From: mbaffoni@skat.usc.edu (Michael Baffoni)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: FALCON ? READ THIS !!!
Date: 16 Oct 1992 18:53:22 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: skat.usc.edu
Summary: Logic?  What logic?

In article <nj3zsg#@rpi.edu> oyakea@rpi.edu writes:
> To all Atari users: I would like to adress this problem of mine
[lots o' stuff deleted]

	From the sounds of it, the person has read the specs., but is unwilling
to like it anyway.  From his conversation with the (IMHO clueless, more harmful
than useless) reps., he knows that the video hardware is 15/16bit truecolor, 
256 color from 18bit palatte.  But he is basing his opinions of the machine
on a demo that is either a) badly written, or b) is more complex than he gives
credit for and expects more than a 16MHz '030 should be expected to give.

	However, his reasoning for liking or disliking the machine is assinine.
He says that it is a _bad_ thing to be able to have the same capabilities of
(many times) more expensive hardware.  There is something just basically wrong
with that sort of reasoning.  He says:

> The colour palettes and resolutions are very much SVGA-like (8/15/16-bit   
>colour from an 18-bit palette). The 32K/65K "TrueColor" modes remind one  
>of some of the cards you can get to run Windows in. 

	Yes it does.  This would be because the basic chips to support it
are cheaper due to the bulk demands of the PC market (just because the chips
are made for PC video cards, does not mean they (or the technology they spawn)
cannot be incorportated into other machines.  Also makes it nice for porting
software if the video is set up similarly (bit planes, no palatte, whatever).
Not to mention using cheap monitors that support those standard resolutions.

> Overscanning, interlacing, genlocking - wonder where they got those  
>from!! Around the time of the launch of the TT, Sam Tramiel was  
>interviewed by a magazine, and he criticised the Amiga 3000 for its  
>flicker. Now he builds a machine with interlace.

	Lets see - Overscanning - Sts have had that since Oscan (earlier?).
Interlacing - True, this is the first time Atari has used an interlace mode,
but it is also the first time Atari has tried to put (S)VGA graphics on 
(a ega-like monitor such as) the SC1224.  Of course, don't forget that you 
aren't FORCED to use interlace - if you get a monitor that is appropriate for
the resolution you are using (ie, multisynch that will handle the rez in non-
interlace), then you don't get flicker.  Simple.   Genlock - Thats been around 
for quite a while for the STs too (especially the STEs).

> Mucho NeXT emulation in things like their choice of DSP, the SCSI-2  
>port, the black colour of the case. Even things like BLiTTER and MiNT are  
>dead giveaways. Again, in the aforementioned interview, Sam was quoted as  
>saying that he hoped that the TT would "clobber" the NeXT. Imitation is  
>the sincerest form of plagiarism....

	Plagiarism?  Are the umpteen million clone companies aware that they
are committing plagiarism by making IBM compatibles, or by just having the
same capabilities?  Not!  You just get the advantages these devices impart.
With SCSI-2 you get THE fastest standard i/o from hard drives, etc., that
is available for machines less than mini- or mainframes.  With DSP, you have
more concurrant processing power.  Hardly plagiarism, definately an advantage.

	BTW, I fail to see why "BLiTTER and MiNT are dead giveaways".  In
name and function, the BLiTTER is similar to the graphics BLiTTER found in 
the Amiga.  But what does MiNT "giveaway"?  True, it is a multi-tasking
environment similar to UNIX (although MUCH MUCH smaller :), but the concept
of multi-tasking was around before UNIX (UNIX just applied it better).
Again, since when is taking the best attributes of another system bad?
It may not be innovative, but it _is_ progress.  Using this reasoning, I guess
you could call the Amiga multitasking is a plagerism, albeit an imperfect, 
crippled one (not pre-emptive, threading, etc.).  The point is, _I_ do not.

> That built-in LocalTalk networking port appeared very similar to  
>AppleTalk ports you find on any Mac

	Yes, and if someone will come up with decent software to utilize it,
we might just be sitting on an AppleTalk network as one its nodes.  Again,
why is this a _bad_ thing?

>I don't mean to incubate :) another Falcon flame war here, so any Atari  
>fans reading this please note that the above does not include anything  
>other than raw facts.
[smiley flame-bait deleted]

	This poster's facts are (somewhat) straight.  Its the opinions that he
draws from them that are warped around null-space. :)

> NOW WHAT WE NEED IS SOME OBJECTIVE, NOTE OBJECTIVE REPORTING FROM AN 
>ATARI EXPERT. WHO CAN THROW SOME LIGHT ON WHAT THIS GUY'S SAYING.

	Listen and use your mental facilities to sift the dirt off of what
this person was saying.  His rhetoric has almost convinced you that a dime
is better than a diamond (well not quite, but...).  Just draw your own
conclusions from "the Facts", and throw out the opinions.

>  I STILL HOPE TO BUY A FALCON AS I CAN'T THROW AWAY ALL MY ST SOFTWARE,
>SO RESPOND WITH GLEE AND OBJECTIVITY.

	Why would you want to do that?  Supposedly, the Falcon will be more
compatible than the TT, and I know that I am VERY happy with my TT.  Oh, BTW,
we are all on the same net, so you don't _have_ to scream at us (using all
caps) and the "!"s get repetitive after the first three.  :)

>FROM THE GUY WHO BROUGHT YOU THE WISH LIST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-Mike


From: Jim.Beecher@f47.n282.z1.tdkt.kksys.com (Jim Beecher)
Sender: FredGate@tdkt.kksys.com