🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1h5ppkINNp78@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa399@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Len Stys) writes:
>Ok, I'm going to ask a few questions and I only wish for people that
>know enough about the Falcon030 to answer them.

Well, I assume that this doesn't apply to all the non-tech questions...

>And WHY did Atari make the Blitter faster?

Progress???
>
>I was told that since the DSP can only transfer information at the
>rate of 1 Mb/sec, it would not help much.  Is this true?

I don't program scrolling, scaling/rotation type stuff, but I would
kill for an independent processor in the game I'm working on; that
processor doesn't necessarily need to transfer huge amounts of data
to be useful- If I could just pass it a small amount of data and then
after a short time (during which the main proc was chugging along on
something else) have it pass me back some sort of result, I would
be a _really_ happy camper.
>
>How many people believe that 4 Megabytes should be the lowest amount
>of memory Atari should include with the Falcon030?

I think I'll say 'Aye' to this.  1 or 2 MB is certainly enough for many
good things, but memory isn't expensive so let's not be cheap about it;
Atari needs to kill any reasons anyone might have for looking down on
their product, no matter how stupid or tiny those reasons might be.  Let's
generate a bit of class by having a competent basic configuration.  From
another view, if they want to sell non-HD versions, having 4 MB and a 
bundled RAMdisk would be a good combination.  My STe has no HD, but being
able to use HSC (or other stuff) out of a sizeable RAMdisk at least lets
me work fairly quickly once everything is transferred at the start.

>Should the Falcon030 have had a graphics coprocessor in it?

Given the choice between a graphics co-proc and DSP, I think they made
the right choice.  Both would probably drive the price out of my range
(actually it already is :-)

>How many people believe that Atari should concentrate on music with
>the Falcon030?

'Aye'...not good to leave your main market.  Without music, Atari dies.

>How many people believe that Atari should concentrate on entertainment
>with the Falcon030?

No.  Entertainment will follow on it's own, although it wouldn't be a
bad idea to take a few steps (SUCH AS BUNDLING GW WITH DEVELOPER
PACKAGES OR MAKING IT AVAILABLE!  THIS WOULD BE A SMART MOVE, ARE 
YOU LISTENING, ATARI?  I'm sure Dave and Neil would accept your apology.)
to cultivate some support from outside.

>
>How many of you believe that Atari's present keyboard in the Falcon030
>should be replaced with a better quality keyboard?

'Aye', see my reasoning above about class and basic configurations.  A
cheap keyboard shows a lack of refinement IMHO.


>If you were Atari, how would you market this computer?

Advertise heavily in music and publishing mags, advertise what you can
in large-circulation mags (to generate general exposure), and let's see
some stuff in BYTE on a consistent basis.  Then, advertise fairly big in
all those magazines that people who are starting to think about getting
a computer look at.  Then bundle as much software as you can with all units,
to make it easy on people who are just getting started; it probably wouldn't
be a bad thing to include some of the best shareware from the ST world, 
either.  My STe came with nothing, and the manual was an ST manual, for 
crimeny's sake!  If I weren't an ST user already, I would have been 
seriously turned off.  Don't let this sort of thing happen, Atari- make
it as friendly as possible right from the start!  This is really stupid, 
I know, but I think it counts: some consumer mag, in their home computer
section of their yearly buying guide, gave the STe a so-so report, largely
because it came so bare-bones.  Well, I'll bet they lost at least a few
sales because of that very review.  Let's have some class!  It can't be
that expensive to ship each unit with 5 or 10 disks, or with 10 or 20
megs of hard drive space used!

>
>Len (aa399@cleveland.Freenet.edu)

Victor Bruhn
vicb@clark.edu