🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <585@galaxy> arcarese@andromeda.UUCP (John C Arcarese) writes:
>I read the article you posted under comp.sys.atari.st.  
>I disagree with a few of the points that you made.  Here goes:

	And I disagree with your disagreements :-)
	And even some of your agreements...  But on to the flames!!!

>>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!

	I don't believe that OS/2 will be as widely accepted as some
	people in the industry believe.  Part of this is a mild
	fanaticism about Unix, but the other part of it is that I am
	unconvinced that it will penetrate to alot of users.  OS/2
	requires a great deal of memory to do very mild things.   

	Atari's Abaq and rumored '030 based products sound good, but I
	seriously doubt that Atari has the marketing savvy to compete
	with the "big boys" (Apple, IBM).  Their level of support for
	the ST series has been abominable.  They cannot sell expensive
	workstations without providing a much higher level of support.
	I haven't seen it.

>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
	
	NOOOO!!!! NOT ANOTHER GENERATION OF TOS/GEM.......!!!! 

	GEM/TOS is just about the weakest operating system of any
	personal computer (barring messy-dos).  It doesn't support
	multitasking like the Amiga, it is not as consistent or well
	debugged as the Macintosh.   Frankly, it is brain dead.  Better
	to abandon it now while there is still a chance.

>	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.

	I don't believe Apple will ever drop their prices significantly.
	The fact is, they are making money doing what they are doing.
	They provide good support, both for customers and developpers.
	The MacII was a significant improvement over existing Macintosh
	products, so they are able to sell them.  

	[in regards to the PC and clones]

>	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.
	
	If you mean their quality is questionable I agree.  80386
	machines are beginning to be at a performance level where they
	are reasonable.  Of course, MS-DOS is an antiquated atrocity,
	run Unix on the suckers....  

>>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.
	
	I actually think that Commodore is in a good position to bring
	out a nice little graphics workstation using the 020 or 030.
	Intuition has undergone some changes that make migration to the
	020 and 68881 painless, that must be for some reason.  

	My prediction:  Commodore will release a high powered machine in
	the next year, that it will be well accepted, not outshadowing
	Apple, but making a fair market share for themselves.

>	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???

	While not enormously familiar with the Amiga (mild usage), I
	never have noticed the number and severity of bugs in Intuition
	as I have with GEM/TOS.  Atari should be flamed about this, GEM
	has the same !#@%!!& bugs it had when they first left the
	loading dock.  Inexcusable.

>	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.
	
	If past performance can be used as a barometer, that is exactly
	what will happen.  Of course no personal computer currently
	distributes unix as its default OS.  *sigh*

>	I would like
>        to see Atari (and C=) use the 88000 in future designs.  That way they 
>        could get transputer speed, with compatibility.  

	Excuse me, but the 88000 series (just announced Motorola RISC
	engine) is not compatible with any of their other products.  I
	would like to see them used too, but it won't buy immediate
	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.

	The transputer is a very powerful processor.  Surely it will
	make a great graphics processor, but it is also great at just
	about everything else as well.

	As for power of hardware vs. compatibility, give me power.  If
	users are ever to progress beyond the level of Basic and MS-DOS,
	then they are going to need power to do it.  Computers are
	changing, new computers shouldn't be anchored by old technology,
	software or hardware.

>					John A.
>
>OS/2, the beginning of a bad dream...

mark vandewettering, visions of an OS/2 free future...