From: gblock@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Gregory R Block)
Subject: Re: Atari Falcon Discount Supermachine  Re: Sydnes is gone?!!
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:48:53 GMT

hyc@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Howard Chu) writes:
: Stealth paint, that's got a nice ring to it.  }-)  The Falcon case is black,
: last I saw. Funny how folks arrive at the same ideas like that... (Anyone
: remember Bell & Howell Apple ][ clones?)

Now I feel old.  ;)  Yeah, I remember.  As a matter of fact, I had
one.  I had my IIc with a full 256k extra ram (wow!) and clock, and my
Bell & Howell.  I used my IIc mostly for terminal stuff & wp, and my
B&H was hooked up to a color monitor, and for a long time ran Bard's
Tale II and III night and day for hours on end.  ;)

I miss those games, to be honest.  ;)

: None of this multilayered vector stealing crap any more. That was one of the
: first things changed for the better in MiNT. There's a real live jump table
: for replacing individual functions, instead of the godawful trap-handler
: juggling that TOS forced ya into.

That's good.  But hardware-wise it sounds pretty awful.  They've got
the hardware of several different systems incorporated into one
redundant system.

: In the OS releases up to 1.0, there were no interlocks in the OS. I haven't
: played with the 2.0 or newer stuff, but I recall running their mandelbrot
: demo and some music programs at the same time. It was pretty spectacular.
: Likewise with trying to run two different music players, or playing music
: and getting a printer alert. But with such a glaring problem, I'd expect that
: it's done better in the current OS.

What would you consider "spectacular"?  What happened?  I'm curious.
Details, details!  ;)

: Well, thankfully, MultiTOS is based on MiNT, which was written by a guy
: outside of Atari who actually knows what he's doing...

It would have to be from outside of Atari.  Of course, the fact that
it's only based on MiNT might mean that they screwed it up.  ;)

: The goal of the MiNT project has always been to be a complete replacement
: for TOS. I'd say it's been pretty largely successful, even though current
: releases still rely on TOS in some areas.

But this is only the OS.  I'm more disappointed by the actual
hardware, which seems to be getting less and less spectacular as it
gets closer and closer to release (if it makes it that far).

: Not very much. I'd really like to get something similar to the Falcon, but
: I'd prefer to wait for one in an expandable case...

I seriously believe that they've shot themselves in the foot by not
giving the users a real bus from the start.

: I would throw out the IDE and keep the SCSI, much more useful overall.
: Heck, they should have thrown out the floppy controller too; just go
: for a SCSI floptical for floppy compatibility.

:)  Talk about wishful thinking...  No, I imagine the low-end model
will have IDE only, the high-end model...  well, I don't know.

I don't think they can DO much.

: I wouldn't mind getting hold of a Sun 3-80, but they're not exactly cheap,
: nor too terribly impressive as far as audio or video.

Yeah, but it's a Sun.  ;)

: Mebbe it's a self-confidence thing, the Commodore execs "know" they can
: lick Atari, but don't really feel up to tackling Apple head-on? Silly
: sounding notion, but ya never know...


I've given up on guessing what executives are going to do.  It's like
playing a role-playing game and not knowing who your PC is.  :)


: Ok, taking the "realistic" viewpoint - how can you expect a particular
: computer system to be the key? When the ST was introduced in '85 it was
: leaps and bounds ahead of the Mac, as a hardware system. Higher screen
: rez, sharper video (higher refresh rate), DMA, more peripheral ports,
: expandable to up to 4M of RAM compared to the wimpy 128K Mac, etc. etc.

The DMA was done poorly, in my opinion.  The ST was obviously a
single-tasking system.  That's why I see it lacking in so many places
today.

: It was at least 3 years before Apple had anything comparable, hardware-wise.
: The low-end machines still don't have DMA, etc... Despite the whiz-bang
: cool stuff in the ST, the machine has languished. Atari's problem isn't
: with designing cool hardware, it's all in the follow-thru. Or lack thereof.

I disagree.  I think it exists in both.  Their hardware, while not
blah like original Mac's, are not spectacular.  There was nothing
architecturally nifty about it.  Not that I remember, correct me if
I'm wrong.

: As if they expect to be able to say "here's this obviously superior piece
: of hardware, everyone in the world will recognize its obvious superiority
: and buy it solely on that consideration." (Of course, if they *had* been
: right, they would still have lost when the Amiga came out shortly thereafter.
: Isn't life interesting. Really makes ya wonder what the marketing guys on
: top are thinking about...)

Going home to their husbands/wives/lovers/hookers...  ;)  Pick one or
all of the above, eh?

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         :)
(: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)