🚀 go-pugleaf

Date:     Tue, 3 Mar 87 10:30 CST
From:     <DAVIDLI@SIMVAX.BITNET> (System Manager)
Subject:  hardware 'upgrades'
To:       info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
X-Original-To:  info-atari16@score.stanford.edu, DAVIDLI

   I've been reading the comments of people who seem quite angry that Atari
isn't instantly providing them with a means to upgrade their 520ST/1040ST to
some 'new' version.  I'd like to provide those folks with a history lesson
about the nature of 'upgrades' in microcomputing ...

   My first microcomputer was a Quest ELF.  I had to solder it together myself.
It had a whole 256 bytes of memory, which was quite enough when you consider
that I had to key in programs in hexadecimal.  The only way I could upgrade
this machine was to purchase additional hardware.  Eventually, I had 4 kilobytes
of memory, a typewriter keypad, an actual language (Tiny-BASIC) and* a black-
and-white monitor bought surplus.  My total investment was roughly equivalent
to the price of a 520ST with monochrome monitor.

   Then I spotted an Apple ][ (back in pre-color days).  I 'upgraded' my ELF by
selling it to another hacker and purchased an Apple ][+, with 16 kilobytes of
memory.  After several 'upgrades', I had 64 kilobytes of memory, a lower-case
modification, a modem (300 baud), a color TV, an Amber monitor, a printer and
lots* of software.  The investment, including software, would have paid for a
1040ST with color monitor and a (new Atari) laser printer.

   I was a BIG Apple fan. :-)

   Then the most terrible thing happened.  Apple came out with the //e.  The
ONLY way for me to upgrade to a //e was to sell my ][+ and purchase a //e.
What did I get for my upgrade?  More keys to type on, a few changes in the
operating system (which was NOT available for the ][+ in a changed ROM),
80 columns, 128K of memory ... minor changes. ALMOST ALL of the software I
already had worked well with the new machine.  This 'upgrade' would have paid
for a 1040ST with color monitor and a Color Ink-Jet printer.

   About the same time, IBM came out with their first microcomputer.  The
IBM-PC had 16K of memory, upgradeable to 64K of memory.  No, I didn't ever
purchase an IBM, but since that time I've seen the rise of the IBM-PC mark II,
with up to 512K on the motherboard, the XT, the AT.  NONE of these machines
was upgradeable.  You sold your old one and bought a new one.  But, funny
thing, most programs that would run on an IBM-PC would also run on an IBM-XT.
Some even run on the IBM-AT.  Hardware changed, but the software stayed
generic enough to cross over to the new systems.  IBM has been doing very well
with their microcomputer line.  If software on the PC didn't run on the XT (and
vice-versa), that particular computer line would be an historical footnote.

   The LISA came out from Apple.  Then the Macintosh -- Apple's answer
to the IBM PC-jr.  (The Macintosh was to the LISA what the PC-jr was to the PC).
These were also the first truly expensive 'closed architecture' machines. When
Apple came out with the 'new-improved' Macintosh, at a cost LOWER than the
original Macintosh and less than a year after its initial release, well,
naturally the early owners screamed bloody murder.  And Apple obliged them by
providing a 'new-improved' motherboard for roughly 1/2 the cost of the new
machine.  This 'upgrade' would have paid for a 520ST with a color monitor.
I understand that LISA owners (who paid upwards of $6000 for their machines)
could 'downgrade' them to a Macintosh ... the only case where you can actually
LOSE money in getting a more widely used machine. :-) & :-(

   Some other systems of note which did NOT provide such 'upgrades' include
Tandy, Sinclair, Commodore (VIC-20 to C64 to C128), Atari (400 to 800 to 800XL
to 135XE...), Data General, Grid, Epson, etc., etc., etc.

   There are two threads here.  First, the software for the truly successful
microcomputers ran across the entire computer line.  COMPATIBILITY is a key
issue.  We have every right to ask Atari to provide software compatible
machines.  Indeed, if Atari has any business sense at all they will do
everything possible to ensure such compatibility.  So should those of us who
are currently writing software.  The blitter chip/ROM upgrade is feasible, and
a wise move on Atari's part.

   Second, manufacturers are under NO obligation to provide new hardware to
purchasers of their old hardware.  For instance, there is no way that current
Macintosh owners are going to upgrade their current machines to the new color
workstations.  They'll have to buy new machines.  We shouldn't blame Atari
for not providing us with upgraded machines.  Especially when those new
machines are not even on the shelves yet...  Upgrading is OUR responsibility,
at whatever cost we feel is necessary to our health and well-being.
Personally, I can live with 2-4 megabytes stashed in a 1040ST.  I don't need
16 megabyte capability.  If I ever need that much memory, I'll consider
purchasing a NEW computer.

                                        -- David Meile

               Send interesting comments to INFO-ATARI16.

                 Send FLAMES to davidli@simvax.bitnet.