==================================================================== (C) 1992 by Atari Corporation, GEnie, and the Atari RoundTables. May be reprinted only with this notice intact. The Atari RoundTables on GEnie are the *official* information services of the Atari Corporation. To sign up for GEnie service, call (with modem in HALF DUPLEX) 800-638-8369. Upon connection, type HHH Wait for the U#= prompt. Type XJM11877,GENIE and hit RETURN. The system will now prompt you for your information. ==================================================================== ************ Topic 20 Thu Aug 13, 1992 STRAMIEL [Atari CEO] at 15:41 EDT Sub: Atari Falcon 030 Computer Discussions on the Atari Falcon 030 Computer, being unveiled at the Duesseldorf Atari Messe August 21-23 in Germany. Be sure to check the CO transcript from the library, file #25262, FALCONCO.LZH 200 message(s) total. ************ ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 1 Tue Nov 10, 1992 J.RICHTER [J.RICHTER] at 00:40 EST ThunderBird, ATARI has repeatedly said that it is a TRUE 32 bit system.. else why the 32bit memory configurations!! 32 CHIPS (1) BIT PER CHIP!! I thought you were a guru... hmmmm I'm disapointed!!! Wally, Amen, The 386SX doubled to 32MHZ would be just FINE for what the Falcon needs thankyou.... Don't forget Windows 3.1 is only a 16bit operating system!! ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 2 Tue Nov 10, 1992 R.WATSON15 [Wayne Watson] at 00:42 EST 1 meg X 4 dram chips are selling for around $20.00 each. 4 meg X 1 drams are about the same. This is an average price of the chips from Byte magazine. I am sure you could get them cheaper. So, to go to 4 meg, it would cost about $120 (assuming there is 2 1 meg X 4 chips in there already). To go to 16 meg will cost about $600.00. Too bad they don't allow for 8 meg. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 3 Tue Nov 10, 1992 S.JOHNSON10 [Steve] at 01:08 EST D.ENGEL - The DSP is actually up to 96 MOPS (or 16 MIPS). That's where the 96 number comes from. People just got it confused. FAIRWEATHER - Yeah, I was somewhat shocked when I saw that $259 price for the unpopulated Zubair Falcon030 RAM upgrade board. When people expressed concerns before about the F030 not using SIMM's, people at Atari said that the price of RAM boards would be "competitive" with standard RAM prices. If Atari's F030 RAM boards are at all competitive (as they have said they would), I don't see how Zubair can sell ANY unpopulated boards for such a high price. However, that price makes me worry about how competitively-priced Atari's F030 RAM boards will be. S.DANUSER - Yes, but they could have made the same 386SX board with a 32-bit PDS, so there DOESN'T seem to be any logic there, especially with the ADDED EXPENSE to make it a 16-bit slot. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 4 Tue Nov 10, 1992 B.LINDSTROM [Bob L.] at 02:26 EST Yes, John. It's me. I left Ziff-Davis and went to work for Dynamix, Inc. Thought I'd try software development for awhile. To entertain myself, though, I still do a little freelance writing and I've been doing a little work lately for Electronic Musician, including an upcoming article on Atari and MIDI. Good to hear from you. Best, Bob L. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 5 Tue Nov 10, 1992 Z-NET at 03:20 EST Bob, send me an address in EMAIL and I'll update you on my project of the last 2 years... a monthly of my own called AtariUser. Though I miss the "easy money" of Computer Shopper! ;^* John Nagy ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 7 Tue Nov 10, 1992 J.BUDIL [Jonathan] at 08:48 EDT I gave in some time ago (May) and now have a Mac Quadra in addition to my STE. Obviously this wasn't because I knew Atari was going to be late with the Falcon; I had special needs. But I bring this up because guess what kind of sound I/O sockets this Quadra has? 1/8" stereo jacks. It sounds great when pumped out of my stereo, and I can use the same inexpensive 1/8"-to-RCA cable to record from my CD player; I don't have to use the included microphone if I don't want to. Apple makes all of its new Macs with these microphone jacks, and so do many IBM sound card manufacturers. Atari is following their lead. Obviously it meets the needs of the majority of users; if professionals want fancier inputs & outputs, they'll just have to buy system add-ons at a premium price that average users don't want to have to pay. As Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one. (To all those who are sick of this "jack"-off discussion, sorry. Look at it this way: we won't have anything concrete to talk about until January, so why not? Keeps the topic from waning.) ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 8 Tue Nov 10, 1992 J.EIDSVOOG1 [CodeHead] at 09:51 EST Thunderbird, I think what Wally was referring to was the rude, arrogant, condescending tone of nearly every message you leave in this topic. You seem to dominate this topic and consider yourself the ultimate authority on everything you discuss here. Perhaps it would help if you'd back up and take a look at the way you talk to people here. If you don't see it, maybe you should ask the opinion of someone else that you respect, if there is such a person. John ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 9 Tue Nov 10, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 18:16 EST Charlie: I don't understand what you mean about the Falcon Docs, so I'll explain my position more so that you understand why I am confused... I have a set of ST developers documents which I purchased for $100 from one of the first ST developers to go belly-up. The documentation is literally a pile of photocopies about 10" high, with about 7 or 8 colored cardboard dividers separating the individual sections. Of these photocopies, approximately 80% of them were GEM documentation pertaining to the IBM PC version of GEM, with no ST specific details. If I remember correctly, much of the IBM documents did not even apply to ST GEM. There were ST specific documents included, but since the kit was not organized or indexed, finding a specific topic was very difficult. Also included were a few spiral bound spec sheets (like you get from the supplier) for some of the individual components in the ST, like the Yamaha sound chip, and the floppy controller. These were stock spec sheets with no ST specific implimentation details. To my knowlege, nothing in the kit could not be found in the two books from Abacus: "ST Internals" and "ST GEM Programming" (I think those are the names), and the Abacus books were indexed and bound and were less than $40 together. The kit did come with some nice software, but it was not very well organized, and difficult to set up because of poor documentation. For many years, Atari representatives said that the ST developer's kit was being completely rewritten and updated, to eliminate the criticisms being made about it. So what I am wondering is if the Falcon030 documents are of superior quality to the ST docs, and if more Falcon specific details are covered in them. It would be greatly appreciated if you could describe the docs when you get them, because if they are the 'new' docs Atari has talked about, then I believe I could make a lot of use of them. Thanks. __________________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 10 Tue Nov 10, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 18:39 EST John: Yeah, so what's your point??? Did it ever occur to you that I may actually _be_ the ultimate authority on 'everything I discuss'??? I'm far to humble to make such a claim, but the possibility exists, does it not? Maybe it just _seems_ that way because I don't talk about things which I don't know a great deal about. Perhaps it just _appears_ that way because I don't pull any punches when people flame me. Might it not be the case that I am right some of the time? Consider this: you can read _ANYTHING_ you want into the tone of my messages. Did it ever occur to you that you might be arbitrarily assigning motives to me which simply do not exist? __________________________ \hunderbird 'cause this witch hunt is wasting a lot of time... ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 11 Tue Nov 10, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 18:51 EST J.Richter: > ATARI has repeatedly said that it is a TRUE 32 bit system.. else why the > 32bit memory configurations!! 32 CHIPS (1) BIT PER CHIP!! I thought you > were a guru... hmmmm I'm disapointed!!! If you are going to examine everything I post, looking for me to make some error or gaffe so that you can jump all over me, fine... First, the quantity of chips has little or nothing to do with the bus size, if designed in that manner. I have an ST with 32 1 bit chips in it, and it only has a 16 bit bus. I have seen the reports that the system has 32 bit data paths going to the RAM. This is probably true. But the specs which are floating around say that the 32 bit data path is for DMA, and does not say if or not if the CPU 'sees' the RAM as 32 bits wide. I recall Jim Allen asking Atari directly about this, and I don't recall seeing any answer to his question. To have a system architecture that is 32 bits wide, but the '030 only uses a 16 bit path to RAM will result in a slowdown of CPU access time. Considering that the CPU is 16MHz to begin with, it would really hurt performance to be limited to 16 bit data bus. This is all speculation based on _rumors_ which have been used by the local Amiga using Atari Bashers, and I am trying to get a definite answer. The fact that nobody knows the truth only gives the Atari bashers more fuel for flames. If you want to 'catch' me making an error, fine. However, don't hold me accountable for the things which I plainly state are based on rumors. I think I make it clear when I am quoting rumors, so there should be no mistake. Thanks. ________________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 13 Tue Nov 10, 1992 TOWNS [John@Atari] at 20:40 EDT The Falcon documentation is a small sized binder and the documentation has been done in PageStream. I think it is currently around 100-150 pages long as covers the Falcon030 specifics. As for older documentation.. since you aren't a registered developer and you don't have the current documentation, how do you know what the developer kit contains? The developer kit has been re-worked over the years. It has many new documents, it has been re-organized to make more sense, and comes complete with Atari binders for the kit. Do you have any other complaints, Thunderbird? -- John Townsend, Atari Corp. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 14 Tue Nov 10, 1992 ARCHIVIST at 20:57 EST Thunderbird, I don't have the docs yet so I can't give you a final answer just my understanding of the situation. I may not even understand this correctly, but... The docs you have are the basic developers docs. The Falcon docs are a suppliment to this information, detailing those things that are different in the Falcon from the old ST's. It would be nice, but as far as I know the Falcon doc's are NOT a complete re-write of the Old docs. They are additional information needed to utilise the new hardware and software features of the Falcon. Since the Falcon didn't exist at he time the old docs were assembled, the Falcon docs must, logically, be newly written information to suppliment the old docs. They are 'in addition too' not 'rather than'. So they could not contain the old binders of photocopys, they could at worst be NEW binders of photocopys. Of course, I could be completely wrong.... Charlie/sysop jr. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 15 Tue Nov 10, 1992 WAYNED. [Wayne] at 21:20 EST Is it my imagination or did MAS2473 change his GEnie name to D.ENGEL/Thunderbird? :-) Just kidding! NOT!! ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 16 Tue Nov 10, 1992 J.STANFORD2 [John@Lexicor] at 21:59 EST I can only comment on the Falcon developers docs, these may or may not be different from the ones available to the public. The documentation covers Falcon specific items. If it wasn't changed or added for the Falcon it isn't in there. Thats why they're called Falcon docs and not IBM GEM docs. My copy of the documentation is well layed out and in a nice three ring binder. I don't think we can make it any clearer without sending you my own copy, which obviously I can't do. John Stanford ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 17 Tue Nov 10, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 22:03 EST Towns: Thank you for the description of the new documentation. It's good to see you back. Would it be possible for you to post the various levels of Falcon developers registry that there are, and the name and address of the individuals to contact to enlist as one? Charley: Thanks also for clearing that up. Keep us posted when you get your documentation. __________________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 19 Tue Nov 10, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 22:14 EST John@Lexicor: Understood. Thanks. By the way, what's the good word on that Multimedia Hardware and Software that your company is working on? Sounds like a real winner. ___________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 21 Tue Nov 10, 1992 D.SEBERG [IceBerg] at 23:29 EST Wayne, I was "imagining" the exact same thing as you were. No MAS!!. The only way I could tell for sure is that Thunderbird has much better spelling than MAS did (does). Dave ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 22 Wed Nov 11, 1992 T.GIRSCH [T.J.] at 00:01 EST Thunderbird - I have sat idle in this topic long enough. While I agree that here was perhaps not the best place to reprimand you, I have to agree with Wally. Compare the specifications you have been getting here to the specifications you find for any other NOT YET RELEASED computer product, and you'll see that they are no more or less accurate, or specific. I would also remind you the TOWNS posts here on his _OWN_ time, not on Atari Corp's, so lighten up already. If you want to be upset (understandably) about the lack of Atari support here, leave E-mail to BOB-BRODIE, he's supposed to be director of communications. It's his job, complain to him. OK, so you would have liked to have seen RCA jacks. Fine, me too. But you can complain all you want here, and they still won't be on the Falcon in this incarntaion (perhaps the Tower Station will have them). Also, by way of comparison, we _own_ a SPARCstation 2 at the office, and I have torn apart all the manuals. I can't find specifications for a product _WE OWN_!!! I cant tell you the MHz rating, the processor type (actually, I believe it's proprietary) it's resolution, it's color palette, NOTHING!!! And we have probably two dozen or more manuals on the thing. So I wouldn't complain too terribly much about the info you receive here. I agree with Wally's content, but I agree with you that it was inappropriate to post here. Where are the topic cops when you need them?!? If this topic continues in the direction it is headed, I will do what Wally should have done and IGN PERM, or E-mail the cops. I won't ask you to lower yourself to my level by leaving E-mail, but I suggest that you NOT reply to this message here, since your reply will almost certainly have NOTHING to do with the Falcon. So, back to the TOPIC: Towns - The Falcon '030 is heralded as being an "entry level" machine. I'd be interested to know if you could give us any hints (please!!!) regarding the higher-end incarnations of the line. Thanks, - T.J. @ Atari Advantage ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 23 Wed Nov 11, 1992 J.RICHTER [J.RICHTER] at 01:31 EST Falcon Folks, Just thought you might want to see what the REST of the industry is up to..... INDEO(TM) VIDEO TECHNOLOGY DEBUTS On Nov. 10 in San Francisco, CEO Andy Grove and Microsoft chairman Bill Gates will announce a new software product that will bring video capabilities to users of Intel386(TM) and Intel486(TM) CPU-based computers. Microsoft's Video for Windows will cost $199 and enable digital video data to be created, edited and displayed on Intel X86 systems running the Microsoft Windows operating system. Intel's Indeo(TM) video technology is a patented algorithm embedded in Video for Windows that enables video compression, decompression, playback and one-step video capture. Indeo video technology is scalable, thus allowing the video quality to automatically adjust depending on available processor performance. By adding a video camera and a DVI(R) technology-based add-in board with a real-time capture feature, Indeo technology allows users to record video on a PC in one step. "For years, the necessary ingredients