=========================================================================
 
INFO-ATARI16 Digest         Sat,  6 Jan 90       Volume 90 : Issue   15
 
Today's Topics:
                  Amiga Software by Atari!! (2 msgs)
                               ez score
                      Terminal program (3 msgs)
                          Unexpandable megas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 5 Jan 90 20:22:57 GMT
From: nsc!pyramid!infmx!robert@decwrl.dec.com  (Robert Coleman)
Subject: Amiga Software by Atari!!
Message-ID: <2999@infmx.UUCP>
 
In article <90004.202106IMS103@PSUVM.BITNET> IMS103@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
>>If Atari, or anyother company publishes software for other systems,
>>it isn't a sign that their own system is a failure, but as a way to
>>make money, THAT'S BUSINESS!
>
>>Yes, and in no uncertain terms, this is a flame. [...]
>
>>Mark Newton-John
>
>IBM does not make Apple software,  Commodore does not make IBM software,
>Apple does not make Atari software,  Hewlett Packard does not make
>C64 software, but Atari makes Amiga software.  Atari is just wasting
>time and enegry that they could use elsewhere like fixing bugs, updating
>computers and bringing out software for their *own* computer systems.
>
 
        No, but Infocom makes software for the IBM. And the Apple. And the
Atari(s) etc. If you are talking about the software portion of Atari, you have
to compare with software companies. Conversion of software is a sound
business idea.
 
        If your complaint is that you don't think Atari should make software,
fine. That's a marketing decision they made that is different from yours. If
they are going to produce software, it's silly not to make all the money from
it that they can, and conversions are cheap compared to licensing/developing
new software.
 
        (Infocom may seem a poor example, since I believe they just decided to
stop producing for Ataris, but you get the idea anyway.)
 
Robert C.
 
--
"Helen's the only one who knows what scruples are, and she won't tell us"
John said. "Have we got scruples about it, Helen?"
"Not a trace," Helen affirmed.          -The Reefs of Earth, R.A.Lafferty
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 6 Jan 90 06:21:02 GMT
From: pacbell!sactoh0!mfolivo@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mark F. Newton)
Subject: Amiga Software by Atari!!
Message-ID: <2375@sactoh0.UUCP>
 
In article <90004.202106IMS103@PSUVM.BITNET>, IMS103@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
> >If Atari, or anyother company publishes software for other systems,
> >it isn't a sign that their own system is a failure, but as a way to
> >make money, THAT'S BUSINESS!
>
> >Yes, and in no uncertain terms, this is a flame. [...]
>
> >Mark Newton-John
>
> IBM does not make Apple software,  Commodore does not make IBM software,
> Apple does not make Atari software,  Hewlett Packard does not make
> C64 software, but Atari makes Amiga software.  Atari is just wasting
> time and enegry that they could use elsewhere like fixing bugs, updating
> computers and bringing out software for their *own* computer systems.
>
> --
> Ian Smith <ims103@psuvm.bitnet>
 
Microsoft makes software for other systems, Word Perfect makes
software for other systems. What difference doers it make, if a
hardware manufacturer decides, through a subsidiary, decides to
publish software?
 
My main argument stands. If Atari can make money publishing for
other systems, what is wrong with that? If you think that a
hardware company must for now and forever, be a hardware company,
and only publish for it's own system, then sell your Atari, if you
have one, and get the competition. Apparently, they are, and do.
 
But if Atari can diversify, and expand into other areas, then more
power to them. Geez, even the auto companies have other interests
other than car manufacturing, look at Mitsubishi (aircraft,
*computers*, consumer electronics, banking, etc). What have you
against Atari expanding into publishing?
 
Mark Newton-John
 
--
--
   (ames att sun)!pacbell! \      Sakura-mendo, CA
           ucdavis!csusac! - sactoh0!mfolivo
              uunet!mmsac! /      the good guys!
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 5 Jan 90 20:29:10 GMT
From: nis!pwcs!stag!daemon@UMN-CS.CS.UMN.EDU
Subject: ez score
Message-ID: <1990Jan5.202910.5178@stag.UUCP>
 
this is a reply to the GMT from mike@system.cambridge.NCR.COM@MAST
call MIDIapolis: 612-825-4296 we can answer all of your questions, we
 work with all those programs and we ike them!
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 5 Jan 90 22:49:09 GMT
From: mcsun!unido!wrkof!cat!ad@uunet.uu.net  (Axel Dunkel)
Subject: Terminal program
Message-ID: <2816@cat.UUCP>
 
Can anyone give me a hint to a nice (preferable PD) terminal program? It
should be able to handle Z-Modem downloads, emulate at least ANSI or vt100
terminals, and if it had a script language, I would not mind :-)
 
Is there such a beast somewhere? Could someone even mail it to me or give me a
hint to an archive server?
 
