Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!math.lsa.umich.edu!hyc From: hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: What does the TT Buy me?? Keywords: atari, unix Message-ID: <10130@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu> Date: 14 Nov 89 03:04:19 GMT References: <46bcb82f.14a1f@force.UUCP> <2245@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> <46d16986.14a1f@force.UUCP> Sender: news@math.lsa.umich.edu Reply-To: hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor Lines: 144 UUCP-Path: {mailrus,umix}!um-math!hyc 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!