If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
On 2015-05-20 4:36 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 5/20/15 1:13 PM, Slimer wrote: On 2015-05-20 10:31 AM, Ken Springer wrote: On 5/20/15 8:20 AM, Neil Gould wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 5/19/15 6:55 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote: On Tue, 19 May 2015 19:17:53 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: On 5/19/2015 7:02 PM, Slimer wrote: One capable, the other worthless. Can you tell which is which? I was setting up my new Windows 8.1 tablet, and did not have WordPerfect installed yet, and need a word processor. To my surprise the DOS? wordprocessor MS Wordpad is include in the basic program provided with Windows 8/8.1. I only used it a little but seems a useful and up to date word processor. So you don't have to go with MS Word, or Libre, but can use WordPerfect or Wordpad. We have *very* different opinions on this. As far as I'm concerned, WordPad is not a real word processor, but is little more than a text editor. But WordPerfect is far and away the best word processor available, much better than Microsoft Office. WordPad question, Ken... I think I read somewhere, a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far, away, that WordPad was developed or something similar from the old Microsoft Write program. Is my memory faulty or correct? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Write WordPad is a step above NotePad, but well below MS Write in terms of capability. Thanks, Neil, just what I wanted to know. I actually have WordPerfect for the Atari, and a computer that should run it. The comment about software piracy is/was all too true about the Atari computing world, and no doubt contributed to the demise of the platform. I've read and watched a lot of videos about the Atari ST platform and I frankly couldn't understand how it failed. Its operating system was fast (unlike AmigaOS) and very simple to use. Whether you had an HD or not made no difference because it was in ROM (unlike its competitor). It couldn't multitask like AmigaOS, but things of the sort weren't as valuable at a time when processors could barely handle multitasking anyway. It worked with a monitor or on your TV, provided MIDI connections and had a good amount of software as well as a competent sound chip. It also cost less than a Mac and could run its software provided you bought the necessary hardware. There were some multitasking options available for the ST/TT computers. One was called MultiTOS eventually, IIRC, and although I never used it, I remember it getting nice reviews. Another was called MiNT, which I never used. I think it was actually a version of Linux. There were a couple of cooperative multitasking desktops, and one was called Geneva, which I have installed on my Hades060 clone. I really liked what I could do with it from a user perspective. As far as I know, MultiTOS was the only option which remained compatible with binaries made for the Atari ST as far as I know. Either way, it's a shame that Atari essentially gave up and decided to focus on the Atari Jaguar. While there was likely no chance that they would ever beat the Mac or the PC, it could have been a very interesting option during the time when PCs remained very expensive, especially if it continued the Atari tradition of offering a lot for a little. Since TOS was single tasking, to do something like Geneva, you had to have a boot manager program that ran at boot up, where you could selectively pick software that would run when you wanted to do some particular work. Most users today would find that to be a PITA, but back then, it couldn't be beat. Once I installed Geneva, and discovered the wonders of multitasking, I knew that was the only way for my computer uses to evolve. Multitasking fits the way I think. There were also alternative desktops, so if you didn't like the simplistic Atari desktop, based on the GEM desktop, you could have something that was more flexible and more sophisticated in many ways. Then there were accessories, that I think worked like task switching on PCs. I never used task switchers so I don't know for sure. The Atari accessories would read the contents of RAM, store it to the hard drive, and then load a previously saved RAM session, and you would be right back at the spot you were working when you saved the RAM session. Not multitasking per se, but getting close. Perfectly acceptable when you consider the fact that the hardware was limited and this kind of feature would allow whatever program the user was currently using to operate at full speed. MIDI... Never used it for music, but I've heard it was a long, long time before anything on the PC or Mac surpassed those abilities. You could even network two Atari computers together using the MIDI ports. I had an ST1040 and Mega4 connected this way and still have the cables. Slow by today's standards, but better than the alternative of sneaker net. It would have been interesting if used to share data and even play a game. I doubt the company ever bothered to utilize it for that function but it would have been interesting considering other companies at the time did something similar for gaming (the Gameboy notably with its link feature). There were a couple Mac options. I had a cartridge called Spectre GCR, and could run System 6 and all the software. There was also a hardwired 8087 PC board for the ST series, which I installed. That was my first experience with DOS, and it was 3.3. So crappy to use compared to TOS on the Atari. Considering how awful DOS was, it was a wonder that people insisted on using a combination of it and Windows when better platforms already existed. Eventually Windows caught up and provided a better interface than Atari's and Apple's for anyone who chose the PC but it didn't happen until the 3.0 release in 1990. Until that point, DOS and