Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!usc!apple!fox!portal!cup.portal.com!Bob_BobR_Retelle
From: Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Time to create comp.sys.atari.flames (was Re: RE: Vapourwar
Message-ID: <24111@cup.portal.com>
Date: 16 Nov 89 08:06:21 GMT
References: <1989Nov8.182505.11625@uunet!unhd> <23996@cup.portal.com>
  <1989Nov14.182847.9376@sj.ate.slb.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 42

Greg Wageman makes some marginally interesting comments about my posting
concerning the "blitter fraud".
 
In the "Real World (tm)", there are things known as Warranties of
Merchantability and Fittness for Purpose.  There are also things known
as Truth in Advertising, and Fraud.
 
Both Commodore Business Machines and Atari Corp. have been forced by
law to produce products they had promised, but which for their own
reasons they didn't want to actually produce.  The Commodore-64 CP/M
module and the Atari XF-551 Disk Drive are two examples.
 
If Greg Wageman had been one of the people who had bought an Atari ST
based on the promises of the Chief Executive Officer of the company, I'm
willing to wager he too would be more than a little upset when the
implied contract was broken.
 
As far as technical details, the "blitter upgrade" had been promised by
many different Atari Corp people over a span of several years.  It was not
something that a stupid executive just happened to blurt out on a TV
"talk show".  There had been upgrades/daughter boards/motherboard swaps
discussed by Atari for years.  This created an expectation of performance
for those who invested in Atari equipment.  Atari obviously expected that
a blitter equipped "vented case" 1040 would pass FCC certification because
they redesigned the motherboard with a blitter socket position.  "Do It
Yourself" blitter upgrades are possible *if* you have the right motherboard.
That leaves us with the question of why Atari didn't do it themselves...
 
I'm left wondering how the STE with its "vented case" design can add
video enhancements and SIMM memory to 4 Megs and still pass FCC certification
if the Blitter would have pushed it over the line.
 
Sorry if I've exceeded my message allowance by posting this reply, and I'm
further sorry if anyone reading this is annoyed that it's not an Atari
cheerleader message.  I don't much care about a blitter chip and I don't
plan to say anything more about the subject.  Atari Corp lied to their
customers, and that annoys *me*
 
I *would* be interested to see what would happen if a group of dissatisfied
Atari customers decided to challenge Atari in court over this issue.
 
BobR