| What next for the ST? [message #282970] |
Fri, 07 March 1986 14:16  |
|
|
Originally posted by: burman
<pre>
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8603092319.AA12627
Posted: Fri Mar 7 14:16:44 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Mar-86 01:53:08 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 31
I read the March Byte article on the 1040ST and resulting info-atari16
questions on the future inclusion of a graphics processor with great interest.
From the comments made by Shiraz Shivji in the Byte interview and other Atari
personnel on info-atari16, I get the impression that we are in for a spate of
Atari machines based on the origonal 520ST architecture but incorporating ram
and peripheral improvements, built-in and add-on, ad nauseum.
The thing that worries me about this is that with all these models
stretching into the future how compatible will they all be? How will the
software houses write their programs if the target machines are constantly
changing. There are now two STs ( all within a few months ) on the market
with at least one (with more ram) and/or another (with graphics co-processor)
machine(s) in the wings ( that's what Atari have told us about anyway). I
believe in progress sure, but every time I go to order an ST there is
talk/rumour of a new model, ( Yes I have not purchased an ST yet! ).
I am very keen to get my hands on an ST, I would love to get into some
real graphics work, but cannot see myself lashing out a hefty $1000 +/- $100
without knowing if I will be able to use the machine for at least a few months
before a new improved/updated model appears. Possibly others out there feel
the way I do, I gather from some of the info-atari16 mail that I am not
alone?? Maybe Atari would tell us how many models the ST family will have
by the end of '86? Orders of magnitude will do!
Until the whole business stabilizes, just a little, or Atari can
convince me it will slow down on the rate of new machine releases, I will hold
off and continue to use my old faithfull Z80 machine.
Norbert Burman
Would-be ST User.
</pre>
|
|
|
|
| Re: What next for the ST? [message #283025 is a reply to message #282970] |
Tue, 11 March 1986 21:20  |
rb
Messages: 94
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
<pre>
Article-I.D.: ccivax.465
Posted: Tue Mar 11 21:20:05 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 04:08:02 EST
References: <8603092319.AA12627@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?)
Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group, Rochester NY
Lines: 51
Summary: Plan for compatibility now. What was that guy talking about?
In article <8603092319.AA12627@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> burman@BRL-TBD.ARPA ("Norbert M. Burman", TBD-PMB-MRL) writes:
>
> I read the March Byte article on the 1040ST and resulting info-atari16
> questions on the future inclusion of a graphics processor with great interest.
> From the comments made by Shiraz Shivji in the Byte interview and other Atari
> personnel on info-atari16, I get the impression that we are in for a spate of
> Atari machines based on the origonal 520ST architecture but incorporating ram
> and peripheral improvements, built-in and add-on, ad nauseum.
>
> The thing that worries me about this is that with all these models
> stretching into the future how compatible will they all be? How will the
> software houses write their programs if the target machines are constantly
> changing.
Software is the easy part, if programs are written in a kosher Application/OS
fashion, the trap vectors will provide transparency between the application
and the hardware. These "rumors" are a simple warning, "cute code" is
unconditionally unacceptable. If the code tries to "capture" the operating
system, it will be obsolete. Drivers might be sold as drivers, but to
make them integral to the application (ALA 1-2-3, EA,...) is a good way
to exclude new markets as they arrive.
> There are now two STs ( all within a few months ) on the market
> with at least one (with more ram) and/or another (with graphics co-processor)
> machine(s) in the wings ( that's what Atari have told us about anyway). I
> believe in progress sure, but every time I go to order an ST there is
> talk/rumour of a new model, ( Yes I have not purchased an ST yet! ).
My biggest concerns are hardware upgrade path and industry compatibilty.
You can do major surgury on a 520 to make it a 1040, but new 520's don't
seem to be any easier to expand, and neither have a good clear "Co-processor"
interface. The CPU's are still soldered directly into the box. The other
concern is the DMA bus. Atari knows about SCSI, supports the protocol, but
seems determined to stick with their own bus (Not SCSI compatible). This
is the same attitude that Commodore/Atari used on the old machines. I may
go ahead and buy a "K-Mart ST" because I like most of what they did, but
I don't want to invest in a bunch of "Atari only" peripherals, no matter
how cheap they get (well maybe a $100 CD-Rom). I would be willing to
"gamble" on a peripheral with a standard interface. If some other
company, or Atari for that matter comes up with a better price/performance
machine with the same interface, the old ST can go to the kids, but the
hard drives are still usable.