Windows were simply awful. Back then, companies like Borland wrote their software for many platforms. A lot of PC programmers would write their code in C on the Atari, then compile the finished product for the PC. The fact that there were 4 windows to work in and test their code in made for faster program creation. There was hardware superiority too. The ST line had a 32 bit processor and a 16 bit buss. The TT had the same 32 bit processor, but also had a 32 bit buss. I think the PCs were still using 8 bits at the time. As far as I know, the ISA bus is 16-bit. It was available since 1981. IBM sought to replace it in its PS/2 lines with the superior MCA, especially to kill off the clones, but it never really took off. As for the processors, the 286 was 16-bit but the 386 was 32-bit and it was introduced in 1985, at the same time as the ST. It HAD to be software piracy. I truly don't understand what else could have gone wrong because they also focused on releasing ever more compelling versions of the ST unlike Amiga. It is incredibly sad to see what happened to a platform which honestly seemed superior to the PC until at least 1988. I think poor management also played a part. Things really started going downhill when the son took over for the father. From what I read, a lot of the lack of interest in the Atari ST had to do with Tramiel's poor reputation. Retailers despised him and as a result neglected to carry the product. That led to software developers ignoring the product as well. I don't know how true that is but being Polish like he was, I don't find it hard to believe that he was hard to get along with, AT ALL. I think, personally, the PC took off when Gates got the government contracts, and the government started saying electronic submissions had to be in certain file formats, obviously from software written for PCs. An interesting Atari/Amiga trivia fact, the original prototype that became AmigaOS was called the Lorraine. It was first offered to Atari which turned it down, and Commordore picked it up. This is what was published in the computer magazines of the time, so I don't believe the information you'll find on Wikipedia in the Amiga Corporation is totally correct. I had those old magazines until they got wet and were destroyed. :-( FWIW, there's still an active Atari hobbyist network, and much of the original system has been updated, including a current close. Screenshots I've seen are really nice. I'd like to update my Hades someday, but it will probably never happen. Even though Windows does a good job for me, I keep hoping to see more competition in the computing world. Macs are technically the greatest competition it can have, but the operating system sucks and is damned slow no matter what hardware you throw at it. Linux, on the other hand, is so awful and feels like alpha software no matter which distribution you use. It would be fun to see a company like Atari re-emerge and offer an interesting alternative. Amiga machines still exist but sell at way too high a price for what they offer. An inexpensive but fully-featured machine which didn't use Windows might actually find a market. -- Slimer Encrypt. |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
On Wed, 20 May 2015 15:21:17 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote: On 5/20/2015 3:00 PM, Good Guy wrote: On 20/05/2015 14:54, Slimer wrote: On 2015-05-19 8:55 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote: On Tue, 19 May 2015 19:17:53 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: On 5/19/2015 7:02 PM, Slimer wrote: e, much better than Microsoft Office. I own licenses to both and have to disagree with you. WordPerfect is better as long as you only use text. The moment you need to manipulate images in WordPerfect, it becomes clear how outdated it is. In that respect, Word is a lot better. WordPerfect is not for serious users using something as tool for business. All corporates I know of are using Microsoft Office and so they all can't be wrong. I beleive Word Perfect is prefered by the legal profession, with their complex documents. That was true back in the days of WordPerfect 6 and earlier. But it hasn't been true for a long time now. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
On 5/20/15 3:49 PM, Slimer wrote:
On 2015-05-20 4:36 PM, Ken Springer wrote: On 5/20/15 1:13 PM, Slimer wrote: On 2015-05-20 10:31 AM, Ken Springer wrote: On 5/20/15 8:20 AM, Neil Gould wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 5/19/15 6:55 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote: On Tue, 19 May 2015 19:17:53 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: On 5/19/2015 7:02 PM, Slimer wrote: One capable, the other worthless. Can you tell which is which? I was setting up my new Windows 8.1 tablet, and did not have WordPerfect installed yet, and need a word processor. To my surprise the DOS? wordprocessor MS Wordpad is include in the basic program provided with Windows 8/8.1. I only used it a little but seems a useful and up to date word processor. So you don't have to go with MS Word, or Libre, but can use WordPerfect or Wordpad. We have *very* different opinions on this. As far as I'm concerned, WordPad is not a real word processor, but is little more than a text editor. But WordPerfect is far and away the best word processor available, much better than Microsoft Office. WordPad question, Ken... I think I read somewhere, a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far, away, that WordPad was developed or something similar from the old Microsoft Write program. Is my memory faulty or correct? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Write WordPad is a step above NotePad, but well below MS Write in terms of capability. Thanks, Neil, just what I wanted to know. I actually have WordPerfect for the Atari, and a computer that should run it. The comment about software piracy is/was all too true about the Atari computing world, and no doubt contributed to the demise of the platform. I've read and watched a lot of videos about the Atari ST platform and I frankly couldn't understand how it failed. Its operating system was fast (unlike AmigaOS) and very simple to use. Whether you had an HD or not made no difference because it was in ROM (unlike its competitor). It couldn't multitask like AmigaOS, but things of the sort weren't as valuable at a time when processors could barely handle multitasking anyway. It worked with a monitor or on your TV, provided MIDI connections and had a good amount of software as well as a competent sound chip. It also cost less than a Mac and could run its software provided you bought the necessary hardware. There were some multitasking options available for the ST/TT computers. One was called MultiTOS eventually, IIRC, and although I never used it, I remember it getting nice reviews. Another was called MiNT, which I never used. I think it was actually a version of Linux. There were a couple of cooperative multitasking desktops, and one was called Geneva, which I have installed on my Hades060 clone. I really liked what I could do with it from a user perspective. As far as I know, MultiTOS was the only option which remained compatible with binaries made for the Atari ST as far as I know. Either way, it's a shame that Atari essentially gave up and decided to focus on the Atari Jaguar. While there was likely no chance that they would ever beat the Mac or the PC, it could have been a very interesting option during the time when PCs remained very expensive, especially if it continued the Atari tradition of offering a lot for a little. You might be right about MultiTOS. When I first fired up the Hades after years of being inactive, I was shocked at how much Atari knowledge I've forgotten. :-( Right before, or maybe at the same time as the Jaguar or possibly the Lynx, Atari had a new system out, the Falcon030. Unfortunately, it was the low end model of a projected series. I suspect money may have been an issue. Many Atari users felt they should have put out the powerhouse model first. The Atari always had a high popularity in Europe. At the various trade shows, there was always the competition to show what your system could do. The Falcon had a DSP chip, and they used that chip for things other than sound. I read there was one show where both the Falcon and a bunch of PC were drawing the same fractal design. The PCs were taking 2-4 minutes, the Falcon a few seconds. It wasn't a terribly big improvement over the ST/TT line, so it never really "flew". LOL Since TOS was single tasking, to do something like Geneva, you had to have a boot manager program that ran at boot up, where you could selectively pick software that would run when you wanted to do some particular work. Most users today would find that to be a PITA, but back then, it couldn't be beat. Once I installed Geneva, and discovered the wonders of multitasking, I knew that was the only way for my computer uses to evolve. Multitasking fits the way I think. There were also alternative desktops, so if you didn't like the simplistic Atari desktop, based on the GEM desktop, you could have something that was more flexible and more sophisticated in many ways. Then there were accessories, that I think worked like task switching on PCs. I never used task switchers so I don't know for sure. The Atari accessories would read the contents of RAM, store it to the hard drive, and then load a previously saved RAM session, and you would be right back at the spot you were working when you saved the RAM session. Not multitasking per se, but getting close. Perfectly acceptable when you consider the fact that the hardware was limited and this kind of feature would allow whatever program the user was currently using to operate at full speed. The one I really liked was called Revolver. Worked smooth as silk in swapping RAM contents. MIDI... Never used it for music, but I've heard it was a long, long time before anything on the PC or Mac surpassed those abilities. You could even network two Atari computers together using the MIDI ports. I had an ST1040 and Mega4 connected this way and still have the cables. Slow by today's standards, but better than the alternative of sneaker net. It would have been interesting if used to share data and even play a game. I doubt the company ever bothered to utilize it for that function but it would have been interesting considering other companies at the time did something similar for gaming (the Gameboy notably with its link feature). I never really got into the networking at that point. And, data transfer was slo-o-o-ow, but with patience, functional. After my initial purchase of a few games for my Atari 800, I don't remember ever buying another game. Games just do not hold any interest for me. There were a couple Mac options. I had a cartridge called Spectre GCR, and could run System 6 and all the software. There was also a hardwired 8087 PC board for the ST series, which I installed. That was my first experience with DOS, and it was 3.3. So crappy to use compared to TOS on the Atari. Considering how awful DOS was, it was a wonder that people insisted on using a combination of it and Windows when better platforms already existed. Eventually Windows caught up and provided a better interface than Atari's and Apple's for anyone who chose the PC but it didn't happen until the 3.0 release in 1990. Until that point, DOS and Windows were simply awful. A lack of outlets, file compatibility issues, piracy, and such probably spelled its doom. Back then, companies like Borland wrote their software for many platforms. A lot of PC programmers would write their code in C on the Atari, then compile the finished product for the PC. The fact that there were 4 windows to work in and test their code in made for faster program creation. There was hardware