(From "The Masked Rat Fink" "Computing and Informatics Yr4")
This is mostly in reply to Ken.B's comments but is also available for
the rest of you to comment upon.
Ken,
I would like to say that just because a large number of users do not want to
program on their ST's this is no reason to provide almost zero information
with them. When I bought my ST I was expecting to get a nice user manual
with it, but instead I find a flimsy pamphlet which almost but not quite
describes the use of the desktop. The only technical information supplied
is in the manual for ST BASIC and if my memory serves correctly, the actual
quantity of hard facts or system information is the square root of nothing!
I don't know whether you non-British folks have heard of the BBC Micro
manufactured by Acorn (of Archimedies fame!) but this came supplied with one
of the best manuals that I have ever seen for a micro computer. It had loads
of system information, by which I mean things like memory maps, and system
call vector addresses. They even put a small paragraph in the manual about the
system routines, saying that they were not trying to hide the OS from the
programmer, infact they were being as open as they could be, whilst allowing
for future expansion. The use of vectors allowing the OS authors to
completely change the inside of the ROM anytime they liked without affecting
well written software! This meant that BBC Micro software was very robust, and
that no one really worried too much about OS versions, unless they specifically
wanted the extra facilities offered by it.
If a BBC Micro developer wanted to get all the information they could about
the machine there were (still are! :-) three other manuals available at about
20 pounds each (translate to dollars yourself). One for advanced programmers,
one for basic disk drive information and one for advanced disk information.
That was it! You didn't need anything else!
My point is that if that much information can be supplied for a machine that
was in its day what the ST is now, why was no technical information supplied
with the ST? Sure teach someone to use the desktop, but after that they are
locked into just using packages. Alright so packages are important, but they
don't all get written by professional developers. Many of the ST programmers
are like me, enthusiastic amateurs (sp?) who develop software for pleasure/
fun/the_hell_of_it ! I can't afford to pay the developers license inorder
to get the docs, but I would like a few basic facts about my machine!
I personally think that the attitude you take as far as non-professional
programmers is concerned is arrogant (sp?) and not what I would expect
from an engineer. Heck, most engineers (software or otherwise!) can't shut
up when you ask them about their 'baby' and they can never go to too much
trouble to be of assitance. To use your least-favorate analogy, it's like
a car salesman telling you that you can't find out what's under the bonnet
until you get your advanced drivers certificate!
This not really a flame, as I don't hate anybody, just an observation on
a lamentable ommision! However, constructive debate on this matter would
serve a useful purpose.
And if Ken would be so kind as to tell me an address I could write to, then
I will write another version of the above and send by Snail Mail in order to
make my feelings know to Atari UK/USA.
As a parting shot, I intend to stick with the ST, despite the lack of support,
because it is a good machine, but it doesn't mean that I have to like having
no docs. If DEC or IBM tried to sell a machine without docs they'd be laughed
out of the business!
<Gets off soapbox before audience gets bored>
TMRF (who just _LOVES_ the heat! :-)
| Simon Chappell (The Masked Rat Fink)
| Computing and Informatics (Final Year), Polytechnic South West (Plymouth)
|
|"Better the pride that resides, in a citizen of the world,
| than the pride that divides, when a colourful rag is unfurled." - RUSH
|
|
| Disclaimer: 'And you believed ME?' <falls on floor laughing>