Some questions of my own:
In the interview, a 1024x1024 display was mentioned. The ST seems to have
the bandwidth to support this at 70hz interlaced, is it a software hack,
or is new hardware required?
When is the PC industry gonna "Grow up" and adopt even minimal standards?
Does IBM have to do everything??!!!
</pre>
|
|
|
|
| Re: What next for the ST? [message #283055 is a reply to message #282970] |
Sun, 16 March 1986 22:09 |
|
|
Originally posted by: rosalia
<pre>
Article-I.D.: reed.2807
Posted: Sun Mar 16 22:09:08 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Mar-86 07:35:52 EST
References: <8603092319.AA12627@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> <465@ccivax.UUCP>
Reply-To: rosalia@reed.UUCP (Mark Galassi)
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon
Lines: 25
>
>
> Some questions of my own:
> In the interview, a 1024x1024 display was mentioned. The ST seems to have
> the bandwidth to support this at 70hz interlaced, is it a software hack,
> or is new hardware required?
The answer is New Hardware. What limits the resolution on the ST is the
amount of video memory (currently 32K). You would need to increase that
to get more resolution.
> When is the PC industry gonna "Grow up" and adopt even minimal standards?
> Does IBM have to do everything??!!!
Don't praise IBM. They have not produced "state of the art" personal
computers yet. What they have come out with is a family of horrible
personal computers for abominable prices. Maybe their new RISC machine
will finally be a good product, but that is not an attempt to establish
standards.
--
Mark Galassi
...!tektronix!reed!rosalia
{ these opinions are mine and should be everybody else's :-) }
</pre>
|
|
|
|
| Re: What next for the ST? [message #283068 is a reply to message #282970] |
Tue, 18 March 1986 13:16 |
tainter
Messages: 3
Registered: January 1986
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
<pre>
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1715
Posted: Tue Mar 18 13:16:32 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Mar-86 05:22:37 EST
References: <8603092319.AA12627@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> <465@ccivax.UUCP> <2807@reed.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 16
>> Some questions of my own:
>> In the interview, a 1024x1024 display was mentioned. The ST seems to have
>> the bandwidth to support this at 70hz interlaced, is it a software hack,
>> or is new hardware required?
> The answer is New Hardware. What limits the resolution on the ST is the
> amount of video memory (currently 32K). You would need to increase that
> to get more resolution.
> Mark Galassi...!tektronix!reed!rosalia
I don't understand this comment. There is nothing special about the video
memory. The bitmap is just part of memory, restricted by the refresh hardware
to start on a 512 byte boundary. What limits the video memory to 32k at
present is the addressing scheme in the refresh. It strikes me as being
arbitrary and I hope there are hidden capabilities in that refresh circuitry
to support higher res.
--j.a.tainter
Still can't believe "We are the World", even got NOMINATED.
</pre>
|
|
|
|
| Re: What next for the ST? [message #283085 is a reply to message #282970] |
Wed, 19 March 1986 23:35 |
demillo
Messages: 56
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
<pre>
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.2043
Posted: Wed Mar 19 23:35:57 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Mar-86 23:11:39 EST
References: <8603092319.AA12627@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> <465@ccivax.UUCP> <2807@reed.UUCP>
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 36
>> When is the PC industry gonna "Grow up" and adopt even minimal standards?
>> Does IBM have to do everything??!!!
>
> Don't praise IBM. They have not produced "state of the art" personal
> computers yet. What they have come out with is a family of horrible
> personal computers for abominable prices. Maybe their new RISC machine
> will finally be a good product, but that is not an attempt to establish
> standards.
>
> Mark Galassi
> ...!tektronix!reed!rosalia
This attitude really bothers me. Why does one camp of computer user feel
that they have to put down another camp? Or feel that "our" computer is
better than "theirs?"
I own both an IBM XT (well, "portable," but close enough...same motherboard)
and an Atari 520ST. They are both nice computers...one can do some things the
other can't, and visa versa. (For example, the Atari has a faster processor and
obviously better graphics than the IBM, but I like the programming environment
in the IBM better than that of the Atari.)