superiority too. The ST line had a 32 bit processor and a 16 bit buss. The TT had the same 32 bit processor, but also had a 32 bit buss. I think the PCs were still using 8 bits at the time. As far as I know, the ISA bus is 16-bit. It was available since 1981. IBM sought to replace it in its PS/2 lines with the superior MCA, especially to kill off the clones, but it never really took off. As for the processors, the 286 was 16-bit but the 386 was 32-bit and it was introduced in 1985, at the same time as the ST. I'll accept your stats, as I truly no longer remember the little knowledge I had back then. I'm more into using them than the technical portion, always have been. It HAD to be software piracy. I truly don't understand what else could have gone wrong because they also focused on releasing ever more compelling versions of the ST unlike Amiga. It is incredibly sad to see what happened to a platform which honestly seemed superior to the PC until at least 1988. I think poor management also played a part. Things really started going downhill when the son took over for the father. From what I read, a lot of the lack of interest in the Atari ST had to do with Tramiel's poor reputation. Retailers despised him and as a result neglected to carry the product. That led to software developers ignoring the product as well. I don't know how true that is but being Polish like he was, I don't find it hard to believe that he was hard to get along with, AT ALL. And I wouldn't be surprised what you say is correct. There's a lot of superior products that failed in the marketplace. Like the Sony Betamax. I think, personally, the PC took off when Gates got the government contracts, and the government started saying electronic submissions had to be in certain file formats, obviously from software written for PCs. An interesting Atari/Amiga trivia fact, the original prototype that became AmigaOS was called the Lorraine. It was first offered to Atari which turned it down, and Commordore picked it up. This is what was published in the computer magazines of the time, so I don't believe the information you'll find on Wikipedia in the Amiga Corporation is totally correct. I had those old magazines until they got wet and were destroyed. :-( FWIW, there's still an active Atari hobbyist network, and much of the original system has been updated, including a current close. Screenshots I've seen are really nice. I'd like to update my Hades someday, but it will probably never happen. Even though Windows does a good job for me, I keep hoping to see more competition in the computing world. Macs are technically the greatest competition it can have, but the operating system sucks and is damned slow no matter what hardware you throw at it. Linux, on the other hand, is so awful and feels like alpha software no matter which distribution you use. It would be fun to see a company like Atari re-emerge and offer an interesting alternative. Amiga machines still exist but sell at way too high a price for what they offer. An inexpensive but fully-featured machine which didn't use Windows might actually find a market. The slow speed of this Mac was the biggest disappointment for me. But I bought it for the virus free reputation, and the visual quality of the display to my eyes. I've yet to see a monitor on a PC that beats it. I've got a Dell that comes close, but no cigar. I doubt you'll see anything from Apple to give Windows a run. I think the companies are going after different marketplaces. MS for business, Apple for consumer. For cash on hand, Apple has almost twice as much as MS. I don't understand why Apple built that big gun system that's available, unless they've something up their sleeve. Or, maybe there's a bunch of Unix folks in the background that are compiling Unix code to run under OS X. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 36.0.4 Thunderbird 31.5 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
Keith Nuttle wrote:
On 5/20/2015 3:00 PM, Good Guy wrote: On 20/05/2015 14:54, Slimer wrote: On 2015-05-19 8:55 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote: On Tue, 19 May 2015 19:17:53 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: On 5/19/2015 7:02 PM, Slimer wrote: e, much better than Microsoft Office. I own licenses to both and have to disagree with you. WordPerfect is better as long as you only use text. The moment you need to manipulate images in WordPerfect, it becomes clear how outdated it is. In that respect, Word is a lot better. WordPerfect is not for serious users using something as tool for business. All corporates I know of are using Microsoft Office and so they all can't be wrong. I beleive Word Perfect is prefered by the legal profession, with their complex documents. Not anymore, WP use, which was primarily clerical support usage, has been diminishing rapidly across the entire legal profession. In fact the choice of word processor no longer holds as much significance as it did in the past since a majority of the document creation and storage today(internal,external incoming) ends up being archived as pdf files. -- ...winston msft mvp consumer apps |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