for digital video computing have been coming together like elements in a chemical reaction," says Andy. "We already have an installed based of tens of millions of PCs, Windows and Windows applications, and a rapidly growing number of networks. Now we have added Indeo technology to ignite a reaction that will turn a standard PC into a digital video computer." Says Bill Gates: "Video information in digital form will have a far-reaching impact on the way people communicate and access information. Intel and Microsoft share the vision of digital video computing and as a result, we are pleased to be incorporating Intel's Indeo technology in Video for Windows." Members of ASTG and MSCG have been involved in the creation of Indeo video technology. APPLE AND IBM TO INCORPORATE INDEO(TM) TECHNOLOGY Following the Intel and Microsoft joint press announcement, Apple and IBM will issue releases stating that they will incorporate Indeo(TM) technology into QuickTime* for Windows* (QTFW) and OS/2* software. This announcement will provide a standardized Intel video computing technology for all major desktop platforms. QTFW will be available through Apple's distribution network for developers. The IBM announcement represents a technology direction and their intent to incorporate Indeo technology into future versions of the OS/2 operating systems. BUSINESS VIDEO ON THE PC: INTEL'S SOLUTIONS COULD SPUR MARKET Intel's strategy is to provide cost-effective video solutions, including licensing the Indeo(TM) video software ingredient to operating system vendors and developers. This innovation should further stimulate sales of Intel X86-based PCs, MSCG Marketing director Claude Leglise explained recently. Intel seeks to expand the PC market from a 20 to 25 million unit a year market to one of 40 million by developing new uses for the PC. New uses include putting inexpensive video and audio on the PC. "We've looked at a number of things to increase the demand for PCs," Claude said, "but we think business video is very real -- it makes the PC a better communication tool. Video makes the PC easier to use, and that will bring new customers to the PC market place. It's easier to talk to a machine than to type; it's easier to watch pictures than to interpret numbers. This easier-to-use aspect will add to the potential size of the market." The addition of video to the PC will support collaborative work, as users exchange ideas real time. Product presentations, corporate communications, training applications, electronic mail and anytime a business person has to communicate a message more effectively are the areas in which users will see benefits from adding video. "It can communicate concepts and ideas more quickly in many situations," Claude said, "and what better way to communicate than to see the person you are talking to." A competitive advantage for Intel is in compression and decompression algorithms, the newest of which is the Indeo video software. Intel developed the Indeo technology because there was no other technology available that could provide good quality playback on PCs as well as perform simple desktop recording. Another Intel strength, the i750(R) video processor family, also is available today. "They are inexpensive -- in the $50 range -- so we're out there with a solution for OEMs," Claude said. "And, ActionMedia(R) II boards sold through OEMs (like IBM) provide acceleration and higher quality. Strategically Intel is very well positioned to play an important role as video gets on to the PC." Ultimately, video is important to Intel because of opportunities to sell video subsystems and video components. "Whether it's adding cards through IPG or components through MSCG, we think the market for video solutions is going to be big." Claude said. "Big enough in the next couple of years to give us additional intere ing silicon and board projects." ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 24 Wed Nov 11, 1992 TOWNS [John@Atari] at 01:44 EDT Thunderbird.. I am going to ask you to stop your flaming wars with everyone in this topic, please. If we can't get this topic to get back to it's purpose (to provide the users of the Atari RT with info on the Falcon030), then I will have to ask the SysOps to jump in. Please take your fights with J.RICHTER and others to other areas. BTW.. Your message to John Eidsvoog didn't win you any friends. -- John ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 25 Wed Nov 11, 1992 J.RICHTER [J.RICHTER] at 01:51 EST ThunderBird, They say its a 32 bit system... I believe them already.. why would they lie about something so BASIC .... the 32 bit wide memory systems I use at work also must jump from 4megs to 16megs(4X) yes, you have 32 chips in your 1040.. but because of the 16 mem bus you can jump in memory in a 2X fashion! ie 256k,512K,1024K,2048K ... etc etc NO this does NOT prove its a 32bit path but it's a 90% probability!! ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 26 Wed Nov 11, 1992 S.JOHNSON10 [Steve] at 02:18 EST J.RICHTER - Not really! It grabs memory in 32-bit chunks, but that doesn't necessarily make it a "TRUE" 32-bit system. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 27 Wed Nov 11, 1992 ST.REPORT [Ralph] at 06:21 EST Amazing... simply amazing. The guy asks a simple yes/no question and gets dumped all over. Why doesn't Atari answer the 32bit question? Is it _that_ difficult to answer?? Is the Falcon a _true_ 32bit machine? Yes or No? Ralph @ STReport International Online Magazine ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 28 Wed Nov 11, 1992 F.BELL1 [Frank @ Home] at 16:26 EST When I opened the first Falcon topic last year it was dumped because, amoung other things, the Falcon hadn't yet been 'announced', there was no information on the Falcon, Atrai wasn't saying anything about the Falcon and the Falcon wasn't in production. Since then the Falcon has been announced. What else is new? Frank... ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 29 Wed Nov 11, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 19:44 EST Towns and Co. : I have _repeatedly_ attempted to steer this topic back to the intended porpose. I have done this repeatedly. YOU and others like you have CHOSEN to stick to the flaming by incessantly posting messages casting aspersions upon my character. So, defending myself makes me the bad guy? Now aren't we being just a touch hypocritical??? Now you threaten to bring in the SysOps because I won't let you have the last word? If you people can't resist the temptation to jump onto the "Let's Flame Thunderbird!" bandwagon, don't act so surprised if I don't take it laying down. I personally don't mind, but for the sake of those who come here to read about a computer, chill out. It's your choice, and if you _really_ want to talk about the Falcon instead of me, then by all means do it. It's up to you. _____________________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 31 Wed Nov 11, 1992 J.TRAUTSCHOL [jtrautschold] at 20:31 EST Wayne... Nah...Thunderbird can't be MAS2473 - T-Bird doesn't "speak" in broken sentences! :-) ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 32 Wed Nov 11, 1992 B.AEIN [B Man] at 22:17 EST Mike.k, Atari sent the Demo Falcons to Toad, and that is the box you saw. Bman ----------- Tuesday November 10, 1992 ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 33 Wed Nov 11, 1992 SLP at 22:42 EST Tbird, I admit the original developer docs for the ST could have been better, but the supplemental docs, and the newsletters make the package worth it. In less than a week from now Atari will be at COMDEX, proudly showing off their new equipment. Why can't we wait until then to see just what's announced or shown? Who knows, there might even be some surprises for us. Scott ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 34 Wed Nov 11, 1992 J.RICHTER [J.RICHTER] at 23:23 EST Johnson, Huh!!, Internal 32 bit 68030 with 32 bit memory and 32/64 bit video !! Not a true 32 bit system?? If this is NOT a true 32 bit system ... Please find me one!!! We may nit pick here, but the Falcon is going to be ONE HELAVA satisfying system!! Step back.. Get out a the specs... look at the BIG picture!! I am typing on a 8MHZ system with 1/4 the graphic power 1/10 the audio power and capability, a 720K floppy no SCSI II out ports, 4meg mem max without MultiTOS!!! and we are sitting around arguing wether we can hear the difference between .001 distortion and .00075 distortion... MEANINGLESS Software and OS are EVERYTHING, the difference between 16bit buses and 32 bit buses have FAR less of an impact in both SPEED and Productivity!! ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 35 Wed Nov 11, 1992 ARCHIVIST at 23:28 EST Ah, I see John provided an authoritative answer just before my speculations. Thanks John. Charlie/sysop jr. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 36 Thu Nov 12, 1992 S.JOHNSON10 [Steve] at 01:25 EST TOWNS - I seriously doubt he'll ever run out of complaints. I've already run mine into the ground, but he seems to be digging for China with his. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 37 Thu Nov 12, 1992 S.DANUSER [Soul Manager] at 03:38 EST Thunderbird - Uh, I think you've pretty much shot the last shards of your credibility to hell. Too bad, you've have some pretty good messages sometimes. Your war with J.Richter was getting a bit much, and then you go and attack a Codehead. Unwise. I think the Johns (E. and T.) did a nice job of putting you in your place. Too bad you refuse to stay there. Take the hint and cool out for a while. The Falcon 030 is a 24 bit machine. It was designed this way to give greater compatability with STE software. As I understand it, it will be possible to add 32 bit RAM, but doing so will lose the higher level of compatability and bring it to the level of a TT. The Falcon 030 is really an upgrade from the STE. As such, it succeeds brilliantly; anyone with a standard ST (or Mega) should be delighted by the enhancements available in the Falcon. But for powerhouse, speed-intensive users, the TT still exists (and can be had through a dealer for about the same price as a comparably equipped Falcon lists for). While the TT is quite tempting at this point, I'm holding out for the Falcon, even though the TT is a more powerful machine. The little woman would never let me buy _2_ new computers. No flames. Just facts. Soul Manager ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 38 Thu Nov 12, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 06:46 EST Actually, A posting of Falcon030 Quick Index numbers should resolve any question about bus width. We simply have to wait for someone to post some #'s... ______________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 40 Thu Nov 12, 1992 J.ALLEN27 [FAST TECH] at 10:46 EST Two questions have been posed to Atari: A) Is the data path from memory to the 68030 32bits wide, or not? As an example, the MacLC has only a 16bit path, they saved $ on not needing 32bit wide this and that. It DEFINITELY has an affect on speed. B) Does the Blitter chip place its ADDRESS on the 68030 address bus when it performs operations, video, DMA, etc? This answer will determine whether a "cached" acceleration means can be used in the system, or not, and I would appreciate an answer. Now Towns will plead "I don't know.", and Rehbock will continue to dodge the question or not show up online. Just what does that say about the company, and their level of support for the new product, if they can't ANSWER those two simple questions. I've tried all private means possible, and am forced to come here, and ask. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 41 Thu Nov 12, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 18:06 EST J.RICHTER: I think Steve and I are drawing the same conclusions... we both think that the system data paths are 32 bits wide in the Falcon030. This would make your deductions about the RAM chip arrangement absolutely true. The DMA system and video system would use this 32 bit bus to access the RAM. I believe that this has been stated by Atari. But, what hasn't been confirmed is whether the 68030 is connected to RAM by a direct 32 bit wide data path. Maybe the CPU gets data from RAM in 16 bit wide pieces. If this is true, then it possibly will cut the speed of the computer. _______________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 42 Thu Nov 12, 1992 SAM-RAPP [<>] at 22:20 EST Thunderbird---------> The Falcon Doc pac is probably the most professional looking documentation I have ever seen come out of Atari. Wayne Watson--------> 4 meg x 8 , 70ns SIMMS are available from several vendors for less than $100 each, bringing 16meg-o-Falcon-Ram down to around $400. Just because Atari says ya can't use SIMMS, I wouldn't bet on it... Bob L.--------> While at dynamix, how about a few Falcon titles ??????...... ----------------> Sam ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 44 Thu Nov 12, 1992 J.ALLEN27 [FAST TECH] at 23:12 EST I took careful measurements inside a rev 4 production Falcon, there is room for a 3rd party to make either a SIMM based or dip based or SMD ram board. By mounting the board up high, and putting super low profile SIMM sockets upside down under neither, and using "short" SIMMs, it's a snap. It would be 4 4Mbx8 60-80ns SIMMs. Frankly anyone with half a brain can make one, and for very little investment up front, so hopefully plenty of companies will. But first, they need to sell lots of computers ;-) The MacLC and Mac ClassicII both have 68030 chips but 16bit data paths to ram, it does make the units quite slow, but either can can sped up with an addon accelerator. All I'm trying to find out is if the Falcon has this attribute, and either way, can it be sped up by normal means or does the blitter keep its actions "secret"? Simple questions, and not very confidence-building when noone at Atari seems to be able to answer them. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 45 Fri Nov 13, 1992 S.JOHNSON10 [Steve] at 01:30 EST J.RICHTER - Sorry, I just meant that "TRUE" can be a somewhat subjective term. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 46 Fri Nov 13, 1992 J.RICHTER [J.RICHTER] at 01:40 EST ThunderBIRD, Thanks for your input, to me its sounds like 32bit.. but we will just have to see what ATARI REALLY has to offer!! but if it is INDEED (3) times faster than my Mega4 and far more capable WHO CARES??!! I think they still have a bottle neck at the Video anyway.... I will ASK ATARI in person at COMDEX! this is an ENTRY LEVEL MACHINE and those folks JUST DON'T care about these things!! We will have the '040 Falcon soon enough.. don't worry!! ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 47 Fri Nov 13, 1992 D.MCNAMEE [Dan @ Atari] at 15:33 EST Jim, What is wrong with John, or myself even, pleading ignorance on your question? We are both in the software department, not hardware, and don't readily know these things. It's not like we designed the hardware or anything. Also, of course Bill will not answer your question here. It is about the internals of an unreleased machine. Why don't you try asking these questions in the developers rountable, where they belong. Maybe you will get an answer. Dan ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 48 Fri Nov 13, 1992 K.HOUSER [Kevin MQ Def] at 20:01 EST Jim Allen, Why don't you 'borrow' one and tie it to the ole' logic analyzer? :) Isn't Jim Tittsler one of the Atari Hardware guys? He was really knowledgeable on the TT video chips. Have you tried contacting him? --Kevin ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 49 Fri Nov 13, 1992 J.NESS [Jim] at 21:47 EST Dan McNamee - "the internals of an unrealeased machine." Now I am confused... I thought the machine WAS a released machine, but just hadn't started to ship yet. Are you saying that it won't be official, and therefore "discuss-able" until units ship? Or, until Comdex? Or...? -JN ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 50 Fri Nov 13, 1992 J.ALLEN27 [FAST TECH] at 23:20 EST Dan: A) I have asked all these things in the developer area, they have gone UN ANSWERED there for MONTHS and MONTHS. The area is next to useless, since questions are rarely answered. B) No, you don't know the answer, and I'm not asking for an answer off the top of your software oriented head, only that you go ask WHOMEVER IS the guy who would know, and relay the answer. Is that too much to ask of people doing online support for Atari? Look back in this topic, I asked those questions repeatedly over many months. C) You fooled me, we were ALL under the impression the machine WAS released, and on sale in Germany to some extent. You people have asked your developer community to put our minds to the task of supporting this new machine, and make plans for our businesses in reference to it, and yet you provide NO ANSWERS to critical... to my business ABSOLUTELY DO OR DIE QUESTIONS, thunbs up/down kinda questions....questions which have been asked in private, in the dev RT, and here. Obviously there is a problem getting ANY support from Atari. I asked in Toronto, I asked at Glendale, I asked at WAACE I asked at the BCS showing, I asked on the phone...a dozen times. Here, at least, if they go unanswered, my customers (to be) will know precisely why I can't tell them when or even if I can do anything to pep up the Falcon. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 51 Sat Nov 14, 1992 FAIRWEATHER [David] at 01:41 EST As Ross Perot would say, "Atari guards the answers to these simple questions as if they were the secrets to the atomic bomb!" Jim, if they told you, they'd have to kill you. I think its probably safe to assume that it is EMBARRASMENT that keeps Atari from answering, and whichever answers you DON'T want to hear, are most likely the truth. Assume the worst. Doesn't Dave Small have a Falcon? Why can't you ask him to do some reverse engineering for you? ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 52 Sat Nov 14, 1992 G.ANDERSON at 03:06 EST Dan.... PLEASE try and get one of the 'hardware' guys to come over to the Atari and AtariDev forums once in a while.. Yes, it is unfair to ask a software guru to answer hardware questions, but it is also unfair to a lot of us not to have a hardware guru to answer hardware questions. I know that you guys are here on-line ON YOUR OWN TIME and not Atari's, and we appreciate your being here... but the 'boss' really should let you have some help now and then from the hardware department to help you out. Thanks old buddy, I'll be seeing you in a few months (better alert the dobbermans, I'm on my way ). Gregg ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 53 Sat Nov 14, 1992 B.STOREY [Billy B.] at 06:34 EST As I stated once before, there is no limit to the ingenuity of people. If there is shown to be a need for a capability, someone will find a way to provide it. Not to worry, Atari may not believe Falcon can use SIMMS, but I'll bet someone finds a way. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 55 Sat Nov 14, 1992 R.WATSON15 [Wayne Watson] at 09:56 EST Sam, Who said anything about SIMMS. Someone asked about what it would take to upgrade and I posted some numbers I found on the chips they use at the moment. It would be nice to be able to use SIMMS though. Maybe in the seperate keyboard model. Jim, Maybe when Atari fired their Falcon designers, maybe they also lost all knowledge of the machine. Maybe noone does know the answer. Ralph, Yea, that's it. They could start a 'Ask Leonard' feedback section for our questions and get answers uploaded to this section. NOT! ROTFL with ya. I think he bit off more than he could chew. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 56 Sat Nov 14, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 14:52 EST Here is a question for the DTV gurus out there... A fellow trying to decide whether to buy a Video Toaster, or wait for the Falcon030 equivalent asked me if the Falcon030 would require a Timebase Corrector on any non-'live' video inputs. I understand that the Toaster requires them on every input and they cost $500+ apiece. Does anyone know if DTV on the Falcon030 will require a TBC? On a different topic, I saw an interesting application being developed using the 56001 DSP. It was being used to create what could best be described as a zone of silence around the headrests in a car. The DSP was generating interfering sounds using speakers in the headrests, which cancelled out the normal wind/tire/drivetrain sounds in the car. The reduction in noise is said to be very dramatic. Also, look for DSPs to be used more and more for other Automotive applications, like engine control, antilock brakes, intelligent transmissions, etc. These things are really exciting a lot of engineers! ______________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 57 Sat Nov 14, 1992 K.HULET at 15:05 EST On page 70 of the latest Current Notes Dave Small says, "It's a 16 MHz 68030 on a 16-bit bus (NOT 32 bit, contrary to Atari's specs)". First I saved for a TT, then when I heard about the Falcon I thought it would be a logical upgrade path for my 1985 ST, now I'm feeling nervous about sticking with Atari. The machines aren't available and honest information is scarce. Why won't Atari answer Jim Allen's questions so he can tell us what's possible and what's not. Isn't the machine released? ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 58 Sat Nov 14, 1992 J.RICHTER [J.RICHTER] at 16:54 EST Jim Allen, The answer must be NO or else they would have responed by now.. or maybee all our inputs have prompted a LAST minute change to make us all happy.. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 59 Sat Nov 14, 1992 J.RICHTER [J.RICHTER] at 17:13 EST Hmmm, I can't believe it! We all talking ourselves into and out of buying a Falcon without even seeing it! ... hmmm, new way to save on production cost or what? ... I mean, at the on-line conference MONTHS ago ATARI was adamant about the Falcon030 being a TRUE 32 bit system! and if it is not it will still be a nice system! But they must know that if trust is broken this time around it ALL OVER FOR ATARI!!! ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 60 Sat Nov 14, 1992 WAYNED. [Wayne] at 17:31 EST Jim Allen, I wonder (just a hunch) if Atari might be holding off the release to do some "tweaking" to the Falcon similiar to what they did before releasing the TT. If you recall they were all set to go (or so THEY said) and then when they heard the complaints about the processor speed, etc they went back to the drawing board to address some of the major concerns. Hopefully that's what they are doing here with respect to the PDS and the questions you and others have been asking here. Since it's FAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR too late for any hopes of getting machines into the Christmas cycle (why, oh why does Atari continually miss this GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY??) they might as well put out a machine as close to what the majority of people want. Now lets just hope they actually DO IT!!! Wayne ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 61 Sat Nov 14, 1992 J.TRAUTSCHOL [jtrautschold] at 22:15 EST Thunderbird... Although I know of no software yet that'll act like the Toaster does on the Amiga, being a video professional I can almost guarantee that TBCs will be required for tape sources feeding the Falcon. Most tape sources are inherently unstable without time base correction, but not only that, they need to be synchronized somehow with other sources that are to be mixed with them. Therefore, either a TBC or full frame store is a requirement. $500 isn't a lot to pay for a TBC these days. It was only a few years ago that TBCs sold in the $20K range. Computer technology and cheaper memory helped to bring the cost way down. Your DSP information was quite interesting. I'm also a private pilot and a number of headset manufacturers have been working on noise reducing headsets for aircraft. They aren't currently using digital techniques (all analog) but they do work quite well. Unfortunately, the price is double what some of those TBCs cost! Top-of-the-line headsets are going for about a grand a pop! :-) John T. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 62 Sat Nov 14, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 23:58 EST K.HULET: Thanks for posting that info. If it comes from Daver Small, it might as well be the 11th commandment, so it looks like I'm in for a good bashing next time I see the local Amiga group. There's always the Falcon040. I hope they announce it at COMDEX. John T.: I was wondering if somehow the designers of the Falcon had put some nifty scheme into the video hardware which would eliminate the need for TBC's. Analog technology (especially 70 year old 'high tech') was never my forte'. Still, there's this rumored device for toasting the toaster from the Lexicor people. We'll have to see what it does. I suspect that a DSP based noise reducing headphone set is under development somewhere... probably a high-end consumer device, with neato special effects too. The technology is reported to be _really_ up and coming. Atari _may_ even be the first company to market a computer with a DSP, if C= doesn't beat them to the punch. __________________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 63 Sun Nov 15, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 00:53 EST What? Am I on GLUE? The NeXT has a built-in DSP! How could I forget that??? That tears it... I've been programming in Dbase IV toooo long! Gotta get back to Laser 'C'! G'night all, ____________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 64 Sun Nov 15, 1992 M.POCHE [Mick] at 02:23 EST I've read alot recently about using electronics for noise reduction. Basically, the noise is "recorded" electronically, then the waveform of the noise is reversed and played back through either headphones or a speaker, effectively (affectively?) elimination the original noise. They cancel each other out. I've seen designs for a car muffler that uses this technique. I don't know if it uses a DSP like in the Falcon though. (He says, trying to stay somewhat on topic.) Here's a question I've had in my head for a while, but never thought to ask anyone who might know the answer. On the DSP port, would it be possible to have more than one device hooked up to it at the same time? I have no idea what it would be used for other than the "modem box" for DPS modeming, but was just wondering if it's dedicated to one device at a time. Guess this should be in the "ASK SAM" area, huh? - Mick ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 65 Sun Nov 15, 1992 C.KLIMUSHYN [-Chuck-] at 07:34 EST Gee, I think Sam's conference Monday is going to be hot...er, I mean interesting! :) Best Regards, -Chuck- p.s. The old girl still sounds like the best entry level computer on the market, warts, PDS, and questionable bus included. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 66 Sun Nov 15, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 09:45 EST Mick: Unfortunately, my Motorola databooks are at work, so I can't compare the pinouts of the DSP to the domumentation I've seen posted about the DSP port and give you a more detailed answer, but I will endeavour to construct a theory about multiple DSP devices... The pinout of the DSP port I am looking at has no explanations for the signals, but has signal names which can give us a clue as to their functions. I notice that 3 of the pins are labeled 'GP0-GP2', which implies that theses are "General Purpose" I/O lines. I suppose that these lines could be used in some fashion as a method of addressing a specific DSP port device, nominally giving you the capability of 8 devices. Of course all DSP port devices would have to conform to some sort of 'standard' addressing scheme, so that they would all cooperate. I have heard that the DSP port is pin compatible with the DSP port of the NeXT, so perhaps the NeXT developers have tackled this problems already and there is already a standard in place. Maybe someone should ask the NeXT people about this? On another note, is there a TOPic on the COMDEX show around here? It takes soooooo long for aladdin to update my topic list. _________________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 67 Sun Nov 15, 1992 DOUG.W [ICD RT] at 11:55 EST Thunderbird, A time-base corrector (TBC) is always required whenever two video signals need to be synchronized. In some cases, the TBC is "hidden" - for example, most professional video cameras have a TBC built in, and many video mixing consoles have built-in TBCs. --Doug ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 68 Sun Nov 15, 1992 J.COLE18 [John Cole] at 18:39 EST TBC's (time-base correctors) will still be needed with a profesional atari setup (it doesnt exist yet, so dont ask what that includes :-) Put very simply, if anyone has read Dave Smalls lectures on Video, you will remember that your TV scans each picture one line at a time. without a TCB the current frame for one device (VCR, TV, ect) may not start at the same time as another (VCR, TV, ect) which could present a problem and/or loss of quality. A TBC makes sure that each frame starts at the same time. See, not all that complicated, but still nessisary. John @ Lexicor ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 69 Sun Nov 15, 1992 J.TRAUTSCHOL [jtrautschold] at 20:01 EST Thunderbird... I suppose it might be possible to do a bit of time base correction with additional hardware and the guts of the Falcon. I've never looked into doing it though, so don't know how difficult it would be. I don't think that the DSP alone could handle it with just software. There's more to time base correction than signal processing, and remember, the DSP is basically a really fancy math coprocessor. John T. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 70 Mon Nov 16, 1992 J.PIERCE5 [Rob] at 00:51 EST According to a friend with the Falcon docs, the PDS is 16 bits wide. He's checking about the blitter question. Can someone (Jim?) restate the blitter question (something like does it place its address on the stack or something), so I can have him investigate it more thoroughly. Rob ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 71 Mon Nov 16, 1992 S.JOHNSON10 [Steve] at 02:04 EST B.STOREY - With the outrageous cost of the Zubair Falcon RAM board (assuming it IS unpopulated, as stated) I HOPE someone comes up with a simple, inexpensive SIMM interface RAM board. That Zubair board has had me worried that the Falcon RAM boards will be nowhere even NEAR being competitively- priced. J.RICHTER - Yes, but the misleading statements being made by Atari make it seem like 'business as usual' at Atari, which isn't a very promising prospect. I, for one, am a bit nervous, but I'm not going to pass judgement until I actually see the damn thing. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 72 Mon Nov 16, 1992 J.ALLEN27 [FAST TECH] at 12:21 EST The blitter question is: During DMA and graphics operations, does the blitter chip place onto the 68030 address bus, and 68030 data bus, the address of and data of the operation. In other words, when the blitter draws a line, does the 68030 chip "see" the accesses as they occur, so that a _cache_ at the 030 chip's location can be kept up-to-date with the memory alterations the blitter makes. This will be ESPECIALLY important when a 68040 chip is used, so I HOPE Atari has done the correct thing, otherwise there will need to be OS changes to "flush" the 040 caches every time the blitter blits, etc. Also, does the 68030 always get put asleep using the standard DMA handshake pins when the blitter does it's thing? In other words, when the blitter does DMA/graphics, is the 68030 bumped off the memory bus using the DMA lines...this would allow an external cache to be "flushed" on all blitter activity, if the answer to the first question is NO. As for QIndex numbers: Running in ST HIGH compatibility mode, compared against TOS 1.4 in ST MONO, the Falcon (production, rev 4) produces: Memory 487 Register 406 divide 507 shift 1737 text 167 string 172 scroll 219 draw 204 Obviously it could use Warp9 ;-) ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 73 Mon Nov 16, 1992 TOWNS [John@Atari] at 15:01 EDT Once and for all.. The Falcon030 has a 24bit Address Bus and a 16bit Data Bus. The expansion port on the machine represents that bus. The Falcon030 can have a minimum of 1 meg of RAM and a maximum of 14 megs of RAM. Possible RAM configurations are 1meg, 4meg, or 16 megs of RAM. -- John Townsend, Atari Corp. