🚀 go-pugleaf

 
>however the plethora of accelerator cards for it...
 
A handful of very expensive hardware hacks is a "plethora" of "accelerator
cards"..?  I think not...  a "plethora" is  "the state of being too full, 
an overabundance, excess"...
 
Hardly the state of anything relating to the Atari ST.
 
>How many accelerators can you get for your PC?
 
How many would you like..?    Let's see... there's the Evergreen 586 processor
upgrade with the Cyrix 586 chip to upgrade '486 systems, the Evergreen DX4
upgrade for '486SX or DX systems to 100Mhz speed ($99), and the Evergreen
upgrades for '386 systems to '486 chips. Then there's the CPU MAXmizer upgrades
in 75, 100, 120 and 133 Mhz speeds to take a '486 system to Pentium power, and
the 100 Mhz '486 MAXimizer to upgrade slower '486 systems to 100Mhz speed
(that's $129).  Also available is the CPU MAXimizer 686-100 and 120 to upgrade
Pentiums.  There's the Make-It 586 upgrade to replace a '486 chip with a
Pentium class processor at up to 133 Mhz ($179-$219), and the Make-It DX4
upgrade for 286, 386 or 486 machines (give your 286 machine a 486 processor
for $99).  Not to mention the Intel Overdrive "accelerators", and all the
others...
 
>...little has changed since then - video is still card based rather than
>using (possibly separate) motherboard ram.
 
"Still" card based..?  Of course it is.. for the extreme flexibility that
easily changed cards afford.  You want a different video capability than was
built into your ST's motherboard..?  Hack and slash time.. solder, cut and
hack.
 
You'll notice the TT and VMEbus Atari machines are "card based" for video
flexibility too.
 
>PCers rarely use lower because they have been brainwashed that lesser
>colours are (ugh!) primitive, nasty and (sometimes) not even available.
 
Or perhaps they don't want to use 16 color mode (like the best the ST can do)
because it is plain butt ugly compared to 256 color modes.  You see, they're
not stuck with 16 or 4 colors, and they can tell which looks better.. also
they're not forced into rationalizing that "16 colors isn't alll that bad,
really it isn't".
 
>Most just plug-in and go with whatever setup the machine was in when
>shipped to them, and remain blissfully ignorant of anything else the
>hardware is capable of.
 
Right.  I guess that explains the zillion-dollar-a-year business in addon
cards.. and all the catalogs and retail stores full of replacement addon
cards.  Most don't buy them, so that explains why there are so many available.
 
>Lesser colours onscreen will give faster video performance, smaller video
>RAM requirements, and cheaper video hardware.
 
Very true.  I guess that means an 8-bit Atari 800 is FAR better than an ST
because it has fewer colors available and far smaller video RAM requirements.
It's cheaper too.  And a Timex-Sinclair only has 2 colors max available, so
it must be even better.
 
>The most common use of computers is for wordprocessing.
 
Actually I've read that entertainment and multimedia are the leading
"application" on home computers of the type we've been discussing.
 
256 colors are essential for that kind of software.
 
>A PC as a home computer (read "games box") is overkill. Why spend
>thousands on an obsolete-before-you-buy-it PC when, for one tenth the
>price, you can buy a console.
 
Why spend thousands indeed..?  When nicely games-capable computers are
available for far less than $1000.
 
Also, "console" games will never measure up to the quality and complexity of
computer based games.  You'll  NEVER  see games like X-Wing and Tie Fighter
on a console.  There just isn't enough RAM or mass (writable) storage.
 
You'll never have a game as versatile as computer-based DOOM either, because
of the same requirements.
 
Consoles are good for quickie "shootemup" and "beatemup" style games, but for
anything with very much substance, you need more resources than consoles can
provide for that "one tenth the price".
 
OK.. here's the deal.
 
The Atari ST was a great computer in its day.  It died a horrible death at
the hands of the people who ran the company and I'm really pissed about that.
 
The ST was my all-time favorite computer, just slightly edging out my Atari
8-bit computers (very slightly).
 
But comparing it to a currently produced system and trying to rationalize its
limitations into strengths is futile.
 
Faster is better, more colors is better, larger mass-storage is better, stereo
multi-voice sound is better, versatile expandability is better, and on and on.
 
If Atari had kept up developing the hardware, then maybe we'd have a
competitive system today, but they didn't, and we don't.
 
We have a nice memory of a really great computer.
 
BobR