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 :)