Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!rochester!kodak!atexnet!cvbnet!feds19!jshekhel
From: jshekhel@feds19.prime.com (Jerry Shekhel )
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: "DOS machines" (Was: TT (Who has one?))
Keywords: long
Message-ID: <704@cvbnetPrime.COM>
Date: 28 Jul 90 16:00:44 GMT
References: <1990Jul19.160526.2215@arcsun.arc.ab.ca> <6764@vax1.acs.udel.EDU> <692@cvbnetPrime.COM> <1990Jul27.022748.29262@math.lsa.umich.edu>
Sender: postnews@cvbnetPrime.COM
Reply-To: jshekhel@feds19.UUCP (Jerry Shekhel )
Organization: Prime Computervision, Bedford MA
Lines: 129

hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes:
>
>The IBM PC wasn't even personable, let alone personal, at its introduction,
>and has only slightly improved since.
>

"Only slightly improved?"  I'll admit, the original PC was junk by today's
standards, but let's look at this objectively:

		Then			Now
	-------------------------------------------
Processor	8088 16bit/8bit		i386/i486 32bit/32bit
Memory		1MB limit		4GB limit
Speed		4.77MHz			16-33MHz
Diskette	5.25" 360K		5.25" 1.2MB, 3.5" 1.44MB
Graphics	None			1024x768 w/16 or 256 colors
Hard Disk	None			Everything up to multi-gigabyte disks
OS		DOS			DOS, OS/2, UNIX, others
Expansion	8-bit ISA		32-bit EISA, 32-bit MicroChannel

I could go on.  EVERYTHING about the original PC has been improved in a big
way.  How much has the ST improved since 1984?  Well, there have been two
upgrades of the OS (basically a 68000 version of MS-DOS).  A few memory
expansion hacks that require the owner to solder little circuit boards into
his/her machine.  Well, let's see, there were rumors of a blitter upgrade, no?
Perhaps one which would work in some machines, but not in others, for lack
of a blitter socket on the motherboard?

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

Hmmm.  This is exactly what I'm trying to figure out -- what makes
you hate the Intel processor so much?  I really see no logic to this
unless you've had to spend half your life coding machine language.
Once you run an OS like UNIX on your machine, you don't even have to
think about the processor.  How can something deep inside the machine
bother you so much?  What's so bad about the i386/i486?

>
>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.
>

What?  This is horsesh*t.  How do you explain the Dell machine on my friend's
desk, which came "right out of the box" with 8MB RAM, SuperVGA graphics,
100+ MB of disk, 2 floppy drives, parallel/serial ports, and UNIX SysVR3 pre-
loaded on the hard disk?

>
>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.
>

I wouldn't even comment on the ST's standard configuration, but since
I have an interest in graphics, I must say that the ST's graphics 
capabilities are totally useless except for games.  Let's face it.  The
ST is totally incapable of providing reasonable color resolution for
a graphical user interface.

>
>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. 
>

Ah, but I thought you said that the whole advantage to these systems was
that you don't have to buy any extra adapters to make them useful.

>
>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.
>

You're right here.  It is unfortunate that most games are still made for the
lowest-end IBM-compatible systems.  That means CGA-EGA graphics.  You're
right, I won't deny it.  ST/Amiga games are still superior.  When I had my
ST, Airball, Time Bandits, and Leatherneck were the software I ran most,
and I hated to part with those 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.
>

Are you trying to justify the ST/TT's pitiful graphics capabilities? :-)
Presentation graphics do require high resolution, and you're wrong about CAD.
CAD involves 3D shaded model rendering, which requires LOTS and LOTS of
colors.  Things like desktop publishing and graphic arts also require high
resolution and lots of color.

>
>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...
>

Well, I'm a software developer; I do care about computers.  I want a decent
development environment -- GUI and all.  Yes, I believe a GUI is necessary
for software development.  Software development requires a multitasking OS,
and to me, a multitasking OS requires a window system to be useful on a
single-user machine, and vice versa.  I'm still talking about SOFTWARE.
Unless you're a hardware engineer and you buy your machine only to rip it
apart and modify it, or you're a machine-language programmer, I still don't
understand why the damn microprocessor bothers you so much.

>
>  -- Howard Chu @ University of Michigan
>

-- Jerry Shekhel