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 74 Mon Nov 16, 1992 DENNYA [Denny Atkin] at 16:34 EST Sixteen bit data bus eh? Rats. Hello, Mac LC II performance. :-( ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 76 Mon Nov 16, 1992 D.MCNAMEE [Dan @ Atari] at 17:44 EST Jim Ness, The Falcon is not a released machine. It's not on the dealers shelves, therefore not released. Dan Jim Allen, A) Sorry, I must have missed your messages over there. I don't remember seeing them. B) I'll see if I can get someone to get a hold of you about your questions, but do you really expect that answers about the internal operations of the computer (some of which may or may not be covered by NDA. I don't know if they are or not) would be answered here in a public forum? C) I haven't heard anything about the computer shipping anywhere yet, but I'm also not in sales and marketing in the US, let alone in Germany, so it could have started shipping weeks ago and I don't know about it. As far as I know it is still unreleased. Why don't you drop me an Email with your specific questions, and I will see what I can do about answers. Dan ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 77 Mon Nov 16, 1992 REALM [Joey] at 19:19 EST I know you guys at Atari are doing your best and I appreciate every little scrap of support dangled in front of me but... Atari appears to me to be the most unorganized corporation in the universe. This is based only on personal experience so it may just be me. Being a potential customer (not to mention a surviving customer) maybe I'm suppose to know the Falcon isn't available but what was all that roll out stuff about a month ago? If the thing isn't released why did we roll it out, start a topic, then never respond there again? None of this makes any sense to me... Why must the customer always be the one trying to figure out what and the heck is going on with Atari? If the Falcon isn't released then don't hope over to Germany and introduce it to the world and don't announce it on GEnie and don't allow magazines to do four page articles on it. Possible thats where the customer gets confused. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 78 Mon Nov 16, 1992 R.MORROW10 [Bob M.] at 20:46 EST Isn't the time base corrector thingy known as the SMPTE track? (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 79 Mon Nov 16, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 22:43 EST Denny: Ouch! That hurts. This is one time when I really would have _loved_ to have been incorrect. The Qindex numbers prove it out... a 32 bit system would have shown memory numbers twice those of the registers (approx), and all the other numbers would be (have been) similarly increased. Perhaps the F040 will have 32/32... ___________________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 81 Tue Nov 17, 1992 T.GIRSCH [T.J.] at 00:56 EST Thunderbird - Given that the 68040 is a 64-bit processor, it would not surprise me in the least if it was 32/32. My previous question regarding the possibility of higher-end incarnations of the Falcon was not answered, but it's possible that this is not the appropriate topic. So I'll start a new one... - T.J. @ Atari Advantage ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 82 Tue Nov 17, 1992 J.RICHTER [J.RICHTER] at 04:06 EST Mr. Towns, "Once and for all".. Sheesh... as if it were EVER SAID AT ALL BEFORE BY ATARI OR REP!! It is still a SWEET SYSTEM with 16bit data bus.. SO WHY THE MIS-LEADING coments in the past?? Why make fouls of us who proclaimed " True 32 bit Archetiture!! to our friends ..... Another words the Falcon is the 386SX of computerdom!! With super fancy sound and average VGA video!! hmmmmmm sounds like a price cut is in order and the system is still NOT RELEASED. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 84 Tue Nov 17, 1992 J.RICE5 [Joe Rice] at 04:35 EST Bob M., SMPTE time code is a signal recorded on an audio track used to mark frames for editing and "resolved" or correct speed playback. A time base corrector is used to synchronize a video signal to a reference signal - line 1 on each frame will begin at exactly the same time - and usually allows you to adjust the video level, setup(black) level, chroma, and hue. Joe ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 85 Tue Nov 17, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 06:38 EST J.RICHTER: For once we agree on something!!! J.ALLEN27: If the DMA system is truly 32 bits, would it even be possible for the 68030 to 'see' the DMA accesses, being that it's 'blind in one eye'??? _______________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 86 Tue Nov 17, 1992 S.WINICK at 09:31 EST Joey, Any company that spends so much effort appearing to be "selling" its yet unreleased products while existing, real products are ignored, isn't doing themselves, or their dealers and supporters, any real good. We're now coming into the holiday buying season where many companies look forward to one of their most profitable seasons of the year. Most successful companies have already geared up new ad campaigns for the products they actually have available for sale in order to maximize their potential profits for themselves and their dealers. I'm sure you've seen the excellent new Mac commercials on TV already, for example. At this time of year, I can't think of many successful companies that are instead spending so much effort in promoting 'next year's products'. That sure doesn't encourage the typical consumer to buy now. And the typical consumer will spend the same amount of money during the holiday buying season regardless of whether or not a Atari product is on his or her shopping list. As Dan said, "The Falcon is not a released machine." It is therefore currently not in our marketing plans for the Holiday '92 shopping season. Current Atari models that deserve attention are the 1040STe, MegaSTe (there are still a few in the pipeline at the present time, but they're unfortunately becoming scarce much too fast), the high end TT030 workstation, and of course, the Portfolio. The potential computer shopper looking to buy during the holiday season will either buy one of those models from Atari, or an offering from a competitor. If you were in the business of selling computers, what would you be advertising and promoting during November and December? Sheldon (Computer STudio - Asheville, NC) ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 87 Tue Nov 17, 1992 DENNYA [Denny Atkin] at 12:43 EST TJ, The 040 isn't 64-bit, just 32-bit. I'd certainly hope that an 040 design would be true 32-bit... ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 88 Tue Nov 17, 1992 F.BELL1 [Frank @ Home] at 16:59 EST Sheldon, Atari doesn't even seem interested in selling its older, existing, real products let alone unreleased machines. While, like you said, >most successful companies have already geared up new ad campaigns for the products they actually have [...]< Atari has gone out of it way to do nothing (and that after getting down on all fours and virtually promissing all of us that this year would be different). Sure, not >many successful companies< [...] are >spending so much effort in promoting 'next year's products'< but the Falcan was suppose to be 'this year's product'. I seem to remember quite a few 'cross my heart and hope to dies' earlier this year promissing us just that. Anyway, on the brighter side: the first batch/production run of dealer Falcons has been hitting the sheves in the last few weeks (I'm talking Germany), many devolpers are getting their machine and magazine articles (even newspaper articles) are becomming more frequent and more exact. In fact, one just printed the following Quick Index 2.1 figures: Video Mode: ST High VGA 16 Colors 256 Colors CPU Memory 473 (197) 406 357 Register 402 (254) 402 298 Divide 502 (254) 502 500 Shifts 1708 (259) 1708 1708 TOS Text 158 (199) 88 47 String 146 (192) 97 59 Scroll 210 (115) 40 15 GEM Dialog 192 (203) 153 114 The bracketed figures are from my Meag ST4 containing Jim Allen's T20 for comparison. Frank... ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 89 Tue Nov 17, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 18:19 EST Sheldon: What about the "Creamed Spinach Color" Sega Game Gear Ads which I've been seeing every 15 minutes? How come Atari isn't raking in the PILES of NEEDED CAPITAL by pushing the LYNX like this???????? Maybe the ads will start after black friday I hope and pray!!! ___________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 90 Tue Nov 17, 1992 TOWNS [John@Atari] at 19:01 EDT Jim.. Here are some answers to your BLiTTER questions: 1. Yes, during DMA and graphics operations, the BLiTTER does place on the A24/D16 bus the address and data of the operation. It works exactly like the ST BLiTTER did. In addition, the A24/D16 bus is the PDS bus in the Falcon030. In regards to your comments about flushing the cache in the 030, TOS currently does this. 2. Yes, the 68030 is bumped off the memory bus when DMA is active. I was told that it uses the standard 68K bus handshaking methods. Everyone else.. NOTE: I made a mistake earlier in my message. The 16 MB RAM condfiguration of the Falcon030 is NOT possible. The max RAM configuration is 14 MB. -- John Townsend, Atari Corp. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 91 Tue Nov 17, 1992 J.LYONS16 [JPL] at 19:47 EST Is anyone working on a "modem emulator" program for the DSP chip yet? Seems I remember someone saying that the DSP chip could be used as a high speed modem. Considering the price of high speed modems ($200-$400), someone should be able to make a good bit of change from a "modem program". ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 92 Tue Nov 17, 1992 G.DORRINGTON [GREG] at 20:05 EST T.J. - 64 BIT? Where'd you get that data? My info shows the 68040 to be 1.3 cycle per instruction 32 bit microprocessor. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 93 Tue Nov 17, 1992 J.NESS [Jim] at 20:49 EST Personally, I think it's great that John Townsend is now posting hardware info. Clearly, he has found a "path" to that data, and received permission to post it. It may not be happy info for some, but at least it's info. (and, jeez, how about that Quick Index info? we clearly need to see Warp 9 updated for the Falcon, don't we?) -JN ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 94 Tue Nov 17, 1992 K.DRAKE [SirFransis] at 20:59 EST John, I thought you had to have 16 meg installed but the last two megs were mapped somewhere else so they were unusable. Is that right? Sailing the Simmy seas, Sir Fransis ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 95 Tue Nov 17, 1992 REALM [Joey] at 21:00 EST Sheldon, I don't know... shrug? Clearly they have the ability to create a good system at a decent price. Like you said, instead of officially releasing an officially unreleased product, why aren't they pushing the current systems? I still don't comprehend how you can officially release a product thats not officially released? The base seemed better off when they just denied it's existance. Possible there using a defective Magic 8 Ball to make decisions. I can see them sitting around shaking the thing now... "Should we sell systems for Christmas?" Maybe? "Should me support or users?" Maybe? "Whats wrong with this damn thing!" Shake, shake, "Is this Ball defective?" Maybe? "Doogh!!":- ) Thunderbird, That Sega commercial with the dog is great! I like the way they compare the game boy to drinking out of the toilet.:-) ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 96 Tue Nov 17, 1992 R.WATSON15 [Wayne Watson] at 22:36 EST Sheldon, >> "Most successful companies have already geared up...." That's the problem. At this point, Atari isn't a successful company. At least in the terms I look at. They are just a company hanging on by a thread. I don't think Atari knows how to be successful or could handle being successful (production numbers). Frank, So a souped up ST (68000) is faster than the Falcon (68030). That is a sad set of numbers for a 68030 machine. The only thing the Falcon has on the ST (souped up) is graphics and sound. A DSP also. Yep, business as usual at Atari. Can you say CRIPPLE. I thought so. John, Thank you for getting the information. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 97 Tue Nov 17, 1992 A.PAGE3 [Alan Page] at 22:38 EST Here's another question that might help a variety of PD programmers. What are the Falcon 'cookie' values that are cast in concrete. e.g. _MCH, _CPU, _SND, _VDO ? Providing this information publicly would be extremely useful for any PD and commercial software writers that check the cookie for various purposes. There is no reason I can think of it should not be public knowledge. - Alan ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 98 Tue Nov 17, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 22:51 EST My biggest criticisms of PC clones all revolve around the way that they bend over backwards to make sure of backwards compatability, at the expense of performance. I hope Atari is not following this trend, because the success of IBM and INTEL doing this is a 1:1,000,000,000 fluke, and will never be seen again in the span of human existance. The Falcon030 should have had 32/32 busses, with a software switch to cut off the upper 8 address lines (STE Mode). One scary note: did anyone catch Sam asking about the 32 bit CPU in the conference with Sam T.????? Exactly what conclusions can one draw when the highest official in a computer company doesn't have a clue about one of the most simple basic specs of his company's star product??? Time for a vote: How many people think Sam will show up online from his home like he says? ________________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 99 Tue Nov 17, 1992 A.PAGE3 [Alan Page] at 23:07 EST Is there perhaps a misunderstanding about the bus? Are there, for example 16 bit paths to the SCSI, DSP, and PDS, but still 32-bits to ram and video? e.g. even on a 386DX PC, you may have 32-bit ram, but only 16-bit expansion slots (unless you shell out for a fancier machine). - Alan ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 100 Tue Nov 17, 1992 T.MCCOMB [=Tom=] at 23:11 EST Thank you John, for digging up the info. -=-=-= Oouch! Those QIndex figures (as compared to to the T20) are painful. -Tom McComb {10:55 pm} Tuesday, November 17, 1992 ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 101 Tue Nov 17, 1992 J.PIERCE5 [Rob] at 23:16 EST >clearly we need Warp 9 updated for the Falcon... Yeah, if the Codeheads ever GET one. Heck, if the damn thing ever ships! I've about given up on it now. I figure I'll get a TT this spring. Rob ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 102 Tue Nov 17, 1992 J.ALLEN27 [FAST TECH] at 23:44 EST Thanks a million John, I really appreciate your tracking that info down. It does mean a caching accelerator can be slapped into the machine, and since the 68030 chip itself talks to ram on a 16bit bus, it really will be a straightforward matter. We'll have to make a board for the expansion slot with a fast 030...or if the OS permits an 040. Again thanks. Yes, Warp9 will big a big help, as it is on all the previous machines, go Codehead!! ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 103 Tue Nov 17, 1992 D.SEBERG [IceBerg] at 23:49 EST Joey, > I still don't comprehend how you can officially release a product > thats not officially released? I think the hair that Atari is trying to split is that the Falcon was officially "announced", but it has yet to be officially "released". Dave ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 104 Wed Nov 18, 1992 REALM [Joey] at 00:44 EST Dave, Ohhhh... I get it now! It's OK if we ask about it, they just can't answer.:-) ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 105 Wed Nov 18, 1992 T.GIRSCH [T.J.] at 01:49 EST ALL - Regarding the 68040, HUGE WHOOPS!!! I stand embarrassed and corrected. Amazing what the rumor tree can do... J.PIERCE5 - Of course you realize that less than a month after you buy a TT the Falcon will be released (and not before). Regarding Warp 9, if you want to see how the Falcon compares to your ST/STE/TT, turn Warp 9 _off_ and run Quick Index 2.2. Then compare. I dunno 'bout you, but I'm impressed. - T.J. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 106 Wed Nov 18, 1992 M.ALLEN14 [Mike Allen] at 03:46 EST Alan, interestingly enough, SYSINFO.PRG (#25536) decodes the underscore cookies on its cookie page. It even has the Falcon settings in it! Mike Allen ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 107 Wed Nov 18, 1992 R.WATSON15 [Wayne Watson] at 04:36 EST Jim, If you make the upgrade board for a faster 68030, I hope it will have a socket. I have a 33mhz 68030 here waiting to be used. I also have the 68882 50mhz math co-processor waiting to be used. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 108 Wed Nov 18, 1992 LEXICOR2 [Ringo] at 08:42 EST Wayne. They are hanging by a 50 million dollar "CASH" thread. Ringo ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 109 Wed Nov 18, 1992 ATARI.BENLUX [W. Kilwinger] at 10:09 EST A few days ago I saw a message from somebody in which he said Bob Brodie claimed 2 genlockers wer ready, one in US and one in Germany. Here is some info from Germany: The company is called OverScan. The made the following products: Falcon-Genlock. Can use the Falcon030 overlay-bit. Price: DM 699,- ScreenBlaster, soft/hardware for connection of SVGA monitor on Falcon030. Enhange screen resolution to 880x608 (max.) Price: DM 149,- Overlay, Titelgenerator (works also with graphics), has special effect and different scrolling techniqs. Price: DM 199,- I don't exactly how the DM compairs to the $. I think you can calculate with 0.65. I that case DM 199 -> $129 (Forgive me if I mistake on this) I took the info from OverScan's Liefer-Program 1992, which is their brochure for 1992. -Wilfred- Maybe we can open a topic were everybody can drop Falcon030 product information. Would be nice to read information from other developers. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 110 Wed Nov 18, 1992 J.ALLEN27 [FAST TECH] at 11:10 EST The JRI...John Russell Innovations...Genlock-Falcon is VASTLY more sophisticated than any personal computer genlock I've ever seen. I'm sure Lexicor can elaborate on the specifics.....$599 I believe, completely external, uses the overlay bit _or_ chroma-keying. JRI also is cooking up a framegrabber to allow snapping still frames from the video stream. It's also external, and quite sophisticated. The Falcon can be set to produce 800+x600+ video by using the overscan and PAL video modes, but hooking up a SVGA monitor. This is a SW only solution, so I'd expect some hackers to come out with PD versions of this kind of video expander. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 111 Wed Nov 18, 1992 TOWNS [John@Atari] at 13:33 EDT K.DRAKE: Yes, there is actually 16 megs of RAM on the board, but only 14 Megs is available. -- John ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 112 Wed Nov 18, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 19:15 EST Is it possible that the Falcon030 was originally intended to be the next generation STe, complete with 16 bit data paths, 16 MHz 68000, and 24 Address bits? It almost seems like the 68030 was an afterthought. Nobody would set out to design a system that intentionally didn't use 3/8ths of it's CPU... _______________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 113 Wed Nov 18, 1992 B.AEIN [B Man] at 19:55 EST Jim, Can you give NBM benchmark numbers too???? Thanks Bman ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 114 Wed Nov 18, 1992 K.HULET at 20:34 EST I don't think the Quick Index numbers are so bad. Most of the CPU stuff is up around 400 or double the Turbo20 numbers. Now that we know that Jim Allen can whip something up things are looking better. For someone that has an un- accelerated ST the Falcon seems like a good upgrade path to take. Better graphics, up to 14 MEGS of ram, Multi-TOS and who knows what is possible from the DSP. ............... Ken Hulet ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 115 Wed Nov 18, 1992 SLP at 20:41 EST I agree with Ken about the Quick Index numbers. They don't seem that bad to me either. It's too bad about the 16 bit bus, but GREAT news about Photo CD. This is exactly the kind of application that will sell Falcons to the masses. Every Atari dealer should have the system set up in the store and then they can reel them in. Scott ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 116 Wed Nov 18, 1992 B.STOREY [Billy B.] at 21:36 EST I wonder if, instead of viewing Atari as a dying company, hanging on by a thread, we viewed Atari as a growing company unable to keep up with demand - would it look any different to us and the world? ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 117 Wed Nov 18, 1992 M.JONES52 [Jonesy] at 22:02 EST Towns, Thanks for the informative posts. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 118 Wed Nov 18, 1992 C.KLIMUSHYN [-Chuck-] at 22:12 EST I think this has been said in various ways by several different people. The Falcon is a *great* entry level computer. The problem is, most of us on-line are not that interested in an entry level computer and are looking for something that will do battle with the dreaded 486's. Bottom line is this computer wasn't designed for us but for a whole new generation of Atari punters. I hope it sells fabulously so the Falcon 040 becomes reality! :) Best Regards, -Chuck- ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 119 Wed Nov 18, 1992 J.ALLEN27 [FAST TECH] at 23:16 EST I didn't get a chance to run NBM on it, maybe Darlah could give it a whirl at home? ;-) ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 120 Wed Nov 18, 1992 J.PIERCE5 [Rob] at 23:42 EST TJ: Actually, I was in a really lousy mood last night. But seriously, if all goes well, I'll pick up a TT, go straight to 10 megs of ST RAM, 8 megs of TT RAM (via the GESoft board), a TTM195 and a few other tidbits. THEN I'll pick up a 14 meg Falcon, IF it comes out. But with my luck, I may still be on this MSTE by then... ;) Now for the big question: Is the Falcon essentially an SX? Meaning like a 386SX -- a crippled 16-bit mutant? Rob ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 121 Wed Nov 18, 1992 REALM [Joey] at 23:52 EST $599 was the same price I paid for a GEnlock 3 years ago for my MEGA ST. I know JRI makes an excellent product, their last one was great! I'm not trying to say $599 isn't the right price for the product. I just got the impression from the specs, the Genlock was practically included with the Falcon. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 122 Thu Nov 19, 1992 S.DANUSER [Soul Manager] at 00:01 EST Jim Allen - So your accelerator plans seem to be possible after all. Great news! But here's a technical question for you to answer. The RAM connector on the Falcon is for 16 bit only, but would it be possible to provide access for 32 bit RAM via the processor socket itself? If possible, I'm sure you're working it into your design even as I write this. Would you be able to implement burst mode by this means? If we can stick a faster 030 or an 040 in there, and have fast RAM, and have a burst mode, then the Falcon becomes a pretty powerful machine after all. Soul Manager ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 123 Thu Nov 19, 1992 J.ALLEN27 [FAST TECH] at 01:32 EST Yes, since the TOS is beyond TT tos and has the TTram tupe support in it still, it would be possible to have 32bit TTram on an accelerator card. And plug the whole thing into the 16bit expansion slot. What I had been hoping for was that the 68030 and expansion slot would connect to ram via a 32bit bus, using the STERM signal for cycle end. It wouldn't need to burst from ram, but a _very simple_ 32bit cache could be stuck between the two, with a fast 030, and provide a SHOCKING increase in speed, by both being a fast cache _and_ supporting a burst access on a cache hit. I had a really slick design all done, which I have ready for the MacII stuff if I can ever afford to pursue it. It would've been nice, but so long as something can be done, I guess we should consider ourselves lucky. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 124 Thu Nov 19, 1992 TOWNS [John@Atari] at 02:14 EDT The Falcon030 is still a pretty powerful machine. I don't know why you don't consider it to be powerful at this point. The sound and graphics capabilities alone make it stand out. -- John ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 125 Thu Nov 19, 1992 S.JOHNSON10 [Steve] at 02:20 EST Was something changed during the past few months? In the Falcon030 specifications given here BY Atari, they've stated that the machine has a "32- bit bus" and the specs in the BCS press release say "32-bit address/data bus." What the hell is going on here? Why was all of this proudly proclaimed several weeks ago if it actually has only a 24-bit address/16-bit data bus? Atari people have also been saying that 386DX and 486 boards are also being worked on for the Falcon030's PDS, but how can that be if the PDS cannot accomodate them? Although the Falcon030 is still an impressive machine with all this crippling, J.RICHTER is right that Atari mislead everyone from the very start of the official Falcon030 announcements. And people at Atari wonder why some people around here are pissed off??? Here are some quotes: From the transcript of Sam Tramiel's August 12th, 1992 RTC: "Here's the specs on the Atari Falcon 030: CPU: Motorola 68030 running at 16Mhz 32-bit bus" "<[wants unix] JM.HAWTHORNE> Is the expansion bus VME? No, it is not a VME bus. It is a direct processor slot that gives developers more flexibility." -- yeah, more flexibility!!! From the transcript of Bill Rehbock's September 9th, 1992 RTC: "<[FAST TECH] J.ALLEN27> Hi Again!! Does the CPU 'see' ram as 32bits wide, and does it use the STERM or DSACKx signals as access terminations? I Just want to be sure I understand. Yes, I was looking at the system chart :-) Yes, it does (32 bits wide), and I'm going through the system spec to check on your other queries." From everything that's been said, it sounds like there is a 32-bit bus between RAM, the COMBEL (system controller including BLiTTER), and the VIDEL (the video controller); and a 16-bit bus between the 68030 and the COMBEL. Is this correct? ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 126 Thu Nov 19, 1992 F.BELL1 [Frank @ Home] at 14:03 EST Billy, I don't think how you look at is going to help. If we viewed Atari as a growing company unable to keep up with demand then we know why some view it as a dying company. I don't think any of us want Atari to die, I don't think its a dying company either, but it would sure be nice if those in change would get to sh*t together. Frank... ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 127 Thu Nov 19, 1992 R.MORROW10 [Bob M.] at 17:06 EST Alan Page- Take a look at the program COOKIES.TOS. This may help you out, though I don't really know. It tells you the name (_MCH), who created it, what it does (_MCH is TOS's BIOS, I think), and so on. Pretty neat PD program. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 128 Thu Nov 19, 1992 LYRE at 18:07 EST John, I think one of the reasons that people do not consider the Falcon030 to be very powerful is because many of us are not concerned - primarily - with the sound or graphics. I am not writing off these excellent features. However, most of the programs I purchase, and utilize reqularly, are productivity oriented. The only real exception are the art programs I use - and these are mono art programs so they really aren't affected that much. In these types of applications, the larger color palette and the increased sound capabilities are not the main focus. They are utilized to some degree - and probably will be upgraded to take further advantage of these features - but it is not the primary focus of their programs. Admittedly, their will be a speed increase in the Falcon, but that is one of the few *visible* differences between what I have today and the purchase of a Falcon. Maybe it would help to say that I personally need some more speed, number crunching and memory. The Falcon will provide this, but with it's STfm case, I'm not overjoyed. I got rid of my STfm to get more memory and get rid of that case. To find that it is returning in a new machine is less then appealing. I personally would have preferred a Mega case or something similiar (i.e., separate keyboard). Please understand, I am not one of those people who is going to wait for each new generation before purchasing (and therefore never purchase because their is always another generation being worked on). Instead, I want something that is going to fit my needs and provide the power I can use. At the same time, I *must* be comfortable when using it. With the STfm style of casing, I was never comfortable. If their is a Falcon with a Mega-style case/keyboard, I would be *much* more likely to purchase it. The only other thing that is preventing me from simply going out and purchasing a new Atari computer is Atari itself. Considering some of the strange things we customers in the Atari market have had to put up with, I am unsure whether I want to purchase a new machine if the Atari Corporation's mentality / decision making process has not been changed. Who needs another several years of sillyness? So I am watching and waiting. Lyre PS: Personally, I think that Atari is going to find that until they start getting their act together *everyone* (customers, vendors and anyone else looking at this companies' products) will be operating under this same attitude. After all "Once bitten, twice shy." ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 129 Thu Nov 19, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 18:19 EST Steve: That's the point I've been trying to make for months (and getting a lot of criticism for making it). I really want to know why _why_ WHY on earth would those specs be released when the Falcon030 is nothing like them. I can understand that a little specification enhancement is par for the course in any marketing plan, but to purposely quote false specifications in conferences (several times) and write misleading literature is totally not the way to sell Falcons. I gave out numerous copies of those specs and touted all those things we were told and now I have to go back and apologize for being misled. The Falcon030 was hard enough to sell to my PC friends with the 'enhanced' specs. I doubt that after discovering the features that didn't make it to production, any of them will be interested. I can hear myself now: "Well, its really only got a 16 bit bus, but the video chip is 32 bit." "Remember how I explained that it really didn't do Genlocking, but required an 'inexpensive' adapter? Well, the adapter only costs $599, so you should be up and running in not time." What else will I have to 'explain'? People keep saying how the F030 is the 'Low End' machine... well, in reality, the current 'low end' Clone is a 386-20 with SVGA. In 6 months, the 'low end' clones will be 386-33 with local bus SVGA graphics. Atari better have a plan to bring out more competative machines, if they plan to keep their $50M. The 'release version' Falcon030 is barely competative with its competition, and since there is no 32 bit pathway for expansion, hardware addons will not enhance the speed of graphics operations a great deal (and what it the first thing a user 'sees' when he/she uses a computer?). _______________________ \hunderbird 'cause the Falcon040 might be my next computer (if not a TT030). ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 130 Thu Nov 19, 1992 K.SCHAFER4 [Necromancer] at 18:27 EST Those QIndex Number are *NOT* encouraging. Why do the higher color/resolution modes slow down the processor? CPU register operations and such really shouldn't be so heavily influeneced by video when no video activity is taking place. Does anyone have any QIndex #'s for Matrix, Crazy Dots or ALbert equipped TT030's? ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 131 Thu Nov 19, 1992 J.BOSSOLINI1 at 19:32 EST Why does eveyone keep harping on whether or not the Falcon 030 is as expandable as they want it to be?? Someone previously hit it on the head about the 030: Atari keeps saying it is an entry level machine and that the people here discussing it don't have the need for an entry level machine. Therefore, instead of putting it down for not being able to do all the things youo think it should (32 bit bus, XVGA, etc.) (detached keyboard, tower case) why not just hold on a few months and hope that Atari will come around with the 040 version and fill the "void" you all think the 030 is creating!! I'm not saying Atari will be coming out with an 040, I'm just saying that there are a lot of us out there that are sick of hearing others complain about every product Atari comes out with because it doesn't meet their demands! GIVE ATARI A BREAK!! They have said they are 'right-sizing' the company to try to turn it around, so give them some slack, and try to convince your friends who need a computer to buy a Falcon, instead of trashing it!!!! Joe (Sorry for the flame but I thought it was necessary!) ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 132 Thu Nov 19, 1992 SLP at 20:30 EST Maybe I don't see something right, but the bus to RAM sounds like 32 bit to me. The processor is twice as fast as the ST's 8mhz, and Q index memory moves are about 4 times ST speed. I don't know if the '030 executes instructions faster than the ST, but if it is doing long words instead of words on the data lines, that would give an extra doubling, which would give the 4 times as fast speed. Or am I missing something. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 133 Thu Nov 19, 1992 SLP at 20:38 EST I think that the main reason why stretching specs to look better than they really are is a terrible business practice is that most consumers don't know what the hell the specs are talking about in the first place so it doesn't matter one way or the other to them, and the people who do know what the specs mean aren't going to fall for a marketing definition of what they are. When the real news comes out it just fosters negative good will. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 134 Thu Nov 19, 1992 TOWNS [John@Atari] at 21:24 EDT The CPU does see RAM as 32 bits wide. The CPU maintains things internally as 32 bit. The specifications were correct the 68030 (the CPU) is 32 bits internally. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 135 Thu Nov 19, 1992 REALM [Joey] at 22:53 EST Joe, I'm not complaining about the Falcon it looks good for it's price range and target market. I'm complaining about the way Atari treats it's consumers. They're never going to attract new users with their current attitude. I think people are upset becuase the Falcon appears to be business as usual. Atari saying one thing and doing another and the results aren't anything like either. I can't recommend Atari to anyone, anymore. Every consumer problem I've had can easily be measured in months to solve, some close to years. Everyone I've recommended a system too has gotten a system from hell. Then it takes months trying to get the problems corrected. If they have 50 mil, probably 25 judging from the past, why don't they take about 50,000 and clean up the consumer service department and take the pressure off their dealers and customers? Hmm... this pattern reminds of the boy who cried wolf... Sorry... I verged on really flaming... ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 136 Thu Nov 19, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 23:05 EST Towns: C'mon! The 68000 is defined by Motorola as a 16 bit microprocessor. By your reasoning ("the CPU does see RAM as 32 bits wide. The CPU maintains things internally as 32 bit."), then the 68000 is really a 32 bit microprocessor, because it has the same type of 32 bit registers internally as the 68030. Your machine is indeed impressive, but it is a bit pricey for a 16 bit machine intended for entry level users. The rest of the world is going to catch up within a year. The Kodak contract is good news, but how many other contracts has Atari entered into and that was the last we heard of them... anyone remember "MIDITasking", how about AT&T selling ST's in 1986, etc.? Joe Bossolini: I would be 99% happy with the Falcon030 "as is", and would have very little to complain about, IF Atari hadn't SOLD ME on the '32 bit, Totally Expandable, Easy Genlock, PhotoReal Graphics, Powerhouse Falcon030'. The only complaints I had were cosmetic, and easily dismissed because of the machines reputed capabilities. My complaints now revolve around the fact that the machine doesn't live up to the expectations I was given, from Atari itself. The mythical Falcon030 from the September rollout meets and exceeds all of what you refer to as my "demands", the production unit does not. I feel as though Atari lied about the machine and cheated the loyal users again. I'm sorry you feel that criticism is undeserved in this case. Nothing anyone can say now can change what has already transpired. We're Atari fans, we are being kind here... wait until the competition gets their hands on the machine. SLP: The 68030 is the 4th generation of the 68000 series, and has been optimized greatly in the process. Along with the improvements in CPU instruction execution, the 68030 has a cache which also helps speed things up a bit. Those Qindex numbers would be nearly doubled if the CPU fetched RAM 32 bits at a time. Maybe Jim Allen and Dave Small could buy TOS ROMS and put them into a Falcon clone of their own design... __________________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 137 Fri Nov 20, 1992 J.STANFORD2 [John@Lexicor] at 00:33 EST Thunderbird, First you complained (perhaps justifiably) about Atari not answering your questions about the PDS. Now that they have you're complaining because they didn't give the answer you wanted to hear. Not much incentive for them to continue posting information in this cat, is it? Now I'm not a hardware person so I'll be the first to admit I don't know what I'm talking about in this arena, but my impression from John's post is that the Falcon accesses memory in 32 bit chunks. The address bus is 24 bits wide which means it can't address memory beyond the 16 meg limit or use fast-ram, etc. The PDS bus is 16 bits which he clearly stated. For what its worth my own "real world" (at least in my real world ;-) ) tests have timed our Falcon with a 882 coprocessor at almost exactly 1/2 the speed of my TT when not using Fastram. Seeing as the clock speed is exactly twice as fast on the TT this seems to make sense. Unless you have had the privledge to personally examine John Russel's genlock I don't think you have the right to use it as a basis for judgement. Just because a developer chooses to make a professional quality product instead of settling for what he can easily get away with on a machine is not an indication of the machine's capabilities. Someone from Comdex has stated there is a German developer with a genlock for under $200. John Stanford ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 139 Fri Nov 20, 1992 S.JOHNSON10 [Steve] at 01:39 EST REALM - I got the same impression. I was expecting something like a $200 (or less) genlock from everything that's been said. By the way, is it true that the first 150,000 Falcon030's are all 4/65 models? If so, when will the 1/0, 4/0 (and perhaps 14/0 and 14/65) models show up? ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 140 Fri Nov 20, 1992 REALM [Joey] at 04:12 EST John, I'm positive JRI didn't make a get by product.:-) THer elast unit was... dare I say... a piece of art! I was just saying it appeared to me by the way it was said that I could get by with a simple adpator or somehting cheap. $200 still isn't what I consider cheap.:-) $15 - $40 would be a cheap adpator. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 141 Fri Nov 20, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 06:46 EST John@Lexicor First I ran around running shooting my mouth off about all the great things Atari said the Falcon030 could do. THEN I found out about the crippled PDS and the 16 bit RAM accesses of the CPU. Then I complained about them because Atari continued to deny the truth or plead ignorance. Then they gave me the answer I _did_ want to hear... the truth. Then they go back and try to make it sound like they really didn't mean to give out the truth. I'm SURE the JRI Genlock is an awesome piece of work. I didn't mean to imply anything else. I was merely pointing out that the original F030 specs dance around the Genlock issue to the point that virtually anyone who reads them gets the impression that Genlock is built into the machine. If they were upfront in the beginning I would not be upset. _____________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 142 Fri Nov 20, 1992 DENNYA [Denny Atkin] at 16:53 EST I'm just trying to figure out why everyone's jumping to Atari's defense on the 16-bit RAM issue, which is just a darned silly specification... Honestly, and I'm not posting this as a dig, but it's evidence of why the RAM is such an issue: I've seen one comment on the Falcon at Comdex from a PC/Amiga developer. The guy was very impressed with Atari's booth. He thought the Falcon's graphics looked great, and he was blown away by a demo of Calamus. But his closing comment was: "I'd love to know how Atari managed to make an 030 run that slowly." I might still get a Falcon to play with when they finally become available in the U.S. But the temptation would be a lot greater if the performance was more inline with a 16MHz 030 Amiga than a 16MHz 030 Mac LC. That said, though, here's something else to consider: Enough griping about the Falcon already. Atari knows that folks are irritated about the cripped RAM architecture and expansion slot. They know that they're disappointed in the one-piece ST-style case. And they know that RCA plugs are the all-important aspect that makes a computer worth buying. (Grin) They know that folks are irritated that some purported capabilities need add-ons to truly be taken advantage of. They've heard it. I've heard it. We've all heard it. Instead of complaining about the Falcon, which is already set in stone and hopefully shipping soon, why not focus the energy into letting Atari know what you want to see in the mid-range machine that's been rumored? Spend the energy not saying "this s*cks," but in saying "well, I'll stick with my Mega right now, but this is what I'd like to see in a Falcon XLE model..." The Falcon's specs seem to be targeted more towards the musician and the eurogamer, which isn't the GEnie crowd. The GEnie crowd wants at least a mid-range machine. You're the market--tell 'em what you want. Just an idea. :) ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 143 Fri Nov 20, 1992 J.COLE18 [John Cole] at 16:56 EST I really dont think I can say more than John Stanford already has, however :-) If people would remember that very similar things were touted for the STE line for genlocks. Indeed the falcon has little over the STE as far as simply genlocking goes. When you try do do more than 'simple' genlocking is where the Falcon gets easier and better. As for the roumer that the first 150K falcons are 4/65's, first strikes me as abusrd, how could anyone think there are 150K falcons? :-) I would recomend to everyone to not try and guess or second guess atari production schedules. Indeed, I would be very suprised to find out that Atari will make 150K falcons in the first year of production, but I do hope that I am suprised! RE the PDS slot, Personally, I would rather people called it insufficent rather than crippled. While many feel that Atari simply must be plotting how to mess up thier computers, I know many who would not give Atari that much credit, while I think it was a simple oversite. However, that being the case, it will not change the PDS from a 68000 slot to a 68030 slot. Still it is a fairly peppy machine compared to the Mega STE's and STe's. When compared to the Spark stations I work on every day now and the SGI's my cohorts work on, it's very slow indeed, but then I cant get a SGI for $1000 either. You may not get as much bang, but you arent spending that much bucks ;-) It is a good machine, it's that plain and simple. I think it is better than the 520 when it was first introduced. My only wish is that atari make millions of them, because my first impression that I had back in july, still stands today, Atari will sell evey one it makes. John @ Lexicor ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 144 Fri Nov 20, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 19:18 EST I really should be happy that the Falcon030 is as slow as reported, because I stand to make more money selling enhancements which bring it up to snuff. Sometimes, however, I wish that I could be working on advancing the line, rather than keeping up with the Jones'. Taken as a whole (graphics + cpu + sound) the Falcon030 stands on the same ground as the ST did (compared to the competition) in 1985. The competition, however, is not the same... back when the ST first came out, there were only a handful of PC makers, and (if I recall) only one PC CPU brand (Intel). Now, with literally hundreds of competing clone makers, and a plethora of CPU brands competing, the absurd requirements of running Windoze at anything over snail pace, and the marketing push, newer and more powerful clones are coming out every week. It won't take them a few years to catch up with the Falcon030... with the "multimedia" craze in full swing, PC's of similar strength will be coming out of the walls. I don't see how anyone can deny this. With Atari's record of losing huge market shares with superior products (ST, Lynx, Portfolio, etc.) due to non-marketing, I fear the F030 will not get the foothold it needs to sell millions, before it gets buried by work-alikes. I really wish that it would sell millions. It can only benefit the users and developers if they do. _______________________ \hunderbird P.S. What is the absolute cheapest a Genlock for the F030 can be? The only thing it is going to be used for is adding titles and graphics to home videos. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 145 Fri Nov 20, 1992 J.BRENNER1 [See Flat] at 19:28 EST John @ Lexicor > "It's a good machine" I am not a technician and specs kind of fly by me. I understand more bytes the better, higher the clock speed faster the machine will run. Then....I look at if the machine will do what I want with the software that is available at a cost I can afford. Look at PC, MAC, and Atari and choose which one will do at this point in time. If I did not have these restrictions I would go SGI. This being said....do you think, in your opinion, that the Falcon with JRI Genlock is a good buy to do video animations and presentations? ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 146 Fri Nov 20, 1992 FIFTHCRUSADE at 19:31 EST John Cole, >RE the PDS slot, Personally, I would rather people called it >insufficent rather than crippled. In light of the 16/24 processor to memory bus, the 16/24 PDS slot _isn't_ crippled. It's not even "insufficent". It's the natural size PDS slot for the machine architecture. Any other type of PDS slot wouldn't make much sense. Ben White ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 147 Fri Nov 20, 1992 C.KLIMUSHYN [-Chuck-] at 19:34 EST I agree with Thunderbird on this one. If we were not mislead on the Falcon's initial specs, then we were seriously shielded from the truth. I suppose I could go back and look over my conference transcripts and magazines that came out but what's the point? Denny has it right, the 030 is a done deal. It's time to start a wish list for the 040, hopefully its specs arn't set in stone yet. Geez, I do feel sick though over the 16bit external 32 bit internal thing. I hate to go back and count the number of posts in which I gloated over the the SX clones and LCIIs being brain dead. Finding out the 030 is in the same class is hard to take. Well, there's alot of people shelling out $1400 bucks for LC II's/Performas so there is a potential market for the Falcon 030. :\ Best Regards, -Chuck- ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 148 Fri Nov 20, 1992 LEXICOR2 [Ringo] at 21:34 EST See Flat. The Falcon with a JRI genlock and Software is going to be very good for video animations and presentations. If a Toaster like line of products is going to be utilize with the Falcon than it is an excellent machine. If you look at a Video Toaster ad. they advertize the Toaster and give you a price. but the other extra goodies that are needed for this device to give you the performance that you need is leftout. Go to the dealer and ask him for an AMIGA with Toaster solution and watch how you need "TBCs" like "The Kitchen Sync" for $1599.00 other TBS sell for $799.00 etc. So now you have the AMIGA price, the Toaster price, the TBC price and if you what the memory upgrade price, the monitor price, the new CPU price. So maybe with the Falcon030 and hardware/software the price will be less??? Lets see how this develops... more to come. Ringo ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 149 Fri Nov 20, 1992 T.MCCOMB [=Tom=] at 22:16 EST Denny- finally a voice of reason. And from an Amiga guy at that! ;-) -Tom McComb {9:54 pm ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 150 Fri Nov 20, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 22:47 EST I've been looking over the 68030 users manual (Actually the 68020 users manual, but they are quite similar), and I can't explain the Qindex numbers. With all of the improvements made since the 68000, even a 16 bit 68030 sould be somewhat faster than demonstrated. I suspect that the video DMA must take precedence over CPU fetches, and the increased bandwidth of the new video modes eats into the CPU cycles even more. Falcon The Next Generation will probably have a 32 bit wide data bus, to decrease the number of memory cycles needed by the CPU, and allowing for more memory intensive graphics modes to be introduced. Oh, yes, one more thing... the DSP56001 is a only a 24 bit fixed point DSP. I hope FTNG has one of the newer 32 bit DSPs with full floating point math. ______________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 151 Sat Nov 21, 1992 J.COLE18 [John Cole] at 00:15 EST Hmmm... Is the Falcon030/JRI Genlock/Lexicor combo good for video titeling/destop animation ala toaster? Well on the hardware side, the Falcon030/JRI Genlock will meet or exceed the toaster. On the software side, well let me just say that we are getting results that even make OUR jaws drop! Phoenix 512 which is intended for still pictures and animation clips will be relesed next month prouduced results well into the profesional arena. If you have ever kept up with the awe inspiring animations and artwork from Lee Seiler, you will be happy to know that we have leaped beyond his previous works! Lee is busy building the NEXT generation of awesome art! The plain answer is yes, the hardware is that good. Given some time, the software will cover all aspects also. Phoenix is a major step in that direction, and you will hear and SEE more about that in the future. John @ Lexicor ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 152 Sat Nov 21, 1992 S.JOHNSON10 [Steve] at 00:35 EST LYRE - I DO think Atari should've released both a one-piece and a desktop- style (seperate keyboard) model 030-based Falcon at the same time "for reasons that [are] clear to everyone." However, if some of the more reasonable rumors coming from Europe (and elsewhere) are true, you may see a NEW 030- based Falcon in such a case before next Summer. Atari probably had to wait until they had the 'Falcon040' design finished before designing such a case (like the MSTE in the (butt-ugly) TT030 case), so a (faster) 030-based Falcon in a desktop-style case should show up around or before the 'Falcon040' does. Some rumors, though, put the 'Falcon040' at a Fall '93 release, so nobody knows for sure (who isn't WORKING at Atari, at least). J.BOSSOLINI1 - No, we're just tired of Atari's business-as-usual lying/purposely misleading statements. TOWNS - The 68000 is 32-bits internally, but I don't recall anyone calling the ST (or ANY 68000 computer) a 32-bit machine. The released specs said "32-bit bus" (Sam Tramiel/Bob Brodie) and "32-bit data/address bus" (Falcon030 BCS Press Release as reprinted in AEO). ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 153 Sat Nov 21, 1992 SAM-RAPP [<>] at 01:16 EST Just a quick question..... When in the RTC and you do a /STA, is the city listed the city you are logged on in, or the city in your billing address? Just curious.......... --------------> Sam P.S. - I guess I'll be waiting a bit longer for a Falcon.... I got hit with a $1000 auto repair bill. Maybe the buss will grow to 32 bits while I wait...... Sigh....... ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 154 Sat Nov 21, 1992 K.DRAKE [SirFransis] at 01:19 EST Well, that just tears it!! I'm gonna go and buy an expandable Apple IIGS with no silly memory constraints. I don't have to worry about the company because they've already given up on it!! :-) I see John Q. Consumer buying the Falcon for the reason that Sam gave in the RTC...IT'S A FUN MACHINE. So it doesn't go toe to toe with Power Corps Ultra Modern Compucalc. I want something for me to do taxes on and for the kids to do whatever kids do. Education software doesn't care what the RAM path size is or whether or not the PDS is 32-bit. But that graphics chip set sure can do some boffo pictures, none of which take up too much disk space because the DSP decompresses and compresses on the fly. That sound chip is really something, too. And all without jumpers cards, slots, or other things that complicate matters. All-in-one. I like that! Still sailing, Sir Fransis ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 156 Sat Nov 21, 1992 S.DANUSER [Soul Manager] at 04:22 EST Hmmm, let's see, Atari is marketing a machine with a 32 bit CPU that has internal 16/24 bit architecture. The same thing that Apple does with their LC Macs and Performa 400's. Gee, that's silly. Atari acting like Apple. A _hugely_ successful computer company. What could motivate them to do that? Maybe it's the fact that the entry-level computer buyer (the Falcon 030's market) doesn't know PDS slots from bumps on their heads. And that Atari intends to recruit a new generation of users, who choose a computer based on the applications it can be used for, not a list of statistics they don't understand anyway. With software like the Concierge package, Lexicor's Phoenix paint program, and D2D sampling software, the Falcon may be set up to accomplish its goal. The machine plainly wasn't designed for techies, but for the home computer user. Yes, I too would like a machine with more power. But I'll wait for Jim Allen's projects to come to fruition to satisfy any power lust I may be harboring. For now, try to sell your neighbors on the idea of the new Kodak "electronic slideshow." How they'll be able to capture family photos and add titles, graphics, etc. and print them on their color printer. The Falcon is standing on the brink of something great. We should all partake in the glory rather than gripe about our personal agendas not being met to our satisfaction. Soul Manager ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 157 Sat Nov 21, 1992 R.BEATTY3 [Buffalo Bob] at 06:15 EST It is unfortunate that so many people are caught up in the MS-DOS imposed standard of bigger-better-faster or bust. Are you happiest when your Falcon030 completes a sieve benchmark faster that a 486? Or would you prefer a computer that has great graphics, great sound and really begins to fit the bill as an appliance rather than a toy? Atari has taken a pretty bold move with the Falcon by attempting to redefine just what a home computer should be. And those who feel that the term "home computer" is a negetive connotation should reconsider where most the computers sold today are headed. What I find amazing is that a few of my die-hard Atari friends are purchasing '486 clones because they have the best gaming software available. So much for benchmarks. Yet that is still the measure most talked about. But the Falcon, with its terrific sound and graphics, will soon offer entertainment software that surpasses anything on the PC (providing the writers write...) and still probably lose every "benchmark" test against a '486. Comparison tests of any kind will be won by the group that creates the standards. But if you do more than perform benchmarks all day, then I suggest you test drive the Falcon before putting it out to pasture. > Bob Beatty < > Neutronics < > Honolulu, HI < ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 158 Sat Nov 21, 1992 R.BEATTY3 [Buffalo Bob] at 06:40 EST Thunderbird: You do the TechSpeak pretty well. You'll have more credence with me if you relate what products you have developed for the ST/TT in the past. Don't consider this hostility, just curiosity. From a bystander. Cordially, Buffalo Bob ;-) ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 159 Sat Nov 21, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 09:02 EST R.BEATTY3: I don't mind the curiosity at all. My experience with Atari dates back to the days of the 400/800, and it is because of those two computers that I became involved in the beasts. I have developed a small number of ST based products both hardware and software... I only pursued mass marketing of one product which was the (shameless plug) "Tweety Board" (you can verify this by looking for my name in the manual). I have also developed a 16 bit stereo sound card for the ST, which never went anywhere because the company I designed it for never got their software to work right. I have a nifty 128K cartridge emulator, which simply would have cost too much to market because of SRAM prices at the time. Along with that, I've developed some ATE (Automatic Test Equipment) for my real job, using the ST. My software experience involves work on "Genesis: The Molecular Modeling Program" formerly from Antic, A set of highly optimized Raster Copy Operations, and a Game called "MechaNaught(tm)" which is in search of a publisher even as we speak. I also believe that I am the first person to write a Spectrum 512 display routine (outside of Trio Engineering, who kept it secret). These along with numerous other 'experiments'. I have a real job as a Testing Engineer, so you have to admit that I've done pretty well for a part time ST tinkerer. Thanks for the interest though. ______________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 160 Sat Nov 21, 1992 FAIRWEATHER [David] at 11:15 EST Doesn't "ST" stand for "Sixteen/Thirty-two?" If so, then this Falcon should properly be called the "Falcon ST." Perhaps the next generation Falcon will be a "Falcon TT." ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 162 Sat Nov 21, 1992 J.BRENNER1 [See Flat] at 12:21 EST Thunderbird > What you have stated of past experiments in the St Market... After creating so many products that didnt' get released because of manufacturing cost , defective software, broken promises from associates, can't you relate to Atari's position. I'm talking about their hardware development , not lack of marketing skills. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 163 Sat Nov 21, 1992 J.SNYDER7 [Josh Snyder] at 12:39 EST Excuse me for sticking my Neck in to all this... BUT it seams OBVIOUS to me that thare is a SIMPLE way around the 16 bit wide buss in the PDS for use with 040's and 486s.. If you will think back to the Previous "Argument" over the fact of the Memory board, and the fact that there is not an Iota of memory on the motherboard of the falcon (Except for the Non- Volatile Ram which is probably less than a K anyway). If you want you Upgrade board to have FULL access to the 32 bit wide RAM on the Memory board, Why not UN-PLUG the memory board from the Mother Board and Plug a "Tap" in between the Mother board and the memory? This would let you get at the Memory FAST at a FULL 32 bits wide! You would STILL need to watch the PDS address lines to make shure that you don't conflict with the Other DMA stuff... But I am sure that this Little trick Could be done! Josh @ Cali-Co. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 164 Sat Nov 21, 1992 J.NESS [Jim] at 12:56 EST Re: being lied to.. That is not what happened. What happened was that the people telling us about the Falcon, and writing the press releases, simply did not know the hardware, down to the detail needed to talk about this stuff. They were told it was a 68030, and that it had an expansion socket, etc, but not that it grabbed data in 16-bit nibbles and that the expansion port emulated an older cpu. This is because none of the hardware people, who were located in Texas, were ever online. The left hand didn't talk to the right hand very much. That's changed now (except the online part), since everything has been consolidated in California. -JN ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 165 Sat Nov 21, 1992 C.KLIMUSHYN [-Chuck-] at 13:04 EST I'm really curious as to why so many people are cutting Atari so much slack regarding the 16bit bus issue. I don't see the conflict being as being a question of whether a 16bit external 32bit internal bus is a viable machine, but as to the behavior of Atari when they're suppose to be turning over a *new* leaf in customer relations. Except for someone who would really like to stretch things, we were mislead, period. We were mislead about the PDS, the 16 bit bus, and about the shipping date. These babes were suppose to ship to Europe in August! Anyone notice C= has come out with TWO new machines in the time we've been played like trout-on-a-flyline? With the 16bit bus of the 030, the +'s and - 's of the A1200 and Falcon 030 are just about equal now. I predict Amiga is gonna kill Atari for the Europeon market, which was Atari last best hope. I've avoided posting for the last two months while I've been trying to keep a positive attitude and wait-and-see open mind. I havn't learned anything that suggests Atari has learned squat about their previous failings. Best Regards, -Chuck- ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 166 Sat Nov 21, 1992 SLP at 14:15 EST Are you sure you just aren't whistling dixie, T-Bird? I dug out an old sheet of paper I saved on the SST, which I believe has the processor and RAM on the same board, 32 bit bus to RAM, bus speed determined by timing crystal. Quick index numbers for memory moves were 989 at 33mhz, and the Falcon was 473, which leads me to still believe that RAM might be accessed with a full width bus, since the Falcon is only running at 16 mhz. Of course, I am assuming that the QIndex memory test moves a block of memory to another block, and not within the processor (why would anybody test that). Well, all said and done, what matters most is not high end vs low end comparisons, but what it will cost to do what you want to do. Competition is tough out there and I hope that some great applications come out and push to Falcon into millions of homes around the world. Scott ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 167 Sat Nov 21, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 14:33 EST J.Brenner: I really hope and pray that Atari is not in the same position as I am! If they are, they are in deep trouble... ;-) Let me explain: the only product that _I_ spent my own time and money on to make was the downloadable cartridge. It is a very simple product which I put together in a weekend, because I had a couple of sample 128K SRAMS kicking around. My goal was to see if I could do it. It worked, but because of the price of SRAMS I never pursued marketing. The 16 bit digitizer cart I made was work contracted to be done for some associates, who contracted one of their friends to do the GEM programming. The programmer had personal troubles and I don't believe he completed the software. I was paid for my engineering time as per my contract, which also prevents me from using or selling the design to anyone. Regardless if it shipped or not, it was a done deal for me. ;-) Other things were simply related to the fact that I am only a part-time ST developer. I am busy elsewhere in my life working at my regular job, socializing with my friends, I am a freelance artist and photographer, and also tinker with my cars, and built a house with my brother somewhere inbetween. If Atari had been seriously marketing their computers in the USA, perhaps I would have devoted more time to my projects. By the time I finished my game, even companies like Spectrum Holobyte were complaining about sales of 500 copies of their games total. 500 copies of my game would just about pay for packaging, so why market just to break even. I did write a really cool set of "Tweety Board" drivers for the program which I believe is the first stereo ST program ever, but by this time the STe was out, and the "Tweety Board" sales were falling like a rock. So, you can see that my own timing was the reason that I never pursued these products. If I were in the Atari business as my sole means of support, you can be damn sure I would have spent much more time developing, instead of just tinkering. You see, never was I happy or frustrated or depressed about my situation. Most of my work was done because I thought it would be fun to do. Also, despite knowing that things would never be sold to make me money, I finished them anyway, because I hate quitting. I am just a hobbyist, and not a multimillion dollar corporation. I don't see how you can compare me to Atari in any context. ____________________________ \hunderbird P.S. J.Snyder has a good suggestion for a 32 bit CPU enhancement. Since I don't know anything about the internal architecture of the machine, I cannot say if it will work or not. I don't know how the contentions with DMA would be resolved without some expensive dual ported ram scheme... also, the TOS ROMS would have to be converted to 32 bit devices and installed to where the 32 bit CPU can read them. Perhaps Jim Allen is already working on it. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 168 Sat Nov 21, 1992 G.NORTON [Quay Comptrs] at 14:40 EST Wayne, Most of those Quick Index numbers were higher than the T20 so I'm not sure where you got the idea the Falcon was slower. I think we all know by now that 3 party enhancements (ie Warp 9) are a must with ANY Atari machine. The fact is that anyone upgrading from say a 1040 or comparing it to a 386DX will be blown away by the Falcon 030. Considering that most people are impressed by graphics speed and quality as well as the sound the Falcon does stand a good chance in the market, especially with a PC emulator that can do VGA colour. For the rest of us that know the Falcon could have been improved upon (any machine can always be improved), want a tower case etc will be waiting for the Falcon 040 in any case. Think of it this way...people who want a Mac with alot of horsepower go for the IIsi ( or higher) not the IILC. I still think that the Falcon 030 will blow away the IILC 16 bit bus or otherwise (can you say DSP)! In any case why don't we all wait until we can play with a Falcon before we start to criticize it! Graham @ Quay Computers ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 169 Sat Nov 21, 1992 LYRE at 14:53 EST Steve, Thanks for the info on the "Mega style Falcon case" rumor. The Falcon does, without question, sound better then the machine I have today. I just want to make sure it's the machine that I *want*. Assuming that the "Mega Case Falcon" and the 040 come out approxiamately the same time, I will end up looking at the 040. Lyre ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 170 Sat Nov 21, 1992 TOWNS [John@Atari] at 15:28 EDT Thunderbird.. I am not going to sit here and play this sort of cat and mouse game with you. If you have questions about the product line, great. I will answer them (just as I have done already). Otherwise, I am done playing the game. And yes, the 68000 is a 32bit processor internally. As for Kodak, believe what you want. I am not going to sit here and beg you to believe me. I have done what I can. