Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!rodan!jfbruno
From: jfbruno@rodan.acs.syr.edu (John F. Bruno)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: SIMMs for the STE
Keywords: SIMM, STE,
Message-ID: <2391@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: 8 Mar 90 20:10:49 GMT
References: <2703@erix.ericsson.se> <2069@atari.UUCP> <2668@castle.ed.ac.uk> <4592@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk>
Reply-To: jfbruno@rodan.acs.syr.edu (John F. Bruno)
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Lines: 56

In article <4592@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> neil@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Forsyth) writes:
 >In article <2668@castle.ed.ac.uk> aimd@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Davidson) writes:
 >>Obviously Atari never bothered to tell UK magazines that the SIMMS
 >>weren't a feature of the machine so when they opened the machine SIMMS
 >>were what they found - can you blame them for assuming this to be a
 >>'feature' of the machine (rather like the square 68000 being a 'feature')?
 >
 >I do blame them!

Well I don't!!!!! If Atari gave some magazine a machine to be reviewed, I
think it reasonable to expect them to also include a description of the 
machine, including what are and are not features.  Otherwise, all they 
would be able to publish is a picture of the machine! (Not even that, 
because then they would be "assuming" that Atari won't change the look of
the machine)

 >It's people making assumptions that have given the ST a bad name so far.

No, it's (say it with me, now...) INEPT MARKETING AND MANAGEMENT AT ATARI
that has given the ST (and the rest of the product line) a bad name. Does
anyone REALLY think that charging people $200 - $300 for documentation
and then forcing them to sign a non-discosure agreement for contents 
therin is a good idea? I sure as hell don't! I realize that you get more
than the docs for the money, but my point is if you want any documentation,
you have no choice but fork it over.

 >Look at all the software that breaks on TOS 1.4 and 1.6 because of
 >'assumptions'. Unless Atari say so officially then nothing is guaranteed.

TOS itself has bugs, does this mean Atari made 'assumptions'? And since when
does Atari say anything "officially"? The reason people have to 'assume' is
that Atari is mute.

 >
 >If your STE has SIMMs, congratulations. If not, too bad, that's the luck of
 >the draw. Does anyone think it unreasonable to ask a dealer to supply an STE
 >that definately has SIMMs an not SIPs? I can't imagine many dealers opening
 >them up for you to have a look. If SIP machines don't sell then Atari might
 >change their policy but few buyers would ever be aware of the difference.

Well, I know that if I was an Atari Service Center, I'd be pretty pissed off
at having to deal with lots of little variations of a machine because Atari
found it could save $0.68 by changing something... How much does Atari spend
re-designing parts of their boards so they can save a couple of cents on
parts? No wonder nobody takes them seriously! Get your act together, Atari!

 > +---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 > DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise stated, the above comments are entirely my own
 > !                                                                           
 > Neil Forsyth                       JANET:  neil@uk.ac.hw.cs               
 > Dept. of Computer Science          ARPA:   neil@cs.hw.ac.uk               
 > Heriot-Watt University             UUCP:   ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!neil        
 > Edinburgh, Scotland, UK            "it's pronounced Throatgobbler Mangrove
 > +---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---jb