Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!rb
From: rb@ccivax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari16
Subject: Re: What next for the ST?
Message-ID: <465@ccivax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Mar-86 21:20:05 EST
Article-I.D.: ccivax.465
Posted: Tue Mar 11 21:20:05 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 04:08:02 EST
References: <8603092319.AA12627@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?)
Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group,  Rochester NY
Lines: 51
Summary: Plan for compatibility now.  What was that guy talking about?

In article <8603092319.AA12627@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> burman@BRL-TBD.ARPA ("Norbert M. Burman", TBD-PMB-MRL) writes:
>
>	I read the March Byte article on the 1040ST and resulting info-atari16
>questions on the future inclusion of a graphics processor with great interest.
>From the comments made by Shiraz Shivji in the Byte interview and other Atari
>personnel on info-atari16, I get the impression that we are in for a spate of
>Atari machines based on the origonal 520ST architecture but incorporating ram
>and peripheral improvements, built-in and add-on, ad nauseum.
>
> 	The thing that worries me about this is that with all these models
>stretching into the future how compatible will they all be? How will the
>software houses write their programs if the target machines are constantly
>changing.

Software is the easy part, if programs are written in a kosher Application/OS
fashion, the trap vectors will provide transparency between the application
and the hardware.  These "rumors" are a simple warning, "cute code" is
unconditionally unacceptable.  If the code tries to "capture" the operating
system, it will be obsolete.  Drivers might be sold as drivers, but to
make them integral to the application (ALA 1-2-3, EA,...) is a good way
to exclude new markets as they arrive.

>There are now two STs ( all within a few months ) on the market
>with at least one (with more ram) and/or another (with graphics co-processor)
>machine(s) in the wings ( that's what Atari have told us about anyway). I
>believe in progress sure, but every time I go to order an ST there is
>talk/rumour of a new model, ( Yes I have not purchased an ST yet! ).

My biggest concerns are hardware upgrade path and industry compatibilty.
You can do major surgury on a 520 to make it a 1040, but new 520's don't
seem to be any easier to expand, and neither have a good clear "Co-processor"
interface.  The CPU's are still soldered directly into the box.  The other
concern is the DMA bus.  Atari knows about SCSI, supports the protocol, but
seems determined to stick with their own bus (Not SCSI compatible).  This
is the same attitude that Commodore/Atari used on the old machines.  I may
go ahead and buy a "K-Mart ST" because I like most of what they did, but
I don't want to invest in a bunch of "Atari only" peripherals, no matter
how cheap they get (well maybe a $100 CD-Rom).  I would be willing to
"gamble" on a peripheral with a standard interface.  If some other
company, or Atari for that matter  comes up with a better price/performance
machine with the same interface, the old ST can go to the kids, but the
hard drives are still usable.


Some questions of my own:
In the interview, a 1024x1024 display was mentioned.  The ST seems to have
the bandwidth to support this at 70hz interlaced, is it a software hack,
or is new hardware required?

When is the PC industry gonna "Grow up" and adopt even minimal standards?
Does IBM have to do everything??!!!