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 172 Sat Nov 21, 1992 WAYNED. [Wayne] at 16:31 EST >TOWNS - The 68000 is 32-bits internally, but I don't recall anyone >calling the ST (or ANY 68000 computer) a 32-bit machine. Hmmmm I wonder where they got the "ST" from then. NO it doesn't stand for Sam Tramiel, it stands for Sixteen/Thirty-Two. Meaning it does internal operations at 32 bits, and external at 16. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 173 Sat Nov 21, 1992 C.KLIMUSHYN [-Chuck-] at 17:43 EST Thundebird, You did Tweety Bird?! Next to my Supra HD it's my most favorite add-on. :) Best Regards, -Chuck- ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 174 Sat Nov 21, 1992 M.ALLEN14 [Mike Allen] at 18:33 EST I still think we are missing the point. The F030 is NOT aimed at us, the present Atari user. It is aimed at getting NEW Atari users. The price and capabilites give it an excellent chance of doing just that IF it ever hits the market. If the Falcon flies then the time is ripe for the Falcon WE would like to see. And all those new F030 owners would be possible customers for an upgraded system after having gotten their feet wet. Atari needs an expanded customer base. The reasons are obvious. On another topic, if the F030 is truly 24bit address/16bit data internally then the reason for the 'Processor Direct' slot being 24/16 becomes obvious and all the talk about Atari 'crippling' the PDS is just that. No, the F030 is not for me, but I know many people on other platforms who are chompin' at the bit to get their hands on a F030. Seems they're tired of trying to set up their present systems to do what is built into the F030. ("Hmmmm. now what interrupt can I use so that my SoundBlaster board won't conflict with the Hard Drive controller?") I wish Atari luck, but some marketing skill would be more appropriate. Mike Allen ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 175 Sat Nov 21, 1992 K.HOUSER [Kevin MQ Def] at 18:52 EST Towns, Phew! I'm glad to hear that the CPU<->Memory bus is 32bit if that is what your message meant by the 32bit chunks. Heheh... see what happens when ya let a Comp Sci guy try to explain hardware, real confusion. T.Bird, If we were back in '86 AT&T (my day gig :) should've sold ST's. They (AT&T) would've probably done better with them than they did with the AT&T PC clown lines they sold before NCR was acquired. :) Now we have the NCR PC's. Still boring unINTELigent silicon... Anyway, you say the software Co. couldn't get their software to work with your card? Why don't you contact me thru GEmail and we can talk about your card some more. It sounds interesting. Does it work off of the DMA port? I may consider some software for it if you provide me with some info/details. --Kevin (The EE :') PS. Either way I'll try to get a Falcon to continue my development work. :) ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 176 Sat Nov 21, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 18:58 EST SLP: It would be nice if you were correct about the bus width. I do not have enough data to comment on your Qindex numbers because of the variables involved. Some factors which have to be accounted for include: Screen resolution/number of colors, Cache Enabled/Disabled, Whether Qindex performs memory operations on ST RAM or NON-ST RAM, and the speed of the RAM. I also don't know what type of RAM Qindex is running from... remember, instructions are fetched from RAM on the same bus as data, and many 680x0 instructions are greater than 16 bits. On a pure 32 bit system, I think you'll see a difference. Improvements in some areas are not additive, but multiplicative For example, on a 16 bit system we can benchmark at 100% speed. If you double the width of the bus, you'll see a performance increase in the associated instruction and data fetches. For arguments sake we say 200%. We double the clock speed which virtually gaurantees a 2X increase in speed, giving 200% of 200% of normal which would be 400%. Now for the tricky part. Say that our CPU had all kinds of improvements like caches and concurrent processing and optimized instructions, etc. I do not have data on how much these improve the 68030 over the 68000, but for the sake of argument let us say another 1.5X increase in speed. The result would be 150% of 200% of 200% of 100% or 1.5 x 2 x 2 x 100% = 600% So, in an 'ideal' case, the Falcon030 running in an quivalent resolution with the same code should be 600% as fast at moving RAM around than the ST. Of course your mileage will vary. I do not claim to have conducted tests or anything... this is PURE SPECULATION (disclaimer). Perhaps on monday when I get back to work, I can read up on the real preformance increases associated with the 68030. One more point: If TOS were optimized for 68030 execution, you wouldn't need a 32 bit CPU. You see for yourself the speed of TOS scrolling and text are not that great at all. Most people will perceive the Falcon030 as 'slow', despite it's DSP and sound DMA, simply because of the sluggishness of TOS in VGA mode. ____________________ \hunderbird P.S. I saw a Lynx ad on MTV this afternoon. maybe there is hope after all? ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 177 Sat Nov 21, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 19:22 EST Towns: I'm sorry to have given you the impression that I was playing games with you. You had said that the F030 had a 16 bit CPU RAM interface, and your info was a great step in the right direction we all agree. By your own admission you are not a hardware type, and when you said the Falcon030 was a 32 bit machine because the 68030 was 32 bits internally, I thought the example of the ST being 32 internally would help you understand the difference. At this time I would really like a machine with 32 bit RAM for the CPU. I will have to wait, or get a TT. The F030 is for a different market, and I've accepted that. I hope you sell many. Until a 32 bit machine becomes available, I am free to speculate about ways to adapt the current machine to become 32 bits. No games or flames intended. _________________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 178 Sat Nov 21, 1992 FIFTHCRUSADE at 21:23 EST About this business of the Falcon030 vs the Amiga 1200: The one with the best games will win (make up your own meaning for "win" in this context), and the Falcon will have the best games. Ben White ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 179 Sat Nov 21, 1992 M.POCHE [Mick] at 21:36 EST I agree with Graham @ Quay. Sure, the Falcon could be better, like everything else in the world, but compared to the ST/STE, the Falcon is a _major_ leap forward. Having seen a Falcon, and a mere glimpse of what it can do, I'm totally impressed. The techo-babble and spec numbers are all interesting and everything, but really don't mean squat as long as the computer does what you want it to do, the way you want to do it. That is exactly why I intend on buying one as soon as they are available. I've seen the graphics that the Falcon is capable of producing, and I was blown away! It seems to me that the people who have actually seen/used a Falcon are the ones who are impressed, while the people who have been doing all of the belly- aching haven't yet been lucky enough to see how well those poor specs are put to use. Just my thoughts, not flaming against anyone. - Mick ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 180 Sat Nov 21, 1992 J.TRAUTSCHOL [jtrautschold] at 22:59 EST Exactly! That's where ST, or Sixteen-Thirty Two, came from - it's an external 16-bit/internal 32-bit system. The TT is a Thirty Two-Thirty Two because it supports a true 32 bit system both externally and internally. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 181 Sat Nov 21, 1992 C.KLIMUSHYN [-Chuck-] at 23:22 EST Ben, My reply to your post is over in "atari vs. other systems" Cat.18 topic #22. Mick, No flame taken. My gripe is with the dis-information that Atari chose not to correct. It scares me that things are the same-old, same-old, despite time and money running out for Atari. Best Regards, -Chuck- ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 182 Sun Nov 22, 1992 M.POCHE [Mick] at 05:06 EST Chuck - True. While I may think that the Falcon is a great computer, Atari Corp. itself needs some serious work. I am one of the optimists most of the time, but just how optimistic can one be when things are promised and not delivered on a regular basis? Fool me once, shame on Atari. Fool me twice, shame on me. Atari has gone bungee jumping, and the Falcon is their cord. It will either snap them back from the bottom, or bust right in the middle while we all watch them go SPLAT! The ground is coming up fast...... - Mick ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 183 Sun Nov 22, 1992 LYRE at 06:44 EST Mike Allen, I'm glad to hear that you know of new potential customer's for the Falcon. From the discussion here, I have realized that the Falcon 030 is probably not going to be the machine that I need/want. Nor is it a "bad" machine. It is simply a machine that does not fit the purchase criteria I consider mandatory. Maybe my other post wasn't too clear on that point. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 185 Sun Nov 22, 1992 D.ENGEL [Thunderbird] at 16:14 EST Ringo: I'm glad to hear from another satisfied customer ;-). It's good to hear that people are still using it. Anyone with a Falcon030: I was thinking about Warp 9 the other day, and came to a startling relevation... The F030 has true color mode with 16 bits per pixel. being that each pixel takes up exactly 1 word, no shifting OR masking operations are needed to output text or graphics to the screen. Even though the "ST Compatablilty" and "VGA" modes offer less RAM to have to write to, the fact that no bit banging is involved might mean that the "true color" modes are the machine's fastest modes. Now that would be really exciting! In any case, it should make it that much simpler to write screen accelerators for the "true color" modes. _________________________ \hunderbird ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 186 Sun Nov 22, 1992 TOWNS [John@Atari] at 16:16 EDT I will do a dump of the Falcon030 cookie values here in the morning. I don't happen to remember them off the the top of my head.. Jim: No problem. I am glad that I could help. If you (or anyone else) has questions, I will be happy to answer them. -- John ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 187 Sun Nov 22, 1992 DENNYA [Denny Atkin] at 17:17 EST >>It doesn't stand for Sam Tramiel Right, and TOS doesn't stand for Tramiel Operating System either. :grin: FifthCrusade, We should take this conversation over to the ST vs. other platforms topic, but I'd love to know _why_ you think the Falcon will have better games than the Amiga 1200. Seriously. Sound is the only area where I can see the Falcon winning in the game area. If you want to reply, let's take it over to Cat 18, Topic 22, which is the official place for such discussions. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 188 Sun Nov 22, 1992 M.REARDON [Mark Reardon] at 19:27 EST Any **real** news about NextStep being ported for the Falcon ? ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 189 Sun Nov 22, 1992 SLP at 20:19 EST Denny, there are 2 basic reasons. First of all, everyone knows that the more creative people favor Atari over Amiga. Secondly, you Amy guys spend so much time trying to convince the world that the Amiga is the only way to go that your development time is cut into, unless you all spread propoganda while using the Amiga's famous multi tasking. Scott ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 190 Sun Nov 22, 1992 B.CARRIER [Bruce] at 21:31 EST Falcon? What's a Falcon? I was looking for a slide-viewer today at K-Mart, Lechmere, Sound Playground, Caldor's, Electronic Boutique, Staples, Sears, and one I forgot - and NOT ONE of any of them even heard of a computer called Falcon! (Much less Atari)! >> C'mon folks, how much can you take? This is November 22nd, 1992 - Xmas is 4 weeks away - The Bungee jump is over. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 191 Sun Nov 22, 1992 J.ROY18 [Jonathan] at 22:21 EST T.J., The SS2 has a 40mhz SPARC chip. It runs at 25.0 SPEC marks (2.85 MIPS and 4.2 MFLOPS). It has a 64 KB cache. The disply for color is dependant on the size of the monitor... You either have 1152x900 or 1280x1024. I don't even own one. :) I just look on the sales flyer. JPL, ZyXEL, the best low-cost modems around, are ran on a 68000 with two 56001 DSP chips. The ROMs are distributed on Internet at release time, so you can burn them yourself and install them sooner, if you'd prefer to not pay the 30$ and have them mailed. Obviously, the DSP can work as a modem. :) What would be great is a way to use the ZyXEL rom's with the Falcon's DSP, so that the Falcon could talk to ZyXEL's at their 16.8Kbps rate, and their beta 19.2Kbps rates. That'd be cool. (ZyXEL's are full duplex) AT&T's v.fast protocol (28.8Kbps full duplex) isn't distributed, however, so that may be a while in coming... ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 192 Sun Nov 22, 1992 R.ZALISCHUK [ ROBZAL ] at 23:40 EST Well, I've just finished reading the comdex coverage in the latest ZNET..... There's one paragraph where my basic reaction is -thud!- then I wake up staring at the ceiling. 4000 machines a month...worldwide? under a 1000 a month to North America? I try to be optimistic and positive about Atari otherwise I might go crazy......but the insanity may hard to ward off on this one. With the market the Falcon seems to be targeted for and an actual advertising push, my worst case senario was 20,000 a month with 5000 to North America. Lordy, lordy, how can there be an advertising push in N.A. with an initial 2000 machines and then under a 1000 a month? Robert Z. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 193 Mon Nov 23, 1992 J.THOMAS12 [JT] at 00:43 EST Something that all in this area could think about is, what happens if Atari sells 2 million Falcons, then, once they have some more bucks, they release the "Falcon040" and some of the users upgrade. It seems as if they are trying to get a "sure seller" out so that later they can bring out a Hot Rod. I would think that on their next model they would do ANYTHING to make it easy to hop up. If they giv it room in the case, and make it easy to expand, they ought to be able to sell them as fast as they can build 'em. JT PS I think it was implied that "ST" stood for SixTeen and "TT" stood for ThirtyTwo. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 194 Mon Nov 23, 1992 R.BEATTY3 [Buffalo Bob] at 01:02 EST And I was a proud owner of the Tweety Board while packing my 1st 1040ST. I shrudder to think how many different systems have passed through my doors over a few short years. I'm active duty USN and recently established an electronic calibration course at Pearl Harbor. We use quite a bit of Automated Test Equipment in the process, particularly equipment from Fluke and HP. I'd be interested in anything you come up with that involves the ST with ATE. We're using the GPIB (IEEE488-1975) interface. Thanks for the response. > Bob Beatty < > Neutronics < > Honolulu, HI < ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 195 Mon Nov 23, 1992 S.JOHNSON10 [Steve] at 01:05 EST S.DANUSER - Actually, I'm pretty sure I heard someone from Atari say (here on GEnie) that the Falcon030 wasn't (to paraphrase) "crippled like Mac LC II" in reference to the CPU bus. I'm not pissed that the Falcon030 is the way it is, but that Atari has been lying to us (again!). Yes, the Falcon030 is damn impressive as is, which is something I haven't been disputing. I'm just worried about a business-as-usual Atari that won't get anything done. ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 196 Mon Nov 23, 1992 S.DANUSER [Soul Manager] at 02:33 EST Okay, I've got it. