NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/sys/atari/st/19181

Text File | 1993-01-04 | 11.0 KB | 218 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!torn!nott!cu23.crl.aecl.ca!cc4.crl.aecl.ca!csullogg
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Good old Darek
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cc4.crl.aecl.ca
Organization: AECL RESEARCH
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 14:10:18 GMT
Lines: 206

Good old Derek

The following is a message I received from Darek Mihoka. Its tone
is self explanatory. Jesus, is this guy ever one giant sized idiot.

Lighten up Darek, before your balls choke you!

========================================================================
#3          28-DEC-1992 16:45:14.11                           NEWMAIL
From:   CRL::IN%"[e-mail]"
To:     IN%"[e-mail]"
CC:
Subj:

To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Upgrade Woes
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Cc:

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>Every once in a while, I see netters complain that they have had
>to move from an ST to an STE or maybe to a TT. Their gripe is they
>should have been able to upgrade their first computer rather than
>change computers. Well, I own an ST and a MegaST and I use a TT in
>my full time day job. My MegaST is from 1987 and I have added more
>RAM (4 megs) and a REFLEX graphics card (1024 x 496 on an SM124
>monitor). Other than that, my MegaST is stock 1985.
>
>Now, picture the PC user who owned an XT in 1985 and then upgraded
>to an AT to go with the market. Then picture the poor bugger getting
>a 386SX because the SX's were so much cheaper (at one time) than
>a true 386. Now, imagine if you will, the same poor bugger wondering
>whether he should go to a 40MHz 386 with a co-processor or to
>a 486 because Windows runs too slowly on his SX. Imagine, again,
>scouting the market for a faster graphics card that actually lets
>his screen redraws take place at a reasonable speed.
>
>I am DAMN glad I did not buy into the PC market - I like my money
>in my account and not spent on hardware upgrades (I won't even
>begin to detail the cost of software upgrades on a PC).

Like every other Atari bigot, you're spreading half truths again.
You're trying to tell me that you get 1024x496 resolution out of
your Sm124 mono monitor? Right! When pigs fly! I'm sure you meant
the SM194 24 inch mono monitor?? That's a much more expensive
proposition. Would you care to tell me how much a typical Mega ST
user would have to pay for sure an upgrade and why this is such a
better upgrade path than a PC user paying $200 to upgrade from a
standard VGA card to a 1024x768 Super VGA card?

*****************************************************************
* Yes, dink head; I do get 1024x496 on an SM124. I own the damn *
* monitor and unlike you, I **DO** know what I'm talking about! *
*****************************************************************

Also, the Mega ST can't be "stock 1985" since they weren't released
until late 1987! If you do have a stock 1985 machine, which can only
be a 520ST, I'd like to know how someone goes about upgrading that.
Adding RAM is a pain and you have no expansion slots for graphics cards.

******************************************************************
* Learn to read bozo; my posting quotes my 1987 MegaST. Not only *
* are you an arrogant idiot, you also appear to be illiterate    *
******************************************************************

As for waiting for the Falcon, well, sweet dreams. Obviously Pagestream
can't be THAT slow if you're willing to waste another 6 months waiting
for the Falcon.

******************************************************************
* 6 months is the time it takes for screen redraws of Windows on *
* a 386SX. You must be real patient to be a PC user              *
******************************************************************

You also don't seem to mind the disposable computer mentality of Atari.
After all, when you buy your Falcon, you won't have any use for the
hardware inside your Mega ST.

What your close minded little message doesn't point out is that most
PCs (or Mac or Amigas for that matter) are not disposable computers
like the Atari ST is. An upgrade typically involves replacing a card
or plugging in a new card, not throwing away the whole computer and
buying another one.

******************************************************************
*        The paragraph above is just PURE bullshit               *
******************************************************************


You're ignoring the fact that most of the PC components can be reused
such as the keyboard, power supply, SIMMs, floppy drives, hard disks, etc.
An XT or AT user can for about $400 replace his existing motherboard
with a 486 motherboard and not throw away the rest of the computer. This
is analagous to replacing your existing 68000 chip with a T20 or SST
upgrade, but simply upgrading your ST to a 68030 (for about $1000) won't
get you TOS 4.0 or the improved graphics resolution of the Falcon. Your
only choice like you said it so wait until the Falcon comes out and then
buy a brand new computer.

*****************************************************************
* Hey dopey - I have a 386@40MHz sitting on one of my desks at  *
* home. I sell these to anyone who wants them (in addition to   *
* selling Atari computers). I MUCH prefer to use my Mega than   *
* struggle with the 386. Windows, my dear boy, is a VERY poor   *
* excuse for a modern, user-friendly interface. Now, being the  *
* MS running dog lackie that you are, I hope that statement     *
* makes you penis shrivel right up!                             *
*****************************************************************


>My only problem right now is slow redraws with Pagestream. I
>could get a T25 board but I think I'll wait for a Falcon. I
>don't mind the move from an ST to a MegaST to a Falcon since
>it is not analogous to the PC scenario. First, the cost of
>the upgrade will be lower overall (and spans 7 years
>altogether - got my first ST in June 1985). Second, MOST of
>my software should be usable as is (unlike the upgrade from
>DOS based to Windows based applications).

What kind of bogus logic is this? You're telling me that a PC user
MUST upgrade to Windows and buy new Windows software??? Why, like
all his existing DOS software immediately stops working? Or Windows
doesn't run DOS software (which it does). So what exactly is the
point you're making in the paragraph above. I am missing it. Windows
is only installed on about 20% of the PCs out there. That means that
80% of your PCs are still booting up good old DOS and probably running
in text mode, just like most 520ST and 1040ST machines probably aren't
running TOS 2.06, aren't running Multi TOS, and aren't running a
We'll ignore the fact that the upgrade to TOS 1.4 was pretty well
mandatory if you wanted a usable ST, since TOS 1.0 was about 30%
at screen redraws and had those horrible hard disk bugs.

******************************************************************
* Anyone who proposes that users hang on to their DOS software   *
* when Windows version come out is just a bullshitter. In        *
* addition, in a business environment, the DOS codes with all    *
* their different user interfaces has caused industry $$$$$$$    *
* with training and retraining. Windows, with all of its stupid  *
* problems at least presents a standard interface to the user    *
******************************************************************


We'll also ignore the fact that when upgrading to TOS 1.04 or TOS 2.06,
much of your 1985 ST software fails to work, or works incorrectly, and
surprise surprise, you were forced to then upgrade to newer versions of
the software. Compatibility is even worse if you're moving up to a 68030
based machine like the Falcon or TT.

We'll also ignore the fact that some of the hottest selling software for
the ST were programs like Quick ST, Turbo ST, and currently Warp 9. Gee,
it seems that a lot of people weren't too satisfied with the speed of
GEM's screen redraws either.

Another thing that really annoys me is how stupid an Atari ST user pretends
to be when it comes to bitching about the redraw speed of Windows. Ok,
grade 4 math. The screen resolution of the ST in color is what? 320x200
in 16 colors. 320x200*4/8 = 32000 bytes of screen memory. A PC running
Windows is typically running what, a VGA. 640x480*4/8 = 153600 bytes of
screen memory. That's almost a 5:1 increase in screen resolution, which
duh, required either 5 times longer or 5 times the processor speed to
redraw compared to your ST. If you compared oranges to oranges, you'd find
that Windows isn't that slow after all. The closest thing to VGA mode on
the ST is TT medium resolution on the TT. Actually, TT medium resolution
IS EXACTLY the same as VGA mode. Boot up a TT and compare redraw speeds of
ST monochrome mode (640x400 mono) and TT medium resolution (640x480 16 colors).
Surprise, Surprise, you'll see a major speed difference. Look at the Mac,
it has very fast redraws compared to the ST, but that's because Macs had
the smaller 512x384 screen which only require about 20K of screen memory.

***********************************************************************
* BULLSHIT again; the PC is just a BAD platform for graphics. That's  *
* why a whole industry of hardware and software accelerators exist!   *
* Boy, did you see god when MS hired you or does it have a very good  *
* indoctrination program.                                             *
***********************************************************************

Also, considering that a 68000 chip is roughly equivalent to a 386SX running
at the same clock speed, a 386SX is slower than a 32 Mhz 68030 in the TT
or even the 16 Mhz 68030 in the Falcon. You run a TT in one of the TT modes
and then image it running half as slow. That's what you should expect out of
a 386SX!!!! The reason you buy a 486 for running Windows is the exact same
reason you get a 68030 for running GEM - faster screen redraws.

It is not my intention to start a flame war, which is why I didn't post this
in public. But I do think your arguments for the most part are bogus. I'd
like to hear you substantiate your claims a bit more, either in private
email or by clarifying your post in comp.sys.atari.st. For as long as you're
going to go on a PC bashing bunge, use facts not fiction.

**************************************************************************
* No intention for a FLAME war; then why initiate a dialog based on      *
* insults. I agree with other netters; crawl back in your hole. Better   *
* yet, crawl up your own hole                                            *
**************************************************************************

- Darek

--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Darek Mihocka, BraSoft, 14150 NE 20th St., Unit 302, Bellevue, WA 98007. |
| Creator of Gemulator, Quick ST, and Xformer. Views expressed are my own. |
\--------------------------------------------------------------------------/