🚀 go-pugleaf

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Return-Path: <arcarese>
Received: by andromeda.rutgers.edu; Wed, 27 Apr 88 13:30:57 EDT
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 88 13:30:57 EDT
From: arcarese (John C Arcarese)
Message-Id: <8804271730.AA25691@andromeda.rutgers.edu>
To: wallman-georrge@CS.YALE.EDU

NOTE: THIS REPLY BOUNCED BACK VIA MAIL, SO I AM POSTING IT HERE!

I read the article you posted under comp.sys.atari.st.  
I disagree with a few of the points that you made.  Here goes:


>Atari isn't much but still about the only bet I have as a supplier
>for a new computer. Specs : '30 or '386 power  palenty of pixels
>and colors, UNIX or possibly ( zzz ) OS/2. Affordable!

Unix & OS/2 sound good, but what about supporting GEM/TOS.  Perhaps by not
stating that fact, you assume (quite properly) that the next atari machine
will be incompatible with current ST's.  If atari really wants to produce
a really great machine, compatibility with their current systems should
be their TOP PRIORITY.  When you say affordable, I hope you don't mean cheap.
The starting price for such a system should be $3000.00



------------------------ The "serious" machines -----------------------

>Apple     - Hell I don't have that kind of money. It's still gonna be
>            some sort of Mac then I believe. Natuerlich! just says no.
>	
	Apple may price their new machines expensively, but they SUPPORT
	(a word foreign to atari) their customers.  Also I believe that
	if apple felt competition from the low end market, they would
	release a low end 32 bit machine.  Also Apple can charge whatever
	price they want, because there is a great DEMAND for their products.
  
           
>IBM/Clone - I wan't a computer not a desktop calculator! Case dismissed.
>            To that day I have used Turbo-C with plenty of pleasure on
>            an AT but else, the machine is just no fun. Its an INTEL
>            chip, the software is boring. 

	For the most part I agree, but you forget one thing: IBM and
	business go hand in hand.  Whatever new machines they release 
	will be favorably accepted by the business world, regardless 
	of their overall quality.  Note: OS/2 & PS/2. Nothing more need
	be said on the subject.

	
>-----------------------The not so serious machines --------------------

>Commodore - Are there any people left there who can design a good
>            machine ? Will Commodore/Braunschweig put out an
>            Amiga 3000 with a 80368 and optional 68000 to run old
>            Amiga software (har har) ? We will see. Until now 
>            prospects are bleak. [Flaming Amiga-amigos please Email]
>            Dream : 68030 or RISC + UNIX + sexy graphics. If anyone
>            will build it Amiga/Commodore will. Prediction : They wont.
 
	Predictions all good & well, but C= has been quoted as saying that
	in 1989 they will release a 68030 box.  You seem to think that C=
	has very few people left to design a next generation machine.  For
	a moment look at Atari.  If they had enough money for R&D they'd
	have released an 020 box by now.  At least C= has been upgrading
	the OS.  That brings up a crucial point.  The next generation machine
	(regardless of who makes it) will need a well developed operating 
	system.  As an example, look @ the Mac II; any software written to
	support color for the old Mac's work (in color) properly on
	the II.  For Atari to really succeed, they have to have an extremely
	well developed operating system.  GEM/TOS (;-)).  Now that's not 
	to flame the ST's OS, since the Amiga's operating system still needs
	mucho work.  At least C= is constantly upgrading on the operating 
	system.  Can the same be said for Atari???

>Atari     - The Abaq w/o MMU and UNIX ? Har Har. Thats gonna be
>            the Atari videogame for the 90's. The hardware
>            upto the MMU is the right thing, but then... Prediction:
>            Development discontinued... a workstation company buys
>            INMOS. The Transputer will become a Megahit in the work-
>            station business.  The 68030 ? Quite possibly. Not that I 
>            am particularly fond of yet another featureless Shivi-creation,
>            but UNIX on top of it and I might be buying.

	I think the ABAQ might be a joke if you're looking for market
	acceptance, but as far as hardware goes, it looks quite nice.
	Knowing Atari, they would release it, with an incompatible
	OS(meaning incompatible w/ UNIX), then everyone would have to wait
        3yrs. for software to meet the users expectations.  I would like
        to see Atari (and C=) use the 88000 in future designs.  That way they 
        could get transputer speed, with compatibility.  If the transputer is
        used for anything, I think it'll be used as a graphics controller.
        Lastly, it isn't how powerful the hardware is, but how compatible
        current operating systems & software are with it.  I think that's the
        main reason for	the delay in 32 bit machines from Atari & C=.  When
        the 32 bit machines arrive, they will have been worth the wait.

>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Loveletters & Hatemail to : wallman@yalecs     
>                 Files to : WALLMANN@CTSTATEU  (Bitnet)
>                 Talk  to : wallman@yale-zoo-suned.arpa
>--------------------------------------------------------------



					John A.

OS/2, the beginning of a bad dream...