Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster From: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Documentation Message-ID: <1012@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 2-Feb-87 11:28:26 EST Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1012 Posted: Mon Feb 2 11:28:26 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 3-Feb-87 04:13:16 EST References: <544@atari.UUCP> <981@uwmacc.UUCP> <1511@ihlpe.UUCP> Reply-To: oyster@unix.macc.wisc.edu.UUCP (Vicarious Oyster) Organization: UW-Madison Academic Computer Center Lines: 63 In article <1511@ihlpe.UUCP> daryl@ihlpe.UUCP (Daryl Monge) writes: >> >Use the Developer Support phone number provided in your documentation. >> Oh, you mean the documentation that one can't get unless one purchases >> undesired software at exorbitant (well, at least *unreasonable*) prices? >> Tell me again how Atari supports developers. > >(I saw the 8-), but still... ) >I have been watching this for a few days. I have been watching this newsgroup since its inception. > I am amazed (not necessarily >at the above author, but it was a convenient followup article) on how many >people are unwilling to purchase the ATARI package but feel that they >somehow deserve free information. I am amazed that somebody could read the word "free" into the discussion. As the person you so conveniently followed up, I can assure you that I *never* said anything about free information, nor do I expect unreasonable things of Atari. However, there are a few things you may want to keep in mind. First off, I pay for a commercial information service, mostly to keep up with ST news, products, and technical tips, so money isn't so much of an issue with me. Secondly, what I and others frequently get annoyed about is the attitude shown by Atari (as a corporation, not *necessarily* by certain personnel) regarding basic machine information. Example: somebody mentions that hard drive brand "X" can be interfaced with the ST if you write a driver which correctly interprets the port's signals. We immediately are subjected to a harangue from Atari personnel like "if you think we're going to support brand X you're out of your mind!" All we ask is a little information, not major support of brand X. And lastly, we would all be quite pleased to be able to give Atari appropriate compensation for good hardware and OS documentation. But I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a compiler, assembler, kermit, etc., which I will not use. The bundling policy *may* have had merit when the machine was new-- it served to encourage serious commercial software developers to produce some software to help sell the machine. Now, the lack of reasonable access to official documentation can only hurt sales, especially with all the quality software options available. > If the information ATARI provides has >some value, then each of us must evaluate ATARI's asking price with our >perceived value of it. When we decide that other software is a better >value, then OK, but we should expect that software to provide the necessary >documentation. This isn't merely software documentation. It's hardware and OS documentation that involves the internal workings of the computer. How many compilers (or other software, for that matter) do you know of that come complete with in-depth information concerning the target machine? The documentation we'd like to see has no bearing on any particular language, software, hardware, or use. It's *basic* information about a product which we all legally own. So spare us the indignation. >disclaimer: I own an ATARI, own stock in ATARI, and am extremely biased > in favor of ATARI...... Then why don't you support their supporting the ST intelligently? -- - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster) Disclaimer: The above, unless otherwise labeled, constitutes personal opinion.