Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!sharkey!math.lsa.umich.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!hyc
From: hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: "DOS machines" (Was: TT (Who has one?))
Keywords: long
Message-ID: <1990Jul27.022748.29262@math.lsa.umich.edu>
Date: 27 Jul 90 02:27:48 GMT
References: <1990Jul19.160526.2215@arcsun.arc.ab.ca> <6764@vax1.acs.udel.EDU> <692@cvbnetPrime.COM>
Sender: usenet@math.lsa.umich.edu
Organization: University of Michigan Math Dept., Ann Arbor
Lines: 119

In article <692@cvbnetPrime.COM> jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel ) writes:
>I'm not trying to start a flame war either, but why are PC's still called
>"DOS machines"?  Why can't you face the fact that Intel-based PC's are no

I tend to call 'em DOS machines or 8086 boxes. (Or pieces of *Shit* but that's
not important right now...  }-) 

I object to corporations like IBM taking generic language and turning it into
trademark status nomenclature. Used to be "PC" meant any personal computer.
The IBM PC wasn't even personable, let alone personal, at its introduction,
and has only slightly improved since. Nowadays you don't hear people saying
"personal computer" very much. I tend to say "micros," "minis," "mainframes,"
and "supers." If you want to talk about generic microcomputers, you can't say
"PC" any more. (Very sharp of IBM's marketing staff, I must say. But just
'cause it was obviously a smart move doesn't mean I have to like it. Just like
Sun calling their dreg of a system NFS. How generic-sounding. Bah...)

>longer DOS machines, but rather "industry-standard personal computers"

They are not personal computers in the sense that I'm used to. They're
simply members of a long line of Mediocre Business Machines. Business
Machines aren't personal in my book. Industry standard PC is an oxymoron.

>capable of running DOS as well as many other operating systems?  You applaud
>Commodore for providing UNIX for the Amiga, so I assume you want to run
>UNIX on a personal computer.  UNIX has been available for Intel (286/386/486)
>PC's for many years, with many versions available (Xenix, SysVR3, AIX, QNX),
>and more about to appear (SysVR4, BSD4.4, Mach).  And still you loathe PC's.

Pretty much. I personally loathe current Intel chips. I don't care what you
can do with one, a different architecture can do it better. 

>OK, it's true that in their standard configuration, Intel-based PC's have
>pitiful sound capabilities when compared with Atari's ST/STE/TT and the
>Commodore Amiga.

In their standard configuration IBMPCs are useless. In their standard
configuration IBMPCs boot up into Cassette BASIC and don't even have
cassette ports (any more, recently, you know what I mean.). And no
graphics functions at all. In a standard ST or Amiga configuration, you
have a complete system right out of the box. With no need for MultiFUnction
I/O RAM Expansion cards, monitor adapters with parallel ports, funky
disk controller cards, bus adapter cards, etc. etc... The ST loses in that
you can't get anything *but* the standard configuration, but the standard
is still very useful in its own right.
>
>As far as graphics is concerned, my $92 SuperVGA card provides better graphics
>than the upcoming TT -- 800x600 w/256 colors, 1024x768 w/16 colors -- with a
>256K-color palette.  A $200 SuperVGA card will do 1024x768 w/256 colors.
>Beyond that, of course, there are graphics controllers with dedicated
>coprocessors for those who feel the need.

I think there's more to the TT than meets the eye. Why do they specify up
to 8 megabytes of video memory with the meager selection of graphics modes
they're offering? 8 megabytes is enough for a 1024x1024 8 bitplane deep
(256 color) image. I bet you could find at least a half dozen VMEbus cards
that'll be happy to use that address space for you. 

And while I've seen wonderful still-images on VGA and Super-VGA systems, I've
yet to see a game worth looking at on one. Even games that support EGA, with
its 16 color palette, look like they came from a Vic-20. Now while games may
not seem all that important to you, they are certainly an important part of
a Personal Computer's functions, and there are a lot of companies out there
charging lots of $$$ for their so-called graphics games. Business graphics
don't need more than EGA resolution. CAD needs resolution, but number of
colors is really no big deal. For the kinds of detailed work you tend to
see on a CAD system, color gets to be more of a distraction as the level of
detail increases.
>
>That's the whole point I'm trying to make.  When you buy a PC, you're getting
>the industry standard.  That means you can tailor your PC to use ANY graphics
>standard, ANY disk interface standard, ANY peripheral interface standard,
>ANY network standard, etc., and at this point, it costs less to get a PC
>than a comparable Amiga or a TT.

Just because it's a standard doesn't mean it has any technical merit. Look
at IBM mainframes - they're pretty much the standard in the mainframe market.
Look at their price/performance ratio. Look at IBM operating systems. They're
the standard in the IBM mainframe world. They haven't evolved more than a
few ticks in the technology scale, compared to what's being done with
microprocessors and workstations. You still have to allocate physical disk
blocks in CMS, there's still no real filesystem. The technology is utterly
atrocious, but it's a standard. Of course, in the case of mainframes, you
still can't get *ANY* graphics standard, or *ANY* disk interface, or ......

It's too bad it takes so *damn much* iron to make a mainframe, otherwise the
clone market there might be a little hotter...  }-)

But back to the topic... Why would I want to *use* "ANY" standard? I just
need to use a couple of the good ones, and I'll be happy. The STs have
standard serial and parallel ports, that's good. Atari cut too much of a
corner with their CSI, but it's a small matter to get real SCSI. That's
good. From SCSI you can get anywhere, and that's enough. SCSI ethernet, no
problem. SCSI video, it's been done. SCSI anything - no problem. Don't need
IBM's idea of a standard, to be Standards Compatible.
>
>Of course, you just may not like the Intel processor, or it may be something
>else about the current architecture of industry-standard computers that just
>doesn't agree with you.  That's your opinion, and that's your right.  But
>really, none of your animosity ("ugh", "ick", etc.) makes any sense.

I suppose animosity is a little unreasonable, but it's definitely genuine
distaste. And from there, it's easy to get carried away... (LIke I just
did, writing this silly article. sigh...)
>
>Sorry to ramble like this; I'm just trying to understand.
>
>-- Jerry

Well, how's this - there are two kinds of computer users in the world - those
who care about 'em and those who don't. You're probably one who doesn't, and
I'm one who does. Not caring about 'em doesn't mean you don't like them, just
that they're not a major factor in your world view... And obviously people
like me, who write huge responses to simple questions, well... you get the idea.
--
  -- Howard Chu @ University of Michigan
  one million data bits stored on a chip, one million bits per chip
	if one of those data bits happens to flip,
		one million data bits stored on the chip...