From: skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu (Skip Sauls)
Subject: Re: Atari Falcon Discount Supermachine  Re: Sydnes is gone?!!
Organization: University of Mississippi, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:16:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.065720.22424@uwm.edu> gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block) writes:
>hyc@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Howard Chu) writes:
>: Higher model will have VME bus, probably full 32/32, but might just be
>: A24/D16 like Mega STe and TT. Dunno.
>
>That's really stupid of them.  I'm not giving them a break on this
>one.  They're intro machine has practically zero bus, and they're
>going to save a real general purpose bus for the higher end.  If
>they'd have a UNIVERSAL standard for a bus or something, it would be
>much better.  Look at the Amiga line.  There's the 500, and there's
>Zorro II.  And the 500 can be made Zorro II compatible.  Zorro III is
>fully backwards-compatible with Zorro II.

Then there's the A600 which has a bus from a PC.  :-)

>It would be wiser to introduce an across-the-platform bus to help
>their developers get as large a market as possible, as fast as
>possible.

Zorro III is nice, too bad it is not popular.  Until there are enough
machines with the Zorro III bus we'll probably see more Zorro II cards
than anything else.  

>That "processor slot" may not be compatible across the line if
>different motherboard designs, different chips, or different main
>processors are used.

Uh, I hope that I'm wrong but the A3400/A4000 or whatever may not
have an A3000/A3000T compatible CPU slot.  It may have the same
number of pins, but the form factor has certainly changed.

>: There's also nothing stopping us from putting a VME master into the
>: processor-direct slot. I don't think this is a serious issue.
>: (O, btw, sorry for barging in on this little conversation.... }-)
>
>No problem.  It is a serious issue.  Yes, I imagine you could put some
>sort of backplane into the processor-direct slot, possibly.  The point
>is, it's not there.  It's not being designed with that in mind.  And
>that could be a big mistake.

With the goofy 1040ST case you'd need a Bodega-Bay like contraption for
that backplane.

>I sure as hell won't buy a computer without a bus.  I didn't like the
>fact that the 500 was pretty unexpandable.  I wanted a general purpose
>bus with a coupl'a slots.  That's why I picked up the 2000 instead,
>plunking down the extra dough.
>
>A lot of people feel the same way.

Let's hope that Commodore can convince lots more to feel that way.

>: Actually, the Falcon's 8-bit DMA stereo is just using the STe's sound chip.
>: Nothing new there.
>
>So they DO have the old sound chip and the DSP.  Well, at least I know
>now.

The old voice chip appears to be in there also.

>: Well, truth maybe somewhere in between here. Given the choice between
>: spending $1300 on a hot new Yamaha DSP E-1000 dolby prologic processor with
>: 8 channel digital surround, and a $700 Falcon with DSP, I'll take the
>: Falcon and write my own dolby decoder (if it comes to that. I'm sure someone
>: else will beat me to it.) it doesn't take much DSP horsepower to handle
>: dolby surround processing, I'm sure folks will find plenty of other good
>: uses for the thing easily enough.
>
>I'm sure they will.  Provided there's some standard way to access the
>DSP.  Otherwise, every app will walk all over every other app.  The OS
>won't be able to use audio outputs because an application is using the
>DSP, only the OS doesn't know it...  Lots of things can go wrong.  If
>it's not done "right".

I don't think that the NeXT allows more than one app to use the DSP at
the same time either.  Of course, the Amiga is also guilty in this case.
Try running MED and another module player and see what happens.

>: Heh. Good ol' Apple, always giving ya half of what ya want. }-)
>: (Personally, I don't see why the IDE drive is there. It really makes no
>: sense at all to me, tho mebbe SCSI drives in that form factor and capacity
>: weren't available yet?) What else ya wanna use the DSP for - video? Floating
>: point number crunching? There's nothing *preventing* you from doing that in
>: the Falcon. I'm sure the sound capabilities are only being touted because
>
>For instance, let's say you have 8 samples you want to play through
>one channel.  You can do it.  You have the DSP sum all the samples in
>realtime and then have the OS play the summed data...  Oops.  That
>doesn't work, because to do that requires that the OS own the dsp.  Or
>the OS tries and screws up your realtime-summing.  So basically,
>you're forced to having to do the summing AND to play it.  And if any
>other application, since this IS a pre-emptive multitasking system,
>wants to use the DSP, say, an Engineering program that wants to use
>the DSP for some FFT's, well, I don't know what happens.

Ah, but the Falcon has MultiTOS!  As Jeff Young and others have told
us over and over again, MultiTOS and the Falcon will rule the world!
Surely a world leader can multitask a DSP!

>But it might not be pretty.

Nothing about the Falcon is, but then again consider its lineage.

