🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <870310212811.000024B0.AFQM.MA@UMass> MCOHAN@UMASS.BITNET (Michael Cohan, U of Mass/Amherst) writes:
>imagen!atari!leavens@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Alex Leavens) writes:
>>>  Will people who don't want to upgrade to the blitter be able to get
>>>  new debugged ROMS?  I hope so...
>>
>>  There's been no final decision made on this--I think Leonard's comment
>>about "Leaving this up to marketing types" was more of a hedge than an actual
>>statement of intent.  At this point I think we want  your input.  How many
>>of you _aren't_ going to upgrade to blitters, but still  want the ROMS?
>>
>>--alex @ Atari
>
>Let me put in my vote AGAINST having a ROM w/o blitter upgrade.
>As an Atari dealer, I can see a real nightmare arising from this-
>if there was a ROM/no blitter upgrade, there would end up being
>two classes of ST's out there for all of eternity, those with the
>blitter upgrade, those without it.  We'd be in a quandry about
>which software worked with which version of the upgrade, the
>developers would have to write a blitter/non blitter version of
>their software, we'd have to explain to customers who don't know
>a lot about computers which upgrade they should get (argh), etc.
>etc. etc.   It would be total confusion.  I think that
>when Atari comes out with the upgrade, it should be ONE upgrade
>that everyone should be expected to get.  Within a few months,
>everyone would have it, and there would once again be only one
>type of ST-- the kind with the blitter.  Since the Mega-ST's will
>have the blit chip installed, it is unrealistic to expect Atari
>to continue supporting non-blit machines when all the new ones
>will have the chip.
>
>Michael P. Cohan   MCOHAN@UMASS.BITNET, Mikecohan on DELPHI
>
>Organization:
>The Computer Bug, Inc.  50 Main St (rear) Amherst, MA  01002.
>(413) 253-7782.   Authorized Atari Sales and Service.

*sigh*  For those few who might have been misled by the above comments (which
I felt I had to include in full), let me re-iterate that we are talking about
two entirely SEPARATE topics, here:

	-- on the one hand, there is the topic of an "upgrade" -- making your
	   computer do something it was not originally designed to do.  Here,
	   I would have to agree that these should be kept to a minimum.

	-- on the other hand, there is the ENTIRELY unrelated notion of an
	   UPDATE.  Or, in other words, FIXING your computer so it does what
	   it was originally designed to do but did not do properly (such as
	   allow an $800 piece of equipment, such as a hard disk, to be used
	   without undue danger to the data stored on it;  something the forty
	   folder limit does not currently allow).

Although we have heard many times that Atari is striving to rewrite GEMDOS in 
order to fix the forty folder limit, there have been NUMEROUS hints (directly
from Neil Harris, and indirectly from one of the Tramiel sons) that the
rewritten GEMDOS may NOT be made available to all ST owners.  We are not
talking about an upgrade here.  We are talking about a bug fix.  Current
blitter ROMs do not contain the bug fix, so they are irrelevant.  However, I
believe it would be an outrage for Atari to consider NOT supplying the
rewritten GEMDOS to every person who owns a 520, 1040 or any other kind of
ST.  The rewritten ROM should not cause any compatability problems, nor should
it be considered an upgrade.
grunau@husc4.UUCP

or

--- !seismo-----
		\
--- !rutgers----- !husc6!husc4!grunau
	    	/
--- !decvax!ihnp4

or

BITNET hostname is "harvsc4";
ARPA address is grunau@husc4.harvard.edu.