Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
From: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster)
Newsgroups: net.micro.atari8,net.micro.atari16
Subject: Re: Atari's At Work
Message-ID: <426@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-Oct-86 17:42:11 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.426
Posted: Mon Oct 27 17:42:11 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 27-Oct-86 23:19:49 EST
References: <1142@tekigm2.UUCP>
Reply-To: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster)
Distribution: na
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 77
Xref: mnetor net.micro.atari8:521 net.micro.atari16:2775

In article <1142@tekigm2.UUCP> wrd@tekigm2.UUCP (Bill Dippert) writes:
...

   First off, thanks, Bill, for a reasonable response, rather than the
flame-able counterresponse one comes to expect on USENET (something which
I'm guilty of on occasion).  Most of your response I can understand and
agree with; I just have a couple comments and additions:

>And the software that you buy at the dealer (read:
>commercial software) is a heck of a lot cheaper for Atari then IBM.  Although
>they are getting closer!  Atariwriter+ costs $49.95, pfs:write costs $89.99.

   Yup.  IBM software is more expensive, in general.

>...are reasonably priced so there is no incentive to pirate them.  Or am I
>being unduly naive?

   *I* think so.  However, your local piracy climate may be less, um,
hostile than mine.

>I am glad that you like the ST line, personally I hate mice and windows with a
>passion.

  Me too, at least as a development environment.  That's why I use Micro
C-Shell.  However, for some applications (end-user programs, editors, games,
etc), a windowing system is ideal.  It's nice to have the flexibility; it's
even nicer to be able to push the mouse aside and get some *real* work done.

>And you have to admit that the 1200XL was an aberrition.

   Yup, I admit it, and I was fool enough to buy one.
>
>Maybe I don't have quite
>the memory available, but it is adequate for what I need.  There is even a form
>of CAD available now for the XE (albeit somewhat crude).  So I say that the
>XL/XE series are just as useful in business as the ST (unless you really need
>the .5 -- 1 Meg of memory).  [And the 130XE can be pumped up  to 1 MEG if you
>need it!]
>
>> Short digression:  Owners of 8-bit machines can take that as snobbery
>> if they wish (somebody always does, regardless of how tactfully it's
>> expressed), but it's a plain and simple fact that the 8-bit microprocessor
>> is nowhere near the present state of the art in cheap microcomputing.
>> For some uses, the 8-bit micros can perform as well as the owner of the
>> machine wants or expects it too; however, I personally could not tolerate
>> using most of today's 8-bit offerings for the kind of things I do, both
>> here at the office and while "playing" at home.
>Not snobbery, but your only advantage is memory and possible IBM
>compatibility.

   Not the only advantage-- even ignoring the rest of what *I* consider to
be advantages to the ST, there's the large matter of speed.  The ST gives
me faster throughput than the local 11/780 running Unix (with 4 or more
people logged in).  The 1200XL wasn't sufficient for my hobby needs (try
generating fractal images on a 1200 vs the ST).  Again, though, the 8-bit
can and will perform as well as some people want or need it to.

>Having never used C or Pascal or Action! I cannot testify to the usefulness of
>the 8bitter machines, but these languages are available for the XL/XE's.

   From what I have seen, these languages aren't really up to mainframe par.
Action! is great, but requires either the cartridge or an extra ($$) utility
in order to run the programs.  It also is not compatible with any other 
computer ('though an Action! for the ST is rumored), which, once again, is
fine for hobbyist hacking.  The only C I've seen is a severe subset, without
structures, real math operations (you can buy a utility which provides real
math *functions*), and is not a compiler-- it generates p-code, which is 
interpreted at run time (slow!).  Pascal I know nothing about, but I'd be
surprised if it were a full implementation.
   Anyway, I take it as a good sign that machines incorporating the older
microprocessors can and do fulfill the needs of many; let's hope those people
aren't lead astray buy vicious salespeople, and end up with Mac's and IBM PCs.
--

  - Joel Plutchak, current ST owner
    uucp: {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
    ARPA: oyster@unix.macc.wisc.edu