On 5/21/15 9:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Slimer wrote: It HAD to be software piracy. I truly don't understand what else could have gone wrong because they also focused on releasing ever more compelling versions of the ST unlike Amiga. It is incredibly sad to see what happened to a platform which honestly seemed superior to the PC until at least 1988. Not even close. Though the Atari was more than adequate for individual hobbyists, the PC was always oriented toward professional users of all types. By 1985 there were a plethora of expansion cards available for the PC that were superior to any other platform, but they cost a lot. 32 bit video graphics editing cards cost about $5K, audio cards were over $1k, and so on. The professional alternatives involved dedicated hardware that cost over $100k for these tasks. Atari's Amiga was the only other computer-based contender in those markets, and I suspect that it was the Amiga that drained the Atari ST development resources. Professional typographic programs such as Ventura Publisher only ran on the PC. When the Mac was introduced, folks flocked to it because they didn't have to be techie pros to get up and running. But there was still a big difference between setting type on an 8" B/W screen vs. the 15" color screens common for PCs. There were a lot of special-purpose expansion cards, such as multi-processor cards for intensive tasks. These are just a few of the factors that established the PC for professionals, and there still isn't much in the way of competition for it. Minimal to no expansion abilities in the Atari systems were always complained about. That's one of the negatives for me with this iMac, but I don't really do anything that needs expansion cards, etc. And the all-in-one design negates things like that anyway. I honestly don't know anything about the top of the line Mac, except that I can't afford one. LOL But my limited knowledge says many of the modern expansion cards work in them. As for software at that level? Absolutely no clue. But piracy was a big issue, especially for games. There were some cases where cracked copies of games appeared before the game was even released. As a result, some of those games were never released for the Atari. Have to agree about the small screen size of the Macs of the day. But size wasn't an issue with Atari systems. Low color resolution and such was, though. I preferred B&W in those days, and my TT had a 19" Atari branded Moniterm monitor. Boy, I loved that display. Never had anything I thought was as good until this iMac. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 36.0.4 Thunderbird 31.5 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
Slimer wrote:
It HAD to be software piracy. I truly don't understand what else could have gone wrong because they also focused on releasing ever more compelling versions of the ST unlike Amiga. It is incredibly sad to see what happened to a platform which honestly seemed superior to the PC until at least 1988. Not even close. Though the Atari was more than adequate for individual hobbyists, the PC was always oriented toward professional users of all types. By 1985 there were a plethora of expansion cards available for the PC that were superior to any other platform, but they cost a lot. 32 bit video graphics editing cards cost about $5K, audio cards were over $1k, and so on. The professional alternatives involved dedicated hardware that cost over $100k for these tasks. Atari's Amiga was the only other computer-based contender in those markets, and I suspect that it was the Amiga that drained the Atari ST development resources. Professional typographic programs such as Ventura Publisher only ran on the PC. When the Mac was introduced, folks flocked to it because they didn't have to be techie pros to get up and running. But there was still a big difference between setting type on an 8" B/W screen vs. the 15" color screens common for PCs. There were a lot of special-purpose expansion cards, such as multi-processor cards for intensive tasks. These are just a few of the factors that established the PC for professionals, and there still isn't much in the way of competition for it. -- best regards, Neil |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
On Thu, 21 May 2015 10:10:19 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote: Slimer wrote: It HAD to be software piracy. I truly don't understand what else could have gone wrong because they also focused on releasing ever more compelling versions of the ST unlike Amiga. It is incredibly sad to see what happened to a platform which honestly seemed superior to the PC until at least 1988. Not even close. Though the Atari was more than adequate for individual hobbyists, the PC was always oriented toward professional users of all types. By 1985 there were a plethora of expansion cards available for the PC that were superior to any other platform, but they cost a lot. 32 bit video graphics editing cards cost about $5K, audio cards were over $1k, and so on. The professional alternatives involved dedicated hardware that cost over $100k for these tasks. Atari's Amiga was the only other computer-based contender in those markets, and I suspect that it was the Amiga that drained the Atari ST development resources. The Amiga was a Commodore product, so it shouldn't have drained Atari resources, and it had the Video Toaster card, with Lightwave 3D rendering software, at a retail price of only $2499, a steal at the time. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2015 10:10:19 -0500, "Neil Gould" wrote: Slimer wrote: It HAD to be software piracy. I truly don't understand what else could have gone wrong because they also focused on releasing ever more compelling versions of the ST unlike Amiga. It is incredibly sad to see what happened to a platform which honestly seemed superior to the PC until at least 1988. Not even close. Though the Atari was more than adequate for individual hobbyists, the PC was always oriented toward professional users of all types. By 1985 there were a plethora of expansion cards available for the PC that were superior to any other platform, but they cost a lot. 32 bit video graphics editing cards cost about $5K, audio cards were over $1k, and so on. The professional alternatives involved dedicated hardware that cost over $100k for these tasks. Atari's Amiga was the only other computer-based contender in those markets, and I suspect that it was the Amiga that drained the Atari ST development resources. The Amiga was a Commodore product, so it shouldn't have drained Atari resources, and it had the Video Toaster card, with Lightwave 3D rendering software, at a retail price of only $2499, a steal at the time. Thanks for the correction (and reminder), Char. When I was writing that I couldn't even recall the name of the video graphics card that I had in the PC that cost me $5k... but it dawned on me much later that it was an AT&T Targa board. -- best regards, Neil |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
