From: falavi@bach.mth.kcl.ac.uk (Farrukh Alavi)
Subject: Re:  Falcon is an Ape
Organization: J. Random Misconfigured Site
Keywords: Me Too!
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 09:01:29 GMT
X-Posted-From: bach.mth.kcl.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


In article <1992Oct15.115505.14348@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>  
hyc@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Howard Chu)writes:

>ST blitter existed long before there was even a rumor of a NeXT machine,
>and it has always been spelled out "BLiTTER". Since the operation it
>performs is commonly called a "bitblt" I guess Atari felt they had to
>make sure the letters "BLT" were emphasized... Or perhaps it's 
>related to the AT&T DMD terminals, I dunno if those "Blits" were SpELLED
>in any funny way or not.

Yes, I am very much aware of the how long the Atari blitter has existed  
for. They have had it in one form or another since just after the launch  
of the Amiga A1000.

>Main point being, you're accusing Atari of copying ideas from
>NeXT and Amiga, and I don't think that's really the case.

As you yourself said, this "seems to be the only real disagreement we have  
here so I'll keep at it." :-)

>Ok, I suppose if we agree "nothing is new under the sun" then there's  
nothing
>wrong with that conclusion. But your posting conveys a tone that implies
>that all of the ideas present in the Falcon are just copying of other
>companies' ideas. I would say that despite the fact that certain elements
		   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of the system have been used in other systems doesn't negate the fact  
that
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the Falcon is an original piece of work. Even discounting the features  
that
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (1)
>are unique to the Falcon, you have an original work in the same way that
>a collection of public domain music (for example) can be copyrighted -  
the
>compilation is a unique creation, an original work. The Falcon is new,  
unique,						     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^
>and original because it combines so many different elements into a single
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>package. And moreover, some features you point to as being copied from
 ^^^^^^^ (2)
>another company really aren't, they were present in Atari systems long  
before
>other companies used them, or they were common practice before that.

(1) It is not "certain elements" that have been used in other systems - it  
is more like "most elements"
(2) Yes, the Falcon may be considered original if you think that so many  
different elements
have been combined into an original package. But read on...


>I'm surprised you didn't point to the 3-1/2" floppy disk drive and accuse
>Atari of copying IBM or Apple there, as well. Or point to the SCSI-2 port
>and accuse them of copying the workstation companies, or look at the
>68030 and accuse them of copying NeXT there as well.
>
>I could say "Gee, they copied that IDE hard drive controller from PC
>companies" but the simple truth is they wanted the cheapest thing they
>could find to control the smallest possible device, because the case was
>getting cramped. IDE won because 2.5" form factor drives are plentiful
>there, and they had already designed an IDE controller for their notebook
>computer. Using a 68030 is just a logical extension to upgrade a 68000,
>but by your thinking Atari would be copying Mac, NeXT, Sony and HP or
>somesuch. Using real SCSI is just an extension of ACSI, and SCSI-2 just
>makes sense for a contemporary design.

And I'm surprised you didn't accuse me further of pointing to the  
keyboard, the mouse, etc. as further evidence of Atari copycat policy. 

Look, there's nothing wrong with getting ideas from others, be they your  
friends or otherwise, in order to carry out your own work. It happens all  
the time in scientific research as well as in industry. But if you are  
inspired by others' work and you imitate them without extending said work,  
you won't get anywhere. I see from your .sig that you work for JPL. I'm  
sure that you've read many scientific papers. Most of these
papers are _extensions_ to work done already by others. If you are lucky,  
you may find a paper entitled "A New Approach to <whatever>", i.e. a novel  
way of solving an old problem. Real revolutions on the scale of, say, one  
of Einstein's 1905 papers are few and far between.

If you think of the Falcon as an original machine in that it combines some  
of the best hardware features of the Amiga and the NeXT (it isn't just me  
who's saying that BTW - check out Chris Cain's review of the Falcon in
Personal Computer World, where he talks about the "NeXT-like features" of  
the Falcon) in one box for the first time, then yes, I'll agree. However,  
the Falcon doesn't advance the state of the art in what it is inspired by;  
and from this point of view, it is anything but original. Take the video  
compatibility, for instance. The Falcon has overscanning capability, but  
you can't set the horizontal and vertical overscan independently. The  
Amiga, the first computer to offer this facility, always could. Therefore,  
the overscan capability is not up to par with the Amiga's, let alone an  
improvement on what a stock A600 can do. From this point of view, further,  
what does advance the state of the art in video compatibility is  
Commodore's AGA chipset. I could have pointed to the 8-bit out of 24-bit  
palette of the AGA and claimed that Commodore had ripped off some of the  
SVGA HiColor cards. Well, maybe AGA was indeed _inspired_ by said cards,  
but it does the right thing and _extends_ the functionality considerably  
(by offering, for instance, the first display capability outside of  
workstations that makes display depths, resolutions and pixel clock speeds  
totally independent of each other, as well as the first to offer 256  
colour registers each with its own genlock bit). See?

In the case of the Falcon, about the only place where you might possibly  
claim that the features that exist on other systems have been improved  
upon is in the area of sound mixing that the built-in CODEC offers. I say  
"possibly" because I have inside info on what Commodore's forthcoming  
sound upgrade will be capable of...;-)

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy