Very Computer

    Funny, Roger, but from the press I've read from 1985 and onwards
in a variety of publications over the years I've seen that there
were a lot of accolades over the fact that the ST was, for its time,
a very revolutionary computer - better colour than a PC, a stable,
easy to use GUI interface (that NO PC at the time had), and standard
MIDI ports (which to my knowledge gave it an edge that made it a
favorite in MIDI studios). Who knows what might've happened had the
Tramiel boys had exhibited even an ounce of business sense?

    And, pray tell, where is the Mindset NOW? At least, despite the
fact that the ST isn't as popular as the PC, at least it's a KNOWN
computer line!

    Wait, I know how you'll reply to this one - "those journalists
were all snivelling useless *agers on the dole who were waiting
for STOS BASIC to be created so they can program insipid little
games to bring my * pressure up and write stupid, factless
spewings disguised as gospel because I'm a bitter grumpy old man
with no life of his own who wishes I can dump this stupid computer
because I want to be a mindless sheep who goes all gooey at anything
with Microsoft in its name. And so's your old man!"

    Get a life, Sheppard (or get a PC, so you can leave this
conference and leave us free of your claptrap).    

... Microsoft is the QUESTION - and the ANSWER is NO!
___ Mountain Reader II - #00000007
--
| Fidonet:  Dan Dreibelbis 1:250/422

Quote:>    Wait, I know how you'll reply to this one - "those journalists
>were all snivelling useless *agers on the dole who were waiting
>for STOS BASIC to be created so they can program insipid little
>games to bring my * pressure up and write stupid, factless
>spewings disguised as gospel because I'm a bitter grumpy old man
>with no life of his own who wishes I can dump this stupid computer
>because I want to be a mindless sheep who goes all gooey at anything
>with Microsoft in its name. And so's your old man!"

Quote:>    Get a life, Sheppard (or get a PC, so you can leave this
>conference and leave us free of your claptrap).    

*******************************************************************************


*******************************************************************************

Quote:>GUI interface (that NO PC at the time had)..

The PC *already had* exactly the same GEM interface that was later used on
the Atari ST.  Digital Research was in fact sued by Apple over the "look
and feel" of GEM on the PC because it was so similar to the Macintosh.

BobR

Quote:> >GUI interface (that NO PC at the time had)..

> Er.. no..

> The PC *already had* exactly the same GEM interface that was later used on
> the Atari ST.  Digital Research was in fact sued by Apple over the "look
> and feel" of GEM on the PC because it was so similar to the Macintosh.

And if it was so crap, then how did the ST win "Computer of the Year"
award in IIRC '89!?

The only reason PC's are "good" (cough, choke, ahem), is that due to
marketing superior to any other platform, they have unfortunately, become
the standard, and therefore have a sh*tload of developers and software
houses producing for them.  Most of what is produced is about as
efficient and well designed as the machines themselves, but what do you
expect when the minimum hard-drive size these days is 500Meg+ and you
are expected to have at least a 486-DX 50Mhz....  

Even trying to do simple spreadsheeting is quicker on my 8Mhz STe than
a 50Mhz 486 under Windoze, now try and tell me that is how it should
be!?

Steve Wells.            Council! - Maintainer of the Generation-X Comics FAQ!

Bzzzt, wrong.....  Computer of the Year award in the late 80's....

Steve Wells.            Council! - Maintainer of the Generation-X Comics FAQ!

*******************************************************************************


*******************************************************************************

In many ways the ST was ahead of its time.  Don't forget that the machine was
designed way back in 1985 using cutting edge technology and pretty much
was thrown together in about 6 months.

For its day the ST had many firsts and employed many sophisticated and/or
well proven technologies.  Among other things, the 1985 vintage ST included
a fast, 16bit CPU(the 68000), a reasonably stable windowing OS and GUI (GEM),
local bus video (for very fast graphics), mouse support in hardware (not
under software like in the PC), built-in I/O ports, a very fast HD controller
architecture (faster than 1985 PC RLL), fast and flexible floppy drives that
used DMA, an MS-DOS compatible disk format which enabled STs to exchange
data with the outside world, an OS (GEMDOS) that was very similar to DOS 3.2
so that developers could port applications very easily, MIDI ports, and
a decent sound fx generator.

I was 14 yrs old when the ST came out and was using both an IBM PCjr and
a Leading Edge model D.  I had some money in my pocket that summer so I
bought the ST because it was so vastly superior in terms of features and
performance.  PC's were still using CGA for gfx and the poor old 8088 was
really starting to show its age.  I didn't go back to the PC for almost
another 8 years, by which time I had owned a 520ST, a 1040STe w/HD, and
a Falcon 4/85.

I only came back when the ST series was starting to show its age - when
I needed to run certain programs for college classes, when I wanted to
play games that were only available for the PC, and when I figured I could
make more money working on game projects than I did on the ST line.

PC's became attractive only in the last couple of years for the average
person because of the HUGE price drops and the wide availablity of 486
clones.  Now, in defense of the PC - well, for starters its cheap.
There's an incredible wealth of good programs available for it.  Its
reliable (not to say the ST wasn't), its inexpensive to customize and
upgrade (on the ST, that's debatable), its fast (contrary to what the
popular opinion is here, my 486/40 with a cheap SVGA card, and a cheap
WD Caviar HD is quite fast enough for everything I need it to do -
most Windoze apps included).

I'll agree with anyone who says the ST is superior to the PC as long as
they're talking about a 286 or 386SX running Windoze as the difference
between a 386SX/16 and a 486SX is alittle short of amazing.

Probably my biggest gripe about the ST series when I was an owner, was that
Atari locked you into its 320x200x16 low rez mode.  Hell, my PCjr had
the same gfx modes!  Had Atari added a 256 color mode with the release of
the Blitterized STe series, I might of kept my Atari.   The TT had VGA
video capabilities but the machine was FAR too expensive and the Falcon's
are under-powered (much like a 386SX under Windoze).

Still, while I do enjoy my PC, I do miss my STs and the many fond memories
I have of the machine.  I might even pick one up again as my finances allow.

Well, just my two cents...

Ari

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One on one they won't look you in the eye,
 but when the pack's together there's a battle cry"

  -- Operation Ivy - "No More Bad Town"

Regards,
--
$4HLF$4RLLS$4HL%;5MLLD$5HL&<5MLPL$5HLHL2R,/K$2(K,+";
int i=0,j,k;for(;i<10;i++){for(j=0;j<11;j++)for(k=0;k<6;)putchar(c[11*i+j]-36&1<<k++&&j*6+k<65?'#':' ');putchar(10);}}         /* ATARI Falcon030 */

Quote:> designed way back in 1985 using cutting edge technology and pretty much
> was thrown together in about 6 months.

Quote:> For its day the ST had many firsts and employed many sophisticated and/or
> well proven technologies.  Among other things, the 1985 vintage ST included
> a fast, 16bit CPU(the 68000),

Quote:> a reasonably stable windowing OS and GUI (GEM),

Quote:> local bus video (for very fast graphics)

Quote:> mouse support in hardware (not

Quote:> built-in I/O ports

Quote:> a very fast HD controller

Quote:> fast and flexible floppy drives that used DMA

Quote:>  MIDI ports

Quote:> and a decent sound fx generator.

Quote:> Still, while I do enjoy my PC, I do miss my STs and the many fond memories
> I have of the machine.

Maury

Quote:> GUI interface (that NO PC at the time had)..

    I know the fact that Apple sued the pants off Digital Research
for GEM, but I wasn't aware that GEM for the PC was released BEFORE
the ST was. I thought that the Tramiels decided on GEM being in the
operating system while GEM had still been in development, and was
released BEFORE PC GEM. So I could be wrong on that point.

    Well, at least I can say one thing that won't be in dispute - PC
GEM  (after Apple's required "crippling") was a nutted version of
what ST GEM would ultimately prove to be. But then, even nutted, it
was way more of an operating system than Windows/DOS will ever hope
to be :)

    (See, Roger? Even I can admit that I can be wrong - not like
you)

... Microsoft is the QUESTION - and the ANSWER is NO!
___ Mountain Reader II - #00000007
--
| Fidonet:  Dan Dreibelbis 1:250/422

Quote:> And, pray tell, where is the Mindset NOW? At least, despite
> the fact that the ST isn't as popular as the PC, at least it's
> a KNOWN computer line!

    Once again, Roger - where is the Mindset NOW? Howcome nobody in
this conference has heard of it other than you?

    I know that for its time, the Atari ST was considered
revolutionary - must've been if they sold more computers than the
Mindset. Which certainly made it more successful than winning some
nameless award (BTW, Roger who gave the Mindset the award? Are they
credible?)

Quote:> Wait, I know how you'll reply to this one - "those journalists
> were all snivelling useless *agers on the dole who were
> waiting for STOS BASIC to be created so they can program
> insipid little games to bring my * pressure up and write
> stupid, factless spewings disguised as gospel because I'm a
> bitter grumpy old man with no life of his own who wishes I can
> dump this stupid computer because I want to be a mindless
> sheep who goes all gooey at anything with Microsoft in its
>name. And so's your old man!"    

    No, Roger - you, you, and only YOU. No way would I want to own
any computer that would require me to insert money into Bill Gates'
wallet. I love my Atari, and you obviously hate it - your posts
definitely show your obvious bias, hatred, and contempt for the
Atari platform and their users. At least I try to make an effort to
help people out on this conference, and not put down people just
because they prefer using an Atari. Not like you......

Quote:> Get a life, Sheppard (or get a PC, so you can leave this
> conference and leave us free of your claptrap).

    Really, Roger, if you're gonna insult me, please at least try to
be more creative. Even your insults are getting pretty pathetic and
repetitive.  

... Intel inside.  Idiot outside.
___ Mountain Reader II - #00000007
--
| Fidonet:  Dan Dreibelbis 1:250/422

I agree that the early ST's had some reliability problems - I had one of
the first TOS in ROM ST's and I had alot of problems with the TOS ROMs
unseating every now and again.  However, with only moderate care for my
components, my 520ST worked flawlessly for over 5 years of daily use. Overall,
I've found the reliability of Atari hardware to be better than most other
computer hardware I've owned.

Anyway, regarding some of the issues you raised:

ST's Video - it was indeed a form of local bus video.  Yes, it used DRAM for
it video but that was because it used RAM from the system to store its video.
However, unlike CGA equipped PC's, the ST was able to update the screen and
the CPU at the same time. This combined with the ST's efficient screen ram
arrangement allowed for VERY fast graphics (i.e. lines, boxes, simple blits).
The 1985 Mac+ didn't even have color like the ST and due to its video
arrangement was up to 20% slower than ST.  Let's not forget the ST's mono
mode gave 20% more screen space than the Mac's screen either... :)

ST's disk drives - they used DMA (i.e the WD1772 FDC worked with the DMA
chip for reads/writes).  As a result, the ST had the some of the fastest
floppies at that time and for many years to come.  Because they used MFM
technology and an MS-DOS compatible format, they were able to read many
types of disks the Mac+ couldn't.  The Mac+ also used variable speed
floppy drives that resulted in slower floppy access.

ST's Sound Chip - certainly not the best.  It was in fact the same chip
that was used in the Colecovison game system.  The C-64's SID was
better but the Yamaha/GI chip used in the ST had stereo capability, ad
noise generator and was still better than the Mac+'s 4 voice tone
generator and much better than the polyphonic chip used in the IBMPCjr.

ST-s Hard Drives - for a long time, the ASCI HD interface in the ST delivered
very good HD performance.  It dusted many circa1985 HD equipped PC clones
and destroyed the HD of the 1985 vintage Mac+...

ST's ports - sure, the Mac+ had them built-in but the Mac didn't use
INDUSTRY STANDARD ports!  This meant that you were locked into Apple
hardware or expensive 3rd party add-ons.  The ST had built-in Centronics,
RS-232 serial, and Atari compatible joystick ports... :)

ST's interface - compared to the Mac+ it was childish but the ST didn't
lock developers into anyone standard way of doing things either.  Plus,
GEM was available for the PC and it was thought that many applications
would be available... Also, GEMDOS was very similar to MS-DOS so it allowed
PC applications to be ported over very easily. All in all, GEM wasn't a
bad hack in 1985 - considering it was written in C and put into a
machine that cost over $1,000-$1,500 less than a comparable Mac+!!!! :)

Oh yeah, one last thing - the Mac was under development by Apple for many
years - the ST wliterally designed from scratch in less than a year!
It took 4 months for Atari to prototype 4 custom chips which made up the
core of the ST. All in all, considering the times and the financial
resources of Atari in 1985 this is pretty impressive.

Just my two cents...

Ari

------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Pacify your mind with *..."

