - the PC world has yet to switch
to OS/2, so they're still looking at single-user single-tasking 24x80
character cell COMMAND.COM prompts. Obviously this market is shaking itself
out pretty quickly though, and Atari may yet miss the boat...
 
... my opinions, only. and why should I know anything, I live at a University,
not in the real world...   ?-)
--
 -=- PrayerMail: Send 100Mbits to holyghost@father.son[127.0.0.1]
 and You Too can have a Personal Electronic Relationship with God!
 
------------------------------
 
End of INFO-ATARI16 Digest V89 Issue #643
*****************************************
=========================================================================