Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!info-atari
From: nep.pgelhausen@AMES-VMSB.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari
Subject: set fol atari-mail
Message-ID: <8512062142.AA07057@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 6-Dec-85 16:23:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8512062142.AA07057
Posted: Fri Dec  6 16:23:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Dec-85 20:25:31 EST
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: nep.pgelhausen@ames-vmsb.ARPA
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 44

> From: ucdavis!lll-crg!well!farren@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Farren)
> 
> In article <1886@islenet.UUCP>, jons@islenet.UUCP (Jonathan Spangler) writes:
> > 
> > Instead, people at COMDEX saw an absolutely fantastic display
> > of the same bouncing ball demo running -- SIDE-BY-SIDE, mind you -- three
> > machines: 520ST, Amiga, and Mac. All three were running the same ball demo. 
> > Because of the speed difference, the ST was the clear winner, but not only
> > becaue of the speed, but also the color which was much more brilliant.
>    One (of the many) things ATARI didn't mention in their bouncing ball
> display was that this is an EASY, EASY, EASY demo to do!  I'm pretty sure
> (and don't you DARE call this bluff!!) that I could produce an acceptable
> version of it to run on the Apple II!  Instead, ask Atari if 1) there's
> enough processor bandwidth left while it's running to do a LOT of processing,
> 2) if there was sound to go with it, synchronized with the ball, and 3) How
> long it took them to GET that display - I'd be willing to bet that they had
> several of their hottest-shot programmers working on those, and do you really
> think that they would bother to make the Mac version as pretty?
>    The impression I get of Atari lately (and don't get me wrong, I basically
> like Atari's stuff) is that they will stop at NOTHING to get the public to
> believe in their superiority, and if this includes providing insufficient
> information for a true, objective comparison, well, thats the way it goes.
> Personally, I find this kind of marketing scheme insulting not only to
> the technically competent people like us, but even more to those who can't
> know any better.
> -- 
>            Mike Farren
>            uucp: {dual, hplabs}!well!farren
>            Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667
>            USnail: 390 Alcatraz Ave., Oakland, CA 94618
> 
Nobody is denying that the bouncing ball demo is more impressive looking than
difficult.  A recent message placed the Atari developement time at approx.
one week also.  The basic thrust of Atari's marketing is not "we are better
than Commodore" but "we can do much of the same stuff they can, cheaper".

Before the Atari-duplicate demo, the Commodore people were so proud of
themselves....now they are saying "it was nothing anyway".  Make up your
minds!!!

			-Richard Hartman
			max.hartman@ames-vmsb

------