🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1886@islenet.UUCP>, jons@islenet.UUCP (Jonathan Spangler) writes:
> 
> Instead, people at COMDEX saw an absolutely fantastic display
> of the same bouncing ball demo running -- SIDE-BY-SIDE, mind you -- three
> machines: 520ST, Amiga, and Mac. All three were running the same ball demo. 
> Because of the speed difference, the ST was the clear winner, but not only
> becaue of the speed, but also the color which was much more brilliant.

   One (of the many) things ATARI didn't mention in their bouncing ball
display was that this is an EASY, EASY, EASY demo to do!  I'm pretty sure
(and don't you DARE call this bluff!!) that I could produce an acceptable
version of it to run on the Apple II!  Instead, ask Atari if 1) there's
enough processor bandwidth left while it's running to do a LOT of processing,
2) if there was sound to go with it, synchronized with the ball, and 3) How
long it took them to GET that display - I'd be willing to bet that they had
several of their hottest-shot programmers working on those, and do you really
think that they would bother to make the Mac version as pretty?
   The impression I get of Atari lately (and don't get me wrong, I basically
like Atari's stuff) is that they will stop at NOTHING to get the public to
believe in their superiority, and if this includes providing insufficient
information for a true, objective comparison, well, thats the way it goes.
Personally, I find this kind of marketing scheme insulting not only to
the technically competent people like us, but even more to those who can't
know any better.

-- 
           Mike Farren
           uucp: {dual, hplabs}!well!farren
           Fido: Sci-Fido, Fidonode 125/84, (415)655-0667
           USnail: 390 Alcatraz Ave., Oakland, CA 94618