On 2015-05-21 11:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Slimer wrote: It HAD to be software piracy. I truly don't understand what else could have gone wrong because they also focused on releasing ever more compelling versions of the ST unlike Amiga. It is incredibly sad to see what happened to a platform which honestly seemed superior to the PC until at least 1988. Not even close. Though the Atari was more than adequate for individual hobbyists, the PC was always oriented toward professional users of all types. By 1985 there were a plethora of expansion cards available for the PC that were superior to any other platform, but they cost a lot. 32 bit video graphics editing cards cost about $5K, audio cards were over $1k, and so on. The professional alternatives involved dedicated hardware that cost over $100k for these tasks. Atari's Amiga was the only other computer-based contender in those markets, and I suspect that it was the Amiga that drained the Atari ST development resources. Professional typographic programs such as Ventura Publisher only ran on the PC. When the Mac was introduced, folks flocked to it because they didn't have to be techie pros to get up and running. But there was still a big difference between setting type on an 8" B/W screen vs. the 15" color screens common for PCs. There were a lot of special-purpose expansion cards, such as multi-processor cards for intensive tasks. These are just a few of the factors that established the PC for professionals, and there still isn't much in the way of competition for it. The problem is that to get the same kind of experience from a PC between 1985 and 1989 that you would get from an Amiga or an Atari ST, you had no choice but to pay more. A PC came with the PC Speaker for sound despite the fact that both of its competitors had decent sound chips. It came with a Hercules, CGA or EGA GPU and monitor while both Amiga and Atari could display 16 colours from a large palette from the very beginning _and_ allow you to use a TV as a monitor if you couldn't afford a dedicated one. They also provided a decent interface for users at a time when PC users still had to type what they wanted into a command prompt and single-task. Essentially, the PC didn't deserve to win because it _required_ additional cards to be as functional as what its competitors had for a lot less. However, I do have to admit that with these cards, the PC suddenly became a much more impressive platform. -- Slimer Encrypt. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
On 5/21/15 4:54 PM, Slimer wrote:
On 2015-05-21 1:04 AM, Ken Springer wrote: snip I'll accept your stats, as I truly no longer remember the little knowledge I had back then. I'm more into using them than the technical portion, always have been. I'm not all that technical either. I have a slight advantage over you when it relates to the STs because I've been researching them for a while and very recently whereas they are little more than a distant memory for you. The detailed memories are gone, but not some of the equipment. I still have 2 Atari 800's, a Portfolio handheld (DOS 2.11), and the aforementioned Hades. -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 36.0.4 Thunderbird 31.5 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
On 2015-05-21 8:26 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 5/21/15 4:54 PM, Slimer wrote: On 2015-05-21 1:04 AM, Ken Springer wrote: snip I'll accept your stats, as I truly no longer remember the little knowledge I had back then. I'm more into using them than the technical portion, always have been. I'm not all that technical either. I have a slight advantage over you when it relates to the STs because I've been researching them for a while and very recently whereas they are little more than a distant memory for you. The detailed memories are gone, but not some of the equipment. I still have 2 Atari 800's, a Portfolio handheld (DOS 2.11), and the aforementioned Hades. I wouldn't mind owning an Atari Falcon 030 just to find out whether I would have liked it more than the 286 I had at the time. As far as I know though, such a purchase on eBay would cost way more than it should. I have to rely on eBay videos of those devices instead. -- Slimer Encrypt. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
Slimer wrote:
On 2015-05-21 11:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote: Slimer wrote: It HAD to be software piracy. I truly don't understand what else could have gone wrong because they also focused on releasing ever more compelling versions of the ST unlike Amiga. It is incredibly sad to see what happened to a platform which honestly seemed superior to the PC until at least 1988. Not even close. Though the Atari was more than adequate for individual hobbyists, the PC was always oriented toward professional users of all types. By 1985 there were a plethora of expansion cards available for the PC that were superior to any other platform, but they cost a lot. 32 bit video graphics editing cards cost about $5K, audio cards were over $1k, and so on. The professional alternatives involved dedicated hardware that cost over $100k for these tasks. Atari's Amiga was the only other computer-based contender in those markets, and I suspect that it was the Amiga that drained the Atari ST development resources. Professional typographic programs such as Ventura Publisher only ran on the PC. When the Mac was introduced, folks flocked to it because they didn't have to be techie pros