Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!rutgers!ucsd!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!hrc!force!covertr
From: covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: What does the TT Buy me??
Summary: I just want Atari to improve their act!
Keywords: atari, unix
Message-ID: <46db9cb6.14a1f@force.UUCP>
Date: 15 Nov 89 21:37:11 GMT
References: <46bcb82f.14a1f@force.UUCP> <2245@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> <10130@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu>
Organization: gte
Lines: 120

In article <10130@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu>, hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes:
> 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...

Howard, first I admire some of your programming. I have seen the result of your work
and it is excellent. And that is one reason why I *HATE* to see Atari introduce a 
new machine that is as poorly conceived as the TT appears to be. How is the ST/TT
market ever going to attract and retain imaginative and creative programmers such as
yourself if Atari doesn't improve the ST/TT?? I really want to see a better TT then
the TT/Plastic, and MAYBE, just MAYBE, Atari will hear the SCREAMs of anguish from
the customers. It is not too late for Atari to redesign the TT/Tower (which is the
model that I am really interested in). I would be glad to want another YEAR to see the
TT/Tower with a faster 68030 and 1024x1024x256 colors and multitasking and multiwindows.
That's what I want to accomplish by my Atari bashing. As the TT/Plastic is described
I would rather pass.

> 
> 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.

Howard, I am glad that you see my point. Too many people are willing to overlook
the defects in the ST in their fervor to support it. The penny pinching
manufacturing methods useds to make a "cheap" ST shoould NOT be applied to
the new TTs!! Who wants to spend $3,000 on a TT just to find that you can't
operate your floppy if the hard drive is turned off!! I have seen horror stories
of ways that the ST fails from machine to machine. The TT has got to be better
then the ST. But, if no one complains than why will Atari change their act??

> 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.
> 

It is NOT pointless to show how another company supports their customers.
The big point is that apple gives you the option, the choice. Sure it is
expensive but the best things in Life Aren't Free!! And the main point is
that Atari DOES NOT give you the choice. sure, you can buy a Mega ST instead
of a 1040ST but you are still getting the same basic machine. And maybe,
just maybe, someday in the 90's you will be able to buy a TT/Plastic.
But that's ALL the choices that Atari gives you. No enhancements like better
color graphics, or a faster processor. Just a cheap unexpandable computer.
It would be nice if Atari would give their customers more CHOICES!!


> >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...)
> 

The Claris case is concerning APPLICATION software. My GDOS example is SYSTEM
software. No body can do a better design for SYSTEM software than the system
manufacturer. So, the MacWrite is not the same as a BAD GDOS. It is the
same as a CRAPPY DESKSETII though. And from what I have heard DeskSet II is
a real DOG!! So, you are right, Atari should leave application software to
the third party vendors. But, I am right in that Atari should FIX GDOS and make
other SYSTEM level improvements.

> 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...
> 
> not in the real world...   }-)
> --

Actually, Howard, you are totally correct in your analysis of the PC market.
I am researching various OSes and GUIs for the PCs and it is a total
wildhouse. There are scores of different and incompatible little screen
programs for the PC and strange things such as PC-MOS and MicroSoft Windows.
The GEM/TOS interface may only be singletasking but it beats MicroSoft Windows
hands down. Do you know how you develop a MS Windows application?? first you
write your C code under DOS, compile, link, load. Then you boot MSW (Microsoft
Windows) and try to execute your MWS apps. If it fails you have to exit from 
MSW, and do the edit-compile-link process until you THINK you have solved the
problem. Then reboot MSW (which is slow/fast depending upon your HW [286 or 386])
and try it all over again. Obviously you have few if any SOURCE code level debugging
tools available. And MWS is the BEST and most popular windowing package available
for the PCs.

So, TOS is great compared to PCs and MSW. You 640K barrier like with an IBM PC.

Geez, I just *WISH* that Atari would design the TT with State of the Art features!!
The TT *COULD* have been the IBM PC killer, but I don't see that happening given Atari's
lack of committment to the USA!!

Rich Covert