From: mikeh@starnine.com (Mike Haas)
Subject: Re: Atari Falcon Discount Supermachine  Re: Sydnes is gone?!!
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:26:56 GMT
Organization: StarNine Technologies, Inc.

In article <Chris_Millar.0476@lppl.mi.org> Chris_Millar@lppl.mi.org (Chris Millar) writes:

>As a matter of fact, Atari DID lose 20 million - First quarter of 1992, I  
>believe - according to their Quarterly Report - I think you overestimate   
>Commodore's financial security, and underestimate Atari's. (I am a         
>stockholder, you see - I get all of the 10K forms)

That sure must be some quarterly report!  "lose 20 million - First
quarter 1992" ... "I think you ... underestimate Atari's (financial
security)".

So now tell us how good the Falcon specs are...

>I am not bragging about the Falcon's audio capabilities, although they DO  
>eclipse those of any other computer in it's price range (and several others
>for that fact.)


Well, O.K... as long as you don't brag about them...

>I see you have christened yourself "master of debate"...I
>am   
>merely stating a fact.

Aha!  I see you have cristened yourself "master of fact stating".

>The 16 bit DMA sound engine can produce or record  
>sound at up to a maximum of 50kHz - if you require a faster rate, you can  
>"kick in" the DSP and utilize it at up to 1Mhz.  It's as simple as that.

What happens if you "kick in" monitor screen?

>You are, in fact, correct about the Falcon's resolution - for some odd
>reason, 
>nothing on the net's or online services had cleared this matter up until a 
>couple of days ago.

It IS true that the net is  "the master of clearing things up".

>Maximum true color resolution is 640x400 interlaced.  
>
>
>Maximum colors in 640x480 resolution is 256 colors, or 8 bit planes.  
>
>As far as your "crack" about "pseudo-true color", what is fake about it?  
>
>the definition of True Color has been distorted as of late - many claiming 
>that True Color is 32 bit graphics or higher.  The REAL definition of True 
>Color is an unlimited palette - which the Falcon has in "True Color" modes.
>The fact that only 16 bit is displayable is besides the point - unlimited  
>palette is the key.

I see.  Maybe we should get back to that quartely financial report...

>You are correct that TOS is BASED on 68000 CP/M, but a BASE does not define
>the entire system - I could easily add that the Amiga was designed to be a 
>game machine - does that make any difference now?

You bet... that's why it's now such a great computer AND a great game
machine!

>I don't think so.

Well, finish the sentence... so what?

>I think that you underestimate the programming prowess of Alan Pratt.  He  

I think the original poster must be the "master of underestimation".

>completely redesigned MiNT to hook into TOS - it is actually a rather      
>brilliant piece of programming

Based on C/PM, it better be!

>- unfortunately Mr. Alan Pratt has been
>hired   
>away to work on the Taligent project (IBM/Apple).  You mentioned a
>"kludge", 
>well, AmigaDOS 1.3 comes to mind........

You mean the old outdated OS the AMiga used to have?  I thought the
discussion was around an OS that Atari is JUST BRINGING OUT?

>Yes, the A600 borders on the "toy" range, but I believe it has a market
>-and   
>that it will sell.  The Falcon, too, has a market, and is has a            
>price/performance ratio that puts it directly up against the Mac LC II, Mac
>Classic II, and IIsi.

Oh... yeah.  3 other non-expandable machines which cripple a decent CPU
with a crummy OS.

>In essence you are making yourself look rather 
>ridiculous - your close-mindedness and anti-Atari bias are clouding your
>view 
>of reality - may I suggest an institution?

If Atari is reality, may I suggest some heavy drugs?

>since when
>does the "most popular" application mean anything in terms of function?

I've always said the same thing about the "most popular" computers.

>
>Their are millions upon millions of PC users, does anyone besides an Amiga 
>user use an Amiga?

Interesting philisophical question, has been debated for years.  Apparently,
the conceptual problem is that as soon as anyone sits down and actually
manipulates an Amiga in some respect, the become "an Amiga user".  This
side of the debate contends that it is impossible for someone to
"use an Amiga" and not be an "Amiga user".

The proponents of the opposite side of the argument, in basic terms
(the metaphysical concepts that come into play here cannot be discussed
in conventional english and ascii in any other way), hold that "userness"
is not aquired with a simple touch of the mouse... that it ultimately
must be ascertained by the "users" future (told you it gets hairy) actions.

The discussion is complicated when emulators enter the fray.  Woe
to the mind who tries to determine whether the user of any of the
FIVE OPERATING SYTEMS THE AMIGA CAN SUPPORT is, at that moment in
time, still an Amiga user.  This fringe component of the ongoing
debate introduce the (many say impausible) idea of "temporary
userness", an intangible concept closely related to cosmic
string and chaos theory.

I caution against examining this question
too deeply... it has caused several Amiga owners to slip to insanity
(of course, DOS, Atari & Mac users, by definition, were already there).

>Does anyone besides an Amiga user use a Video Toaster? 

I cannot, in good concience, open this topic to further discussion,
owing to the existing controvery surrounding your previous
question (to restate for purposes of clarity "Does anyone besides
an Amiga user use an Amiga?").

Perhaps we can take this up when we're all well-rested, fed, and
in good spirits.  (Overall, I'm impressed!  I didn't know that
Atari-proponents were knowledgable about such deep, metaphysical
discussions of modern times).

>
>(Well, actually, yes - those DOS-box to Amiga links-ups are lame.) All of 
>these are rhetorical questions - whether people actually use something
>doesn't 
>define how good it actually is.

OK... NOW we're getting back to the dung heap... I agree completely;
witness the number of DOS & MAC systems out there.

>You probably feel that your Amiga is the
>best 
>computer, 

Oh heavens no.  It's just that I LOVE ROMWack. (original inspiration for
BLAZEMONGER, I've heard).

>yet millions would dispute that - even if it was technically 
>superior.

Shows you how much THEY know.



Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy