Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sunic!kullmar!pkmab!daniel From: daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Still searching... Summary: just more "bashing"..? Keywords: ste, help Message-ID: <2385@pkmab.se> Date: 6 Dec 89 23:20:48 GMT References: <2352@pkmab.se> <1830@atari.UUCP> <2370@pkmab.se> <1854@atari.UUCP> Organization: \"Orebro's Tech. College, Sweden Lines: 174 In article <1854@atari.UUCP>, kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes: > > daniel@pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) writes: > | I can assure you -- you won't be able > | to sell a lot of computers if you don't tell them how to program it! > > I seriously doubt that the _majority_ of people who buy Atari > computers, or any other computers for that matter, have the slightest > desire to program their machines. The simple fact is, most people who You might be right there - but what about the so well-known PD/SW programs? There are a lot of goodies among these, like the Quick ST etc. The programmers who make these programs are considered "end users", or..? > buy computers want to _use_ their computers. They don't want to be Yes. Of course. But _MANY_ of those have bought a computer to be able to program it as well as use it! Otherwise they would have bought a video game. The percentage who bought it as a business computer? Well, I guess you can count it out. You haven't got a great reputation, you know. The STE isn't going to do it any good either, nor the LYNX. > | [...] it must be possible to post a minimum of information to some > | knowledgeable people in the right places. > > Who is "knowledgeable"? What is "the right place"? How much > information is "a minimum"? "Knowledgeable" is for example the people who wrote Quick ST. And there are more people on the net (for example). And the journalists of a computer magazine such as the swedish one, "AtariSTen". And that is the right place, too. It's not YOUR business -- but it is Atari Scandinavia's. "A minimum" of information is, in this case, a list of adresses to the new chips/enhanced chips and a _short_ explanation of what to put there. I know you did this with early STs: They got some kind of addendum with a list of adresses to the PSG (complete with waweform diagrams!) and such. That's the kind of information I want. Not internal TOS behaviour. But the most important stuff, of course stripped compared to the dev. docs. That doesn't matter. Like now, how easier everything would have been for me if the source-code (in Turbo-C, I know.) to the demonstration programns would have been there, right on the language disk. I do think you had some spare space, huh? Not of interest to all, no. But of great importance to others. > And what do you call the information we have been posting? > Chopped liver? No, I don't. And I think I mentioned the fact that I thought this was the way to handle things. (Like the ARGV defs -- wonderful!) I refer to my earlier postings. > | And there're a lot of developers on the net, too. > > In fact, only a tiny percentage of commercial ST developers are active > on the net. But it just MIGHT be "cost effective" to post it to the net, then? Fine. > | And people from the net DO forward things to the right places. > > It's true that net.info gets spread around quite a bit. It's also > true that it gets warped on the way out. People are misquoted. The > information may be wrongly interpreted at the far end, with no chance > of the person(s) responsible for the original post to clear up the > mistakes. Mostly it's correct. KERMIT don't missquote things, I think. Nor do ZMODEM. Maybe XMODEM does, I don't know :-) This is no reason. If you post something of any importance (like a program or the ARGV stuff) it's not rewritten -- it's just sent further by file transmission. No missquoting there... > [interesting chain letter analogy deleted] Oh... :-) > > | It should at least be "cost effective" to give this information to > | developers without them having to ask! > > Registered developers get a lot of information without having to ask > anything more than "Where's my developer kit?" This was your words. "Just them having to ask", or something like that. Look in you article. Reading all the messages from developers (the LOW percentage, remember?) who aren't satisfied with the information, I can't agree with you. But I don't really have inside information. We better leave the subject. > | Why should I buy a computer I can't use? Like buying a car and when > | you ask for an explanation of the buttons getting the answer: "Sorry, > | you have to be a registred driver to get to know this. You shouldn't > | know about more than the gear and the wheel." > > Why do so many people use this analogy? Maybe because it's a good one? > A computer is not a car. A computer is a computer. True, but you want to use your computer, just as you want to use your car. And you want to program it, to drive it. At least some of us. :-) > But, since you insist, getting technical > information (on a level equivalent to "How do I program DMA sound?") > from an auto manufacturer isn't all that easy either. Try it some time. Maybe not, but I do think the auto man. would answer the question: "Where are the ---SOMETHING---"? ("At what adress is ---?") And the car company cooperates with people writing books about "do it yourself". But since you're not comfortable with this analogy, we'll leave that too. > | Have nobody thought of the possibility that there might be something > | wrong? Why should we otherwise be bashing Atari? > > Okay, I'm donning my asbestos suit for this one, but here goes: I think > the reason that people bash Atari is BECAUSE THEY CAN. Because we are > active on the nets answering technical questions, people feel that > their input on how Atari should run its operation will be listened to. Oh? Since when have you been answering tech. questions from net people? (Low end users?) Not in this case, at least. (But again, I KNOW, I KNOW, you have done that sometimes - that's why I got surprised of these negative answers to my humble questions!) > | I have offered to help writing some demonstration programs to be put > | on the STE language disk. I haven't even got a reply. Atari Corp. was > | obviosly not interested.> > This concerns me. To whom did you send the offer? Where did you send > your letter? Did you send an example program along with your offer? I sent it by electronic mail to kbad@atari.UUCP, that is YOU. (Message dated Fri Nov 24 12:26:13 1989, subject: Questions about the STE) And NO, I did not send an example program -- I had still got no information about how to program the STE, remember? Since my english is a bit strange and foreign, after all -- you might not have understood me. But now you have, and the offer is still there. If I write something that is better than the existing programs, is it possible to get it distributed on the language disks? Is it possible to write some kind of "dealer demo" that could be sent out to dealers from Atari Corp. with a lot of stunning graphics and sound, as they say? I can do a lot of this myself, and I know more people who would be pleased to help. If it's possible, well my mail adress is below. > > | I do not want Atari Corp. to die [...] > > Nor do I. I hope you are able to get the information you want to program > your STE soon. But remember, Atari gives registered developers special > treatment, and they deserve it, because they write the software that > sells Atari computers. I think you're absolutely right in giving the developers HIGHER support than end users, but I do think you could give us end users a little more support than you do. We're not asking for much (are we?). And, this is of course my opinion, and if it "awakens the beast within you", it's not my fault. You shouldn't have read this... --- Daniel Deimert, Fridstavagen 4, S-715 94 Odensbacken, SWEDEN Internet: daniel@pkmab.se UUCP: ...{uunet,mcvax}!sunic.sunet.se!kullmar!pkmab!daniel