When are computer users gonna "Grow up"?
--
--- Rob DeMillo
Madison Academic Computer Center
...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo
"...I suppose you find the concept of a
robot with an artificial leg amusing?"
-- Marvin, the Paranoid Android
</pre>
|
|
|
|
| Re: What next for the ST? [message #283090 is a reply to message #282970] |
Wed, 19 March 1986 13:09 |
rb
Messages: 94
Registered: February 2013
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
<pre>
Article-I.D.: ccivax.492
Posted: Wed Mar 19 13:09:18 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Mar-86 00:39:22 EST
References: <8603092319.AA12627@ucbvax.berkeley.edu> <465@ccivax.UUCP> <2807@reed.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccivax.UUCP (What's in a name ?)
Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group, Rochester NY
Lines: 74
Summary: Standards please!!!
In article <2807@reed.UUCP> rosalia@reed.UUCP (Mark Galassi) writes:
>> When is the PC industry gonna "Grow up" and adopt even minimal standards?
>> Does IBM have to do everything??!!!
>
> Don't praise IBM.
Who's praising IBM???
> Maybe their new RISC machine
> will finally be a good product, but that is not an attempt to establish
> standards.
I haven't heard much good about the RISC machine. Who cares, this is Atari
group anyway right? :-).
What I am upset about is the appearant contempt for even minimal standards
between Atari, Commodore, and Apple. This appears to be changing,
Apple is putting SCSI on the Mac, Commodore is considering adopting NAPLPS
as a file storage/transfer format. What is Atari doing???
The sooner some simple standards for peripherals, software, and data formats
are adopted, the better. In most other Consumer Electronics industries,
standards have made it possible for each company to capitalize on their
particular strengths.
Atari makes some good computers, but on the 800 line, only Atari
peripherals can be used. Even a "generic" modem required the 850
interface box.
To be fair, the main reason I like the Atari 520-ST is because they
DID attempt to put some very good standards in their machine. DRI
wrote the operating system (better than CP/M68K), they built in
the RS-232 and Centronics (with adapter cable) interface, and
used a well vectored OS rather than leaving people to go poking
and jumping into strange ROM vectors. Good job Atari!!!:-)
What has me concerned is the "Upgrade Path" for this and future
machines. Another concern is that I might get tied to Atari's
trade-off choices. If Atari comes out with a fully supported
SCSI interface, we'll have the choice of over 100 mass storage
devices, including removable, winchester, and tape drives. Maybe
the SCSI command set isn't complete enough to be truly generic
yet?
I can't say I'm thrilled at the prospect of buying a 520 only
to discover that the 1040 makes the 520 obsolete, or that the
TT series will make the ST series obsolete. In the Byte interview
the guy said that upgrading the 1040 to 4 meg would be "Trivial".
Yes it will be trivial to add the extra two pins to the design
and manufacture process, but don't expect to be able to simply
plug in 1 meg chips and have 2 or 4 meg. Expect to have to
buy a NEW MACHINE :-(. Don't expect software vendors to stick
to 512K either, unless Atari starts making concurrency available,
along with a real MMU, the applications will grow to fit the
available memory. In other words, unless you upgrade, your
520 may be obsolete in another 6 months. According to some
reports, the ST is really only the TERMINAL for their "Real"
"Personal Mini" TT computer. Is that another $1000?
Notice the CPU is soldered in? Ever tried de-soldering a 64 pin
chip? Notice the RAM is also soldered in? Notice there is no header
for a Piggy-Back RAM board? I would hope that these were oversights
rather than deliberate choices. All of these choices together might
have added $100 to the purchase price. It would have been worth it
considering the alternative is either a lot of manual "hot wiring" or
buying a new computer every six months. Even adding a few address
lines to the DMA ports would have helped.
I've said before, I like the Atari, but I'd like to make sure that
"Cheap Computer" doesn't mean "Disposable Computer". What plans
are in the works NOW that will keep this from happening? I would
definately like to see a socket compatible MMU, and a 68010 upgrade
path. Also, higher resolution (1024X1024?) if the 70HZ is to be
justified.
Disclaimer: All opinions subject to change without notice.
</pre>
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
