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: <429@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Oct-86 11:17:12 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.429
Posted: Tue Oct 28 11:17:12 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Oct-86 21:19:34 EST
References: <1128@tekigm2.UUCP> <405@uwmacc.UUCP> <429@utcsscb.UUCP>
Reply-To: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster)
Followup-To: net.micro
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 81
Xref: mnetor net.micro.atari8:527 net.micro.atari16:2793

In article <429@utcsscb.UUCP> pete@utcsscb.UUCP (Peter Santangeli) writes:
...
  Like I've stated before, no matter *how* carefully one words something,
some guy is gonna get offended.  Let's look at this one...

>>And speaking of software, the IBM has just about every micro I know about
>>beat cold in both public domain software and commercial software, in both
>>quality and quantity.  That may be only because of the perceived usage of
>>the respective machines...
>
>Come on! Thats an AWFULLY BIG statement!
>I agree that the PC has a LOT of public domain software (quantity) but I
>bet it would STILL lose to CP/M in the quantity department. CP/M was 
>developed and nutured on PD stuff.

   Take a look at my "AWFULLY BIG" statement, right where it says
"just about every micro I know about."  Does that make my statement small
enough for you?  I admit to blissful ignorance regarding CP/M.  I do, however,
work at a place which features a large room (and larger staff) whose purpose
is to educate people about features of current microcomputer hardware and
software, and to help them choose what's right for their intended uses.
The hardware runs the gamut from the Commodore 64 & Apple II, on through to
to the Macintosh & Amiga.  I *do* know a bit about the quality and quantity
of software for that range of machines.

>I certainly don't agree that it beats the MacIntosh in the quality
>department. I will admit that this has a lot to do with the Mac user
>interface. But in both commercial and public domain software, I would say
>that the Mac has the PC beat hands down. (Especially in terms of USEABILTY).

   Again, that's an "intended use" question.  I make no bones about the fact
that the Macintosh is a good choice for computer-illiterate people who need
good WP capabilities, immediately.  However, unless you call a talking
moose a quality PD program, I still maintain that there is more in both
quantity and quality for the IBM PC than the Macintosh.  Show me the listing
of available Mac PD software, and I'll bury it under the tome of PC PD software
(all quality considerations aside).  We have a Mac contingent here at the
computing center (curiously, most are not computer scientists) who always
show off the latest Mac software (PD and commercial), and frankly, except for
the WP offerings, I continue to be unimpressed.
>
>>...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.
>
>This is another BIG statement. I always love hearing from PC users bragging
>about there 16 bit machines.  It remains a fact that ALL software designed
>for the PC is designed to be able to run on the original PC using the 8088.
>It is also a fact that INTEL(!) describes the 8088 as an 8(!!) bit processor
>with some 16 bit facilities.
...
>No I'm not an 8 bit user (anymore. I have a 1040ST), but I refuse
>to be blind to 8 bit processors

   You do, however, seem to be blind to the text that appears on your terminal.
Take a look at my original statement again: "...the 8-bit micros can perform
as well as the owner of the machine wants or expects it too;  however,
*I personally*..." [italics added].  That doesn't seem like blindness to me;
it seems like exactly what was stated-- a personal opinion and preference.
To reiterate what I have already stated, I *have* struggled with an 8-bit
computer, I *don't* own a PC (assuming you mean IBM), and I currently am
very satisfied with my ST (although a bit less than satisfied with the
support given by the manufacturer).  I also fully realize that what I find
to not suit my needs and wants (e.g. the 8-bit Atari offerings), can and
does do a wonderful job for some people (Bill Dippert, for example).
   As for your statement of "fact" that "ALL" software designed for the PC
(assuming again from context you mean "the IBM PC") is designed to be able
to run on the original 8-bit microprocessor: poppycock!  Come over here
sometime and I'll show you some software I've designed for the IBM PC
(here at the office, i.e. commercially) that could not run on an 8-bit
machine without significant changes.  Anyway, I'm glad you put your money
where your mouth is, and own an ST :-).
--

 - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster)

(Follow-ups have been redirected to net.micro, since this discussion appears
to be heading out of Atari-specific topics into generic micro topics.)