Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!sun!pepper!cmcmanis From: cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: 1 million... Summary: Don't read this Message-ID: <79622@sun.uucp> Date: 1 Dec 88 03:39:04 GMT References: <358@sdcc14.ucsd.edu> <11767@cup.portal.com> Sender: news@sun.uucp Reply-To: cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View Lines: 108 These kinds of discussions are useless. The reason they are useless is that some people believe that "most computers sold" == "best computer". This can be proven to be false by the simple fact that the single best selling computer in the world is a Commodore 64, and the single biggest selling family of computers is the IBM PC (XT,AT). No one I know thinks these are the best computers in the world. Everyone has an opinion and everyone disagrees on what "best" means and yet still they argue long into the night. The rest of this posting is an effort on my part to demonstrate why these things are pointless. I try to show that the Amiga 500 and the 1040 ST are essentially the same design with different compromises. When all is said and done they are the same computer. You as a reader look at the two machines, look at the way the designers compromised, and pick the one that *you* like better. Also be aware that your choice is only the better choice from your perspective, others will disagree and they are also correct from *their* perspective. Take the following comments from Peter as an example : In article <11767@cup.portal.com> (Peter Ted Szymonik) writes: > ...I'd say Atari will have no > problem reaching the million mark next year if it hasn't already > done so! ... Given the "magicalness" of a million machines (see the PS/2, Apple Mac announcements when they broke a million) it is clear that Atari (or Commodore for that matter) will be shouting to everyone that can read (especially developers) to let them in on the good news. Witness Commodore's hyper sensitivity as they get closer to that number. > Also, I'm sure that a good chunk of those Amiga sales > were the 500 which was probably bought primarily as a game machine > while the majority of STs out there are 1040's which have much > greater utility. This is an especially wonderful example of why debating machine merits is a waste of time. Here is a guy who obviously is very proud of his computer ownership attempting to slander the "competition" with absolutely no facts at all. If he understood the Amiga computer line he would realize that the Amiga 500 *is* the Atari 1040 ST competition. Line up the features side by side and even a third grader could tell you they were the same machine, to wit : 1040 ST Amiga 500 ---------- ---------- Processor 68000 68000 "Main" Memory 1 Meg 1 Meg Screen Resolution 320 X 200 350 X 200 various #'s of 640 X 200 700 X 200 colors. 640 X 480 700 X 440 Disk Drive 720K 880K Serial Port Yes Yes Parallel Port Yes Yes MIDI Port Yes No DMA Port Yes No Expansion Bus No Yes Hard Disk Available Yes Yes Memory Expansion Avail Yes Yes Max Memory 4 MB 9 Mb Blitter No* Yes Audio Yes Yes ----- * Blitter optional according to some things I have seen And the astute readers will note that a.) Prices are different, b.) Implementations are different, and c.) Neither machine is the "better" machine to everyone. In terms of hardware capabilities they offer the same functions. The question you ask are "What are the decisions the designers made?" Take MIDI for example. The Amiga does not have a MIDI port, the designers did not decide to include one. It is easy to turn the Amiga serial port into a MIDI port but it will cost you the user extra cash. *You* decide which decision is better for *you*. Same thing with a hard disk. Atari builds in a DMA port that makes connecting a SCSI device easier, Commodore provides and expansion bus that you can connect a hard disk controller to. Here the Atari designer may have said "Well, either we offer a hard disk interface or an expansion interface, which will it be? Gee most of our users will just want a hard disk so lets offer that." Whereas the Amiga designer might have said "Lets offer an expansion port so that other things beside a hard disk can be easily connected here." The Atari decision makes for cheaper hard disks, the Commodore decision makes for greater flexibility. Which do *you* prefer? *You* decide and that makes that machine best for you. When one evaluates both machines you will notice that the Commodore decisions tended to flexibility even when it raised the cost, whereas Atari's leaned toward keeping the price down at the cost of flexibility. None of these decisions make one computer "better" than the other, they just make the computers different. Of course none of this means anything to someone who's ego is tied up in the computer they own. That type of person will get just as hyper about whether or not a BMW is better than a Mercedes or a Ford is better than a Mercury. The important point to remember is that when you read an article from someone who really likes their computer and thinks anyone who doesn't like their computer obviously has a learning disability, you have to understand that they are *correct*. This is how they think from *their* perspective. There is no need to point out how their perspective disagrees strongly with *your* perspective. That is because both of your perspectives will disagree with everyone elses perspective. The end result is a couple of thousand articles describing the authors perspective and views. If you could condense them into a single survey message you might et the Signal to Noise ratio up above .5 but I doubt it. Well thats *my* perspective, --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.