Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!simvax.BITNET!DAVIDLI From: DAVIDLI@simvax.BITNET.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: hardware 'upgrades' Message-ID: <8703031635.AA09265@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> Date: Tue, 3-Mar-87 11:34:20 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8703031635.AA09265 Posted: Tue Mar 3 11:34:20 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Mar-87 22:20:44 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: DAVIDLI%SIMVAX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 87 Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 10:30 CST From: (System Manager) Subject: hardware 'upgrades' To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu X-Original-To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu, DAVIDLI I've been reading the comments of people who seem quite angry that Atari isn't instantly providing them with a means to upgrade their 520ST/1040ST to some 'new' version. I'd like to provide those folks with a history lesson about the nature of 'upgrades' in microcomputing ... My first microcomputer was a Quest ELF. I had to solder it together myself. It had a whole 256 bytes of memory, which was quite enough when you consider that I had to key in programs in hexadecimal. The only way I could upgrade this machine was to purchase additional hardware. Eventually, I had 4 kilobytes of memory, a typewriter keypad, an actual language (Tiny-BASIC) and* a black- and-white monitor bought surplus. My total investment was roughly equivalent to the price of a 520ST with monochrome monitor. Then I spotted an Apple ][ (back in pre-color days). I 'upgraded' my ELF by selling it to another hacker and purchased an Apple ][+, with 16 kilobytes of memory. After several 'upgrades', I had 64 kilobytes of memory, a lower-case modification, a modem (300 baud), a color TV, an Amber monitor, a printer and lots* of software. The investment, including software, would have paid for a 1040ST with color monitor and a (new Atari) laser printer. I was a BIG Apple fan. :-) Then the most terrible thing happened. Apple came out with the //e. The ONLY way for me to upgrade to a //e was to sell my ][+ and purchase a //e. What did I get for my upgrade? More keys to type on, a few changes in the operating system (which was NOT available for the ][+ in a changed ROM), 80 columns, 128K of memory ... minor changes. ALMOST ALL of the software I already had worked well with the new machine. This 'upgrade' would have paid for a 1040ST with color monitor and a Color Ink-Jet printer. About the same time, IBM came out with their first microcomputer. The IBM-PC had 16K of memory, upgradeable to 64K of memory. No, I didn't ever purchase an IBM, but since that time I've seen the rise of the IBM-PC mark II, with up to 512K on the motherboard, the XT, the AT. NONE of these machines was upgradeable. You sold your old one and bought a new one. But, funny thing, most programs that would run on an IBM-PC would also run on an IBM-XT. Some even run on the IBM-AT. Hardware changed, but the software stayed generic enough to cross over to the new systems. IBM has been doing very well with their microcomputer line. If software on the PC didn't run on the XT (and vice-versa), that particular computer line would be an historical footnote. The LISA came out from Apple. Then the Macintosh -- Apple's answer to the IBM PC-jr. (The Macintosh was to the LISA what the PC-jr was to the PC). These were also the first truly expensive 'closed architecture' machines. When Apple came out with the 'new-improved' Macintosh, at a cost LOWER than the original Macintosh and less than a year after its initial release, well, naturally the early owners screamed bloody murder. And Apple obliged them by providing a 'new-improved' motherboard for roughly 1/2 the cost of the new machine. This 'upgrade' would have paid for a 520ST with a color monitor. I understand that LISA owners (who paid upwards of $6000 for their machines) could 'downgrade' them to a Macintosh ... the only case where you can actually LOSE money in getting a more widely used machine. :-) & :-( Some other systems of note which did NOT provide such 'upgrades' include Tandy, Sinclair, Commodore (VIC-20 to C64 to C128), Atari (400 to 800 to 800XL to 135XE...), Data General, Grid, Epson, etc., etc., etc. There are two threads here. First, the software for the truly successful microcomputers ran across the entire computer line. COMPATIBILITY is a key issue. We have every right to ask Atari to provide software compatible machines. Indeed, if Atari has any business sense at all they will do everything possible to ensure such compatibility. So should those of us who are currently writing software. The blitter chip/ROM upgrade is feasible, and a wise move on Atari's part. Second, manufacturers are under NO obligation to provide new hardware to purchasers of their old hardware. For instance, there is no way that current Macintosh owners are going to upgrade their current machines to the new color workstations. They'll have to buy new machines. We shouldn't blame Atari for not providing us with upgraded machines. Especially when those new machines are not even on the shelves yet... Upgrading is OUR responsibility, at whatever cost we feel is necessary to our health and well-being. Personally, I can live with 2-4 megabytes stashed in a 1040ST. I don't need 16 megabyte capability. If I ever need that much memory, I'll consider purchasing a NEW computer. -- David Meile Send interesting comments to INFO-ATARI16. Send FLAMES to davidli@simvax.bitnet.