🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4592@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk> neil@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Forsyth) writes:
>In article <2668@castle.ed.ac.uk> aimd@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Davidson) writes:
>>Obviously Atari never bothered to tell UK magazines about SIMMS
>>Can you blame them for assuming this to be a 'feature' of the machine.
>
>I do blame them!
>It's people making assumptions that have given the ST a bad name so far.
>Look at all the software that breaks on TOS 1.4 and 1.6 because of
>'assumptions'. Unless Atari say so officially then nothing is guaranteed.

OK, I take your point Neil but I still think some sort of statement from
Atari about what exactly the new features of the STE were would have
helped. If there was such a statement then fair enough, it is totally
the fault of the magazines and I certainly agree that they are always
the first to spread stuff about.

However, Atari should know by now that people 'assume' everything where they
have little information, that goes for TOS as well as the STE in general.

Anyway, the damage is done, if Atari doesn't change it's policy in the
light of assumptions made about the STE then further damage will follow.
Everyone has believed what they have read about the STE, dealers who
advertise the STE as having upgradable memory and companies who have
started advertising SIMM plug-ins for the STE will be made to look fools
when SIPP STEs appear. This *can't* do Atari any good but it can severly
damage the reputation of the STE.

The STE is a great machine but it has been bashed about by the magazines
for a few months now, any further damage may be difficult to recover
from.

I'll shut up now,
Mark.

Documentation? Wots that then?