Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!benoni From: benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: Sticking up for Atari Message-ID: <1920@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: 12 May 88 04:45:11 GMT References: <2878@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> <213@obie.UUCP> <316@bdt.UUCP> Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA Lines: 51 In article <316@bdt.UUCP>, david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) writes: > In article <213@obie.UUCP> wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) writes: > >As I said, the ST line has some major holes that need to be filled in > >to compete in the business/professional market. The hardware that is > >there is quite adequate for the job, if we could just get the software > >to talk and work together. And the seperate systems to talk and work > >together via networks. Sigh. Actually the hardware isn't there. I have yet to see an Ethernet/TCP/IP link or an ST network(!)... tho' MacWeek did mention that TOPS was suppose to be working on TOPS for the ST ... the Mac has AppleTalk/TOPS and third party Ethernet connections for the SE. The ST has a promised "PromiseLAN" network (which all sounds kind of recursive to me). Business need networking. More important, businesses need networks that are independent of vendors (Ethernet/ TCP/IP, NFS, TOPS all come to mind). > I think this is directly attributable to Atari not providing the system > software components for doing it. Many parts of the original Mac OS were > awful (if you ask me), but they picked a way to do it, did it, and then > told developers how to use it. It's still not great, but it's there. > A similar story goes for Microsoft/IBM too. Nothing is pretty; it's just > documented and supported. By that I don't mean they provide good support; > I mean that it exists in large numbers and is "standard". Agreed. The Mac environment is going to pay for their awful overall design in the long run...just as the ST will also have similar problems.. The difference is that Apple supported their developer community. It is easier for Apple to make drastic changes to their OS in the next few years (like adding multi-tasking and color attributes (24 bitplane stuff)) because the developer community is better supported and of course their is something in it for them. The flip side is that similar changes to the ST may see developers wandering off and spending their resources on higher volume and better supported machines. Why has this come about : Atari's developer problems stem from : 1.Pre-announcing products way too early and promoting unrealistic expectations. (the blitter and Megas come quickly to mind) 2.Not providing a hard set of user interface guidelines 3.Not providing a generalized font and device mechanism that is standard with the OS. 4.Licensing GEM and then not maintaining up to date DRI versions. 5.Not providing a network option that is of general value (Ethernet, AppleTalk) 6.Not providing ongoing contact with and documentation updates to developers. It should be noted that only #5 is hardware. The other points are procedural (#1,2,3,4,6) for the most part. For example : a generalized font mechanism exists (in the form of GDOS) it is a procedural matter why it is not part of the OS a user receives with his/her system. ----------------- Naturally My Opinions are my own....and I could be wrong :)