 - The Strawberry Alarm Clock - "Rainy day mushroom pillow" (1967)

: For its day the ST had many firsts and employed many sophisticated and/or
: well proven technologies.  Among other things, the 1985 vintage ST included
: a fast, 16bit CPU(the 68000), a reasonably stable windowing OS and GUI (GEM),
: local bus video (for very fast graphics), mouse support in hardware (not
: under software like in the PC), built-in I/O ports, a very fast HD controller
: architecture (faster than 1985 PC RLL), fast and flexible floppy drives that
: used DMA, an MS-DOS compatible disk format which enabled STs to exchange
: data with the outside world, an OS (GEMDOS) that was very similar to DOS 3.2
: so that developers could port applications very easily, MIDI ports, and
: a decent sound fx generator.

Yes, you're right. In 1986 ST was an extremely attractive alternative to
any PC. The PCs of that time... Well, the word "awful" might tell it all.
I was about to buy one then: Kaypro XT. It costed twice as much as a 520
ST, with 4.77 MHz 8088, monochrome graphics, and 360 kb floppy drive. How
many times I've congratulated myself for NOT going for "compatibility"
and that horrible metal monster =-) !

: I was 14 yrs old when the ST came out and was using both an IBM PCjr and
: a Leading Edge model D.  I had some money in my pocket that summer so I
: bought the ST because it was so vastly superior in terms of features and
: performance.  PC's were still using CGA for gfx and the poor old 8088 was
: really starting to show its age.  I didn't go back to the PC for almost
: another 8 years, by which time I had owned a 520ST, a 1040STe w/HD, and
: a Falcon 4/85.

Almost the same history: 520 ST (with RAM TOS 1.0! ;-), Mega ST 2 w/HD,
Falcon 4/420.  And lots of accelerators and other stuff, of course!

: I only came back when the ST series was starting to show its age - when
: I needed to run certain programs for college classes, when I wanted to
: play games that were only available for the PC, and when I figured I could
: make more money working on game projects than I did on the ST line.

Well, I've myself realized something while wondering why so many of us
are abandoning the Atari world.  For me, the working environment of GEM
(especially TOS 4.x) means more than the obvious advantages of PCs and
Macs (more horsepower, more graphics, more users). I just don't enjoy
using Macs and PCs, like I really enjoy using my Falcon. For me, those
machines are powerful, yet only tools. I may do my work with them every
now and then, but it's always great to be back home - and start doing
things the way you *want* to do them!

If I tried to make money with computer, I'd probably start thinking the
other way. Maybe..  So, I guess, those of us, to whom Atari doesn't mean
very much personal - and who don't enjoy being "lonely riders", will
leave us sooner or later. And people like me, to whom there really are no
enjoyable alternatives, will wait for better Atari-compatible computers,
without much chance of abandoning them.

PC is a computer of cold business, and Falcon is a computer of emotion.
Different computers for different people; that's how it was in 1986 with
ST and PC - and that's the way it will be.

: Probably my biggest gripe about the ST series when I was an owner, was that
: Atari locked you into its 320x200x16 low rez mode.  Hell, my PCjr had
: the same gfx modes!  Had Atari added a 256 color mode with the release of
: the Blitterized STe series, I might of kept my Atari.   The TT had VGA
: video capabilities but the machine was FAR too expensive and the Falcon's
: are under-powered (much like a 386SX under Windoze).

I don't see Falcon quite that under-powered, except when trying to do
some raytracing :-(.  It handles most programs quite well, and some of
its applications are actually very fast (even without using DSP). Think
of Apex Media, Calamus, many graphics prgs, and especially music
software. NVDI is a must for Falcon, but then again, it is a great piece
of software.  Very impressive Atari software are also KOBOLD
(unbelievably fast file copier!), ECOPY (a state-of-the-art disk
formatter and copier), HARLEKIN (multi-accessory with very useful
functions), CONNECT terminal sw, SPEED OF LIGHT picture viewer, GEMVIEW,
DIAMOND EDGE hard disk defragmenter/repairer, ...  Not forgetting
SELECTRIC and UIS 3 file selectors =-) !   A computer is as good as is
its software, isn't it?  Using those before-mentioned things, PAPYRUS
word processor, and CUBASE AUDIO sequencer/hard disk recorder, one might
say that Falcon is quite a nice computer, after all !

: Still, while I do enjoy my PC, I do miss my STs and the many fond memories
: I have of the machine.  I might even pick one up again as my finances allow.

It's funny to see how so many of you see ST as a distant, fond memory -
while for so many of us others, Falcon and the other new machines make
Atari computing living reality - not memories =-) !

: Ari

TH