Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!aer
From: aer@alice.UucP (A. E. Rosenberg)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga,net.micro.atari
Subject: more Amiga vs. ST (ST)
Message-ID: <4421@alice.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Oct-85 18:00:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.4421
Posted: Fri Oct 11 18:00:29 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Oct-85 03:21:00 EDT
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 59
Xref: watmath net.micro.amiga:372 net.micro.atari:1341

(To add more fuel to the Amiga vs. Atari 520ST debate.)

Excerpted from the November _Creative Computing_, in
"Outpost: Atari" - of all places:

   "After months of waiting for my new Atari 520ST system, it arrival was
almost anticlimactic.... As with any new computer product, the first units
would have more problems and less software than more established machines.
The price would no doubt be higher at first...."

   "...As I hooked up the system and turned it on, my disinterested facade
began to crumble. Since the operating system is not yet available in ROM, 
I had ample opportunity to check the transfer speed of the disk drive as it
loaded TOS from disk. The ST loaded the entire 200K+ file in about 25
seconds...."

   "[Author states the monochrome screen is very nice...]"

   "Unfortunately, the feeling of euphoria did not last long, as I realized
I had no way toput the ST through its paces. The only software I had was
Logo- a version so slow that I wondered if the interpreter was written in
Logo. The fact that I had sprung $1700 to buy the developer's package hardly
made me better off than the average buyer. Although the package came with 
development software like a C compiler and assembler, it was essentially
useless out of the box, because the text editor needed for writing programs
was to be sent out later by the manufacturer (apparently much later, since
six weeks after getting the machine, I'm still waiting.)

   "Moreover, the celebrated 6" stack of documentation that comes with the
development package turned out to contain more hints than answers. The bulk
of the material consisted mainly of photocopies of Digital Research document-
ation, that, though somewhat related to the machine, was by no means ST specific

These included a CP/M 68K manual and the full manual for development of GEM
on the IBM PC. Only a few pages of the documentation came from Atari, 
including some sketchy material on the BIOS routines, the keyboard, printer
codes, and source code listing for the boot ROMS. Of the 1500 or so pages
included, more material was devoted to the Kermit protocol file transfer
program than to the ST."

What I mean to say by all this is... a $1700 ST development system like
that presented above is by *no means* superior to a comparable $1700
Amiga Developer's system. A lot of 'Atarians' though have spat hellfire,
though, trying to substantiate that claim.

The ST appears to be a nice, homey monochrome, and some-color graphics
machine, when compared to the more expensive, but certainly more powerful
Amiga. ST drives really are slower, and hold less- than the Amiga's- no
matter what some 'special' people say.

Both of the speed problems, as an example, will probably be fixed once
the software of both machines can get a decent looking over by technicians
who were rushing the machines to the marketplace.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Rosenberg @ ATT/BTL Murray Hill        "These Are... My Opinions."
uucp: ..!ihnp4!alice!aer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------