Thanx a lot in advance...
 
Axel
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Axel Dunkel (ad@cat.UUCP)
                C.A.T. Kommunikations-System, West Germany
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 6 Jan 90 16:05:46 GMT
From:
 zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caesar.cs.montana.edu!ogicse!
 blake!ramsiri@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu  (Enartloc Nhoj)
Subject: Terminal program
Message-ID: <5246@blake.acs.washington.edu>
 
In article <2816@cat.UUCP> ad@cat.UUCP (Axel Dunkel) writes:
>
>Can anyone give me a hint to a nice (preferable PD) terminal program? It
>should be able to handle Z-Modem downloads, emulate at least ANSI or vt100
>terminals, and if it had a script language, I would not mind :-)
>
>Is there such a beast somewhere? Could someone even mail it to me or give me a
>hint to an archive server?
>
>                  Axel Dunkel (ad@cat.UUCP)
 
 
zmdm
 
ftp terminator.cc.umich.edu
 
I am sure other sites have this excellent program too.
 
-kevin
ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 6 Jan 90 17:12:09 GMT
From: mailrus!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!cr1@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
 (Christopher Roth)
Subject: Terminal program
Message-ID: <21634@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
 
In article <2816@cat.UUCP> ad@cat.UUCP (Axel Dunkel) writes:
>
>Can anyone give me a hint to a nice (preferable PD) terminal program? It
>should be able to handle Z-Modem downloads, emulate at least ANSI or vt100
>terminals, and if it had a script language, I would not mind :-)
>
>Is there such a beast somewhere? Could someone even mail it to me or give me a
>hint to an archive server?
>
 
Hi there...
 
I use Uniterm 2.0e  quite a bit.  It has very good vt200 emulation, as well
as others.  It has kermit, xmodem, and ymodem downloading.  I haven't
been able to find a terminal program that has zmodem for the ST, but
there is a pretty good zmodem shell out there. Both Uniterm and Zmodem
1.8 are PD, so that fits your bill.
 
Me, all I want is to get UW (unix windows) to work.
 
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*     Christoper Roth                         *  "Machines have no
*     InterNet  :  cr1@beach.cis.ufl.edu      *   Conscience..."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Post No Bills-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 6 Jan 90 05:58:34 GMT
From: pacbell!sactoh0!mfolivo@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Mark F. Newton)
Subject: Unexpandable megas
Message-ID: <2374@sactoh0.UUCP>
 
In article <1990Jan3.220110.409@mentor.com>, dclemans@mentor.com (Dave Clemans @
 APD x1292) writes:
> In the systems I've seen, the "unexpandable" Mega 2 board does not
> look like a new PCB layout.  Instead it looks like the original
> layout artwork with the second memory bank covered up so that that
> area stayed all copper.
>
> My theory is that they ended up with a run of memory controller
> chips that would not reliably drive a 4mb system.  Rather than
> throw those away, they decided it was cheaper to do a kludge
> run of "unexpandable" Mega-2 boards, stuffing the "bad" memory
> controller chips into them.
>
> dgc
 
I certainly hope that no one thinks that is a reason, if any, why
Atari decided to use a particular board.
 
A kludge? Bad chips? Are you certain? Because you use the words "my
theory", it is just speculation on your part, and I'd like to make
that clear to the other users here.
 
Maybe you're right, but maybe not.
 
Ja ne da-cha,
Shinobu
 
--
--
   (ames att sun)!pacbell! \      Sakura-mendo, CA
           ucdavis!csusac! - sactoh0!mfolivo
              uunet!mmsac! /      the good guys!
 
------------------------------
 
End of INFO-ATARI16 Digest V90 Issue #15
****************************************