to get up and running. But there was still a big difference between setting type on an 8" B/W screen vs. the 15" color screens common for PCs. There were a lot of special-purpose expansion cards, such as multi-processor cards for intensive tasks. These are just a few of the factors that established the PC for professionals, and there still isn't much in the way of competition for it. The problem is that to get the same kind of experience from a PC between 1985 and 1989 that you would get from an Amiga or an Atari ST, you had no choice but to pay more. The PC is a platform to build systems for professional use. IBM & MS established industry standards for hardware and software that allowed developers to market advanced products, the result being both better performance and a better investment for businesses. Apple captured the "out of the box" market after moving away from their Apple ][, and neither Commodore nor Atari could keep up or overtake the momentum from either of those directions. Essentially, the PC didn't deserve to win because it _required_ additional cards to be as functional as what its competitors had for a lot less. Those "competitors" were a bad investment for businesses because they were not compatible with anything that was actually being used. Every try to run Lotus 123 or WordPerfect on an Atari ST? Businesses are going to hack their way to a solution that they can just buy for a few tax-deductable dollars more. As I said, once the PC's pro expansion cards were added the serious competitive alternatives were dedicated systems costing hundreds of thousands of dollars more. History shows that the PC was and still is the winning concept for professionals, so it's hard to argue that it wasn't a deserved outcome. -- best regards, Neil |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
On 5/22/15 7:19 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Slimer wrote: On 2015-05-21 11:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote: Slimer wrote: It HAD to be software piracy. I truly don't understand what else could have gone wrong because they also focused on releasing ever more compelling versions of the ST unlike Amiga. It is incredibly sad to see what happened to a platform which honestly seemed superior to the PC until at least 1988. Not even close. Though the Atari was more than adequate for individual hobbyists, the PC was always oriented toward professional users of all types. By 1985 there were a plethora of expansion cards available for the PC that were superior to any other platform, but they cost a lot. 32 bit video graphics editing cards cost about $5K, audio cards were over $1k, and so on. The professional alternatives involved dedicated hardware that cost over $100k for these tasks. Atari's Amiga was the only other computer-based contender in those markets, and I suspect that it was the Amiga that drained the Atari ST development resources. Professional typographic programs such as Ventura Publisher only ran on the PC. When the Mac was introduced, folks flocked to it because they didn't have to be techie pros to get up and running. But there was still a big difference between setting type on an 8" B/W screen vs. the 15" color screens common for PCs. There were a lot of special-purpose expansion cards, such as multi-processor cards for intensive tasks. These are just a few of the factors that established the PC for professionals, and there still isn't much in the way of competition for it. The problem is that to get the same kind of experience from a PC between 1985 and 1989 that you would get from an Amiga or an Atari ST, you had no choice but to pay more. The PC is a platform to build systems for professional use. IBM & MS established industry standards for hardware and software that allowed developers to market advanced products, the result being both better performance and a better investment for businesses. Apple captured the "out of the box" market after moving away from their Apple ][, and neither Commodore nor Atari could keep up or overtake the momentum from either of those directions. Essentially, the PC didn't deserve to win because it _required_ additional cards to be as functional as what its competitors had for a lot less. Those "competitors" were a bad investment for businesses because they were not compatible with anything that was actually being used. Every try to run Lotus 123 or WordPerfect on an Atari ST? 1-2-3 no, but WP yes. I still have my 4.x disks and manual for the Atari ST. If you think about it, it wasn't the program, it was the file created that was the problem. My first computer was, and still is (G) an Atari 800. I couldn't use Zardax or Appleworks, but if I could have read and written their files, who would have cared what program I used? It's the end product that's important, not the program being used. Or which computer system. The world started slowly moving that way when Adobe created and released the PDF file format. Now you have the open file formats (odt, ods, etc.). Who cares what program the originator of a file used? When you get a PDF file do you really care if Adobe Acrobat created the file? Or Word? Or Word Perfect? AutoCAD? MicroCAD? No. You just want to be able to read it. Since we are now in a global economy or whatever, why would you want to force people to use MS Office over Libre Office when you compare capabilities? https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/...crosoft_Office The proprietary file formats were a contributing reason for the success of MS and its software. If you're doing business electronically with Joe Bob Construction and Joe Bob used MS Office, and you wanted to be one of his subcontractors, you *had* to have Office whether you liked it or not. If you transmit your documents using PDF or open file formats, Joe Bob's not going to care if you used MS Office or a quill pen. The same applies to printer drivers. Back