From: cherborth@semprini.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca (Chris Herborth)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Organization: InterZONE Design
Subject: Re: ADVOCACY: Re: PC VS ST
	<C0yzvq.9tn@ecf.toronto.edu>
	<H.ea.01zv&vPzgQY@semprini.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca>
	<C14KK8.EK1@ecf.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: cherborth@semprini.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
X-Software: HERMES GUS 1.04 Rev. Sep  5 1992
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 21:25:32 EST

In <C14KK8.EK1@ecf.toronto.edu>, AL RASHID SHAHIR writes:
> I was comparing the QUALITY of the Falcon's sound system with the QUALITY
> of anything available on the IBM. Even you agree with me on this point,
> (your statement, below). Like I said above, I was comparing the Falcon
> with all its plusses with an IBM/compatible.

blah blah blah

The Falcon is probably underpowered and overpriced for today's market.
The Falcon is late due to Atari's own stupidity.
PC clones don't suck for graphics or sound.
PC clones are cheap; the hardware is good; some of the software is good.

blah blah blah

> For around $300? Good luck.

I don't care, but I'm sure I were to blow a few minutes looking through
Computer Shopper, I could see a DSP board for $300.  It wouldn't be a
whiz-bang do-everything kick-butt board, but hey, neither is the Falcon's
DSP system.

> Which just about means: Get a new computer. Soooooo, what's your point?

The Falcon is underpowered/overpriced... oh, I said that already.  A
few times an article, I think...

> And it seems to me that all you IBM compatible advocaters never want to
> concede that the Falcon is a damn good computer.

I think those of us who are _still_ slogging through this are trying to
say:

Falcon is _neat_, but underpowered/overpriced and _really_ late.
Mac LC II is underpowered/overpriced... but about the same as the Falcon.
'486 systems are powerful and cheap and not as bad as you think.

> I would think that software developers would target the DSP as a big plus
> in favor of the Falcon. Why would they refuse to use it then? If the software
> developers are gonna make falcon-specific software, you can bet they're almost
> definitely gonna use the DSP for something. 

And yet, nobody knows what it's going to be used for in "normal" programs
(ie, non-music, non-sampling software).  I can think of two other uses
for the DSP, JPEG compression/decompression and _fast_ vector graphics
calculations...  I doubt there'll be a PageStream DSP or a Calligrapher
DSP or a Lattice C DSP (that'll use the DSP for compiling)...

Care to share some of your ideas on how the DSP will save Atari's butt
with this one?  And remember, not everybody is going to buy a computer
just because it's got MIDI ports and can be used as a sampler.

> Why would I want to ray-trace while in a high mode? If it means all that much
> to you, I'll just ray-trace in a low mode, and DISPLAY it in a high mode! In
> 16bit graphix to boot!

Maybe you'd want to keep the screen resolution big so you could do some
photo retouching for use in your DTP program for 4-colour printing on
the local copy service's colour PostScript printer.  With any luck, you
could have the RayTracer running in the background, with your Adobe
PhotoShop (or whatever since we're more likely to have people on the
moon again this century than to have Adobe develop for the Atari
platform) editing the picture and the DTP program loaded and waiting for
you to get back to it...
-- 
-------------------========================================-------------------
Chris Herborth
cherborth@semprini.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st