>: those are what most people will most easily identify with. Many people know
>: that the NeXT used the same system for their audio. Most people are being
>: exposed to the term in context of home audio. I don't think there's anything
>: wrong with riding on that recognition...
>
>Again, it all depends on how they do it.  And there's already some
>stiff limitations in it because it's being used for a main function of
>the system:  all audio output (that isn't forcing its way into using
>ST-compatible sound chips).
>
>:Hm. I have always had a problem with what people have called "the Mac OS."
>:Or rather, bundling in features that are rightfully application-level into
>:the underlying operating system. I'm pretty certain that MultiTOS (Ok, MiNT,
>:whichI've actually worked on)provides more operating-system level 
>:capabilities than System 7. Things like subscribe/post etc. can be 
>:implemented on top of that easily enough, but don't properly belong in the 
>:kernel, In My Opinion...
>
>No, but features like that DO belong in an operating system.  For
>instance, HotLinks is similar.  You publish, and your other apps
>subscribe, and they get updates.  However, it's not a part of the OS.
>It should be.  Just like clipboards should be.  Just like
>interapplication communication should be.  They're basic features that
>allow communication between application and application and between
>application and user.  They belong in the OS.

Too bad the Falcon doesn't really have an OS.  Hacks layered upon a stupid
program launcher hardly qualify as an OS, but it should be enough to fool
the suckers who already have STs and don't know any better.

>The kernel is another story.  ;)
>
>:Multiscan,VGA, composite, and even RF are all supported. Even on my circa-
>:1987 Mega ST I get 832 horizontal resolution using overscan, even on my 
>:Sony TV. (Granted, XBR TV, composite input. Not really feasible for RF...)
>
>So it handles at least 15.75-31.5.  At least interesting.  Are all
>resolutions available in 15.75 and 31.5?  Or just the old,
>compatibility modes.

I'd just like to see an Atari change video modes without rebooting.  :-)

>: I'm undecided on this one. The STe has RCA audio jacks, but for all the
>: cables coming out of this box I think I'd prefer the single cable minijack.
>: I already have several mini-to-RCA adapters so it's not an issue to me.

I'm sure that Radio Shack will be happy to supply the adapters.

>: The digital ports are the old-style 9-pin ports. The analog ports are
>: 15-pin. There's really no practical way to provide both on one port and
>: remain compatible with all the literally millions of digital joysticks
>: out there.
>
>It uses 15-pin analog?  Well, that explains the extra two ports,
>thanks.  No more arguments from me except to say that it's pretty
>brain damaged, you can get 9-pin analog.  For instance, the Amiga's
>9-pin offers analog/digital/light-pen input...
>
>: Every machine oughta have room to grow, eh? Not like the MacPlus or PS/1...
>
>Maybe:  Nobody will deny the MacPlus had its place.  However, if you
>want to give a system room to grow, keep the features to the lowest
>cost necessary ones, (IE probably throw out SCSI II and keep IDE) and
>add a real expansion bus.  With several slots.  That way, they can ADD
>whatever they want without having to use the One And Only Slot.

Hey, if they threw out SCSI, kept IDE, added an expansion bus, put the
CPU on a card, and put the whole thing into a baby-AT style case they'd
have an A3400 look-alike.  :-)

>: Full resource tracking. I can't conceive of even trying to multitask
>
>I can.  :)
>
>: without it. Geeze, what a nightmare.... Also, while message-passing can
>: be implemented simply enough, I think it's faster to go with shared
>: memory. (In MiNT, any process can mark a region of its memory as sharable,
>: or give it up outright to some other userID. I haven't quite figured out
>: when I would want to give some other process some of my memory and give
>: up my access rights to it, but the capability is there.)
>
>Oh, there's quite a few reasons...  A certain Russell McOrmond found
>out lots of good reasons to pass memory around back and forth and back
>and forth...  ;)
>
>: This sounds pretty much like the stock set of entries in a Control Panel
>: desk accessory, with the exception of MicroEMACS. I'm not sure if I'd
>: package MicroEMACS (or any version of EAMCS, for that matter) with a low
>:end system, but it's readily available, as you say. As is the full GNU version
>
>Of course.

I wonder if Atari's version is non-standard like the one that ships with
the Amiga.

>: This remains to be seen. My impression was that audio input was not
>: dependent on the DSP, which frees up one sticking point. The rest does
>: seem like a difficult problem. It would certainly be of little use to
>: be unable to support ISDN in concert with various other operations.
>
>Yes, I'd agree.  Of course, the I'm Slow and Dumb network has problems
>of its own...  ;)  (it's a joke, you pro-lifers.  ;)
>
>: Depends on what you mean by "teach them unix." If you mean, can I take
>: software off comp.sources.unix and compile and run it, the answer is "yes."
>
>It's "Most Likely".  Because it's probably not 100% compatible with
>BSD's calls...  99.5 at best.  After all, it's not BSD.  :)

If you want to learn UNIX, get a Sun-3 for ~$1000.  You get real machine
from a real company with a real keyboard and a real OS.  

>Though it does sound rather interesting, I still refute that the
>Falcon has lost much of the glory it was first given...

Did anyone really expect anything else?

>Greg
>
>--
>(: (: (: (: Have you overdosed on smileys today?  Why NOT!?! :) :) :) :) :)
>(:	  "Flesh-pressing:  It's not just for politics anymore."         :)
>(:	gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu			Gregory R. Block         :)
>(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

Skip Sauls
skip@tacky.cs.olemiss.edu

BTW, if I sound harsh on the ST, Falcon, etc. good!  As long as bozos keep
ranting about the Falcon I'll continue to flame them.  It amazes me that
any Amiga owners would consider a machine from a company with a record that
makes Commodore look great.