then, when you had program X, the printer you bought was limited by the drivers provided by the software. Now, printers have to stand on their own abilities, not the software being used. Businesses are going to hack their way to a solution that they can just buy for a few tax-deductable dollars more. As I said, once the PC's pro expansion cards were added the serious competitive alternatives were dedicated systems costing hundreds of thousands of dollars more. History shows that the PC was and still is the winning concept for professionals, so it's hard to argue that it wasn't a deserved outcome. I don't think you are on solid ground by saying the PC is the winning concept. Today, it's the only concept. No one else is in that marketplace, MS has a monopoly, there's no arguing that point. As with all monopolies, with no competition, they don't have to do their best. I think if computer users in general were more knowledgeable, MS wouldn't have it as easy as they do. Although they aren't quite as big an "elephant in the room" as they used to be. Just look at the browser world. :-) -- Ken Mac OS X 10.8.5 Firefox 36.0.4 Thunderbird 31.5 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
On 2015-05-22 9:19 AM, Neil Gould wrote:
Slimer wrote: On 2015-05-21 11:10 AM, Neil Gould wrote: Slimer wrote: It HAD to be software piracy. I truly don't understand what else could have gone wrong because they also focused on releasing ever more compelling versions of the ST unlike Amiga. It is incredibly sad to see what happened to a platform which honestly seemed superior to the PC until at least 1988. Not even close. Though the Atari was more than adequate for individual hobbyists, the PC was always oriented toward professional users of all types. By 1985 there were a plethora of expansion cards available for the PC that were superior to any other platform, but they cost a lot. 32 bit video graphics editing cards cost about $5K, audio cards were over $1k, and so on. The professional alternatives involved dedicated hardware that cost over $100k for these tasks. Atari's Amiga was the only other computer-based contender in those markets, and I suspect that it was the Amiga that drained the Atari ST development resources. Professional typographic programs such as Ventura Publisher only ran on the PC. When the Mac was introduced, folks flocked to it because they didn't have to be techie pros to get up and running. But there was still a big difference between setting type on an 8" B/W screen vs. the 15" color screens common for PCs. There were a lot of special-purpose expansion cards, such as multi-processor cards for intensive tasks. These are just a few of the factors that established the PC for professionals, and there still isn't much in the way of competition for it. The problem is that to get the same kind of experience from a PC between 1985 and 1989 that you would get from an Amiga or an Atari ST, you had no choice but to pay more. The PC is a platform to build systems for professional use. IBM & MS established industry standards for hardware and software that allowed developers to market advanced products, the result being both better performance and a better investment for businesses. Apple captured the "out of the box" market after moving away from their Apple ][, and neither Commodore nor Atari could keep up or overtake the momentum from either of those directions. People recognized IBM and they recognized Apple so they bought their products because their company names were already associated with computing. Atari was known as a video game company and even though it had Commodore's backing and they had been responsible for the incredibly-successful Commodore 64, people didn't know what an Amiga was and those who DID invest in it did so to play games. Essentially, the PC didn't deserve to win because it _required_ additional cards to be as functional as what its competitors had for a lot less. Those "competitors" were a bad investment for businesses because they were not compatible with anything that was actually being used. Every try to run Lotus 123 or WordPerfect on an Atari ST? Businesses are going to hack their way to a solution that they can just buy for a few tax-deductable dollars more. As I said, once the PC's pro expansion cards were added the serious competitive alternatives were dedicated systems costing hundreds of thousands of dollars more. History shows that the PC was and still is the winning concept for professionals, so it's hard to argue that it wasn't a deserved outcome. WordPerfect existed on the Atari ST and as far as I know, it saved in the same format as its Mac and PC counterpart. The problem was that the software was quickly removed from store shelves because the company refused to support the platform because of its rampant piracy. I have no idea about whether Lotus existed or not for the ST. -- Slimer Encrypt. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Data Microsoft collects
Am 22.05.2015 um 15:58 schrieb Ken Springer:
The world started slowly moving that way when Adobe created and released the PDF file format. Now you have the open file formats (odt, ods, etc.). Who cares what program the originator of a file used? When you get a PDF file do you really care if Adobe Acrobat created the file? Or Word? Or Word Perfect? AutoCAD? MicroCAD? No. You just want to be able to read it. Wrong! I am a translator and I usually want to overwrite PDF files in order to give my customers a translated file with the same formats. Always a pain in the ass if all I get is an image PDF. I don't think you are on solid ground by saying the PC is the winning concept. Today, it's the only concept. No one else is in that marketplace, MS has a monopoly, there's no arguing that point. As with all monopolies, with no competition, they don't have to do their best. Mac, Linux ... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|