From: baffoni@aludra.usc.edu (Juxtaposer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Falcon Graphics
Date: 4 Sep 1992 09:57:30 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

In article <5pyyc3q@rpi.edu> oyakea@vccsouth04.its.rpi.edu (Amalaye Oyake) writes:
> I don't agree with Mr. Martin in his first statement. 1) The falcon is not a 
> a high end business system, so you can't expect it to be pure state of the 
> art.  It lacks serios internal expansion such as VME, not to diss what it has
> for internal expansion.

	First, please use a carriage-return at the end of a (80) colomn - other
wise it is hard to edit through your comments to address the issues you raise.
	Second, the Falcon is not up to the sheer power (MIPS, whatever) or
features (ISA/EISA/whatever) of a "high end business system".  Lets put aside
quibbles about what is/is not a "high end business system" (I mean, how many 
MIPS does your machine need to run at to process a 1-2-3 file, or to use Word
Perfect (for windows even!) or to run cash-register software?  Not much). 
However, it is not targeted for that market (or ever will be for that matter). 
True, it does lack a standard expansion bus, but it does have some 
expandibility due to the external ports (SCSI2/RS232C/RS242/Centronics/VGA)
and the PDS (when someone makes something for it). 

2) For features it rivals NOTE!! The latest Apple Lc 
> and surpasses it in features by a longshot. It's rivals are the Mac Classic I
> I and    386 Sx's.It beats the Classic in price,features and performance and 
> beats the SX's in sound,I/O,price, and frames/sec but not in video 
> resolution. 

	A better ApplesNOrganges comparison (rather than an AppleNMango) would
be the Falcon and a 386-20 w/Windows3.1/SoundBlasterPro/SCSI-2Card/MultiIO.
When they finally get Multi-TOS out the door, you'd have to add either 
Windows NT or OS-2.  The closest Apple would be one of the new ones coming out
(the MacIIuv or something...I forget).

[promotion complaints deleted...even if valid]

>>And Atari didn't show any STEs.
>So what's new, would you show a system that HAS THE POTENTIAL OF BECOMING A DOG

	Well, that would be like IBM showing ads with IBM PCXT in it.  :)

>NOTE a) the Falcon 040 is going to be a souped up TT + 040+ Falcon features.

	Hey, how do you know that?  I mean, I sure hope it is configured like
that (I ain't gonna hold my breath), but do you know something the rest of us
don't?

>b) Atari is yet to scr*w up it's users again so don't be hasty to crave for a
[Stuff about wanting a 386+'387 being bad deleted - couldn't wade through
all that text without returns]

	Actually, Falcon will only support 386sx (bummer) but there is nothing
wrong with wanting to have the capability of incorporating a '386 (and thus
its software) into the Atari.  Mind, if that is all you use, you bought the 
wrong computer, but for those who don't want to own two separate computers/
monitors/etc. it is a good way to go.

>from Rensselaer Poly NY. Please  also send info on all ST ftp addresses and somexplanation on WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PARSEC GRAPHIC INTERFACE.

	Never heard of it.  What was it?  Maybe I heard and forgot...


>AMAL THE ACE 

	Ace at what?

-Mike

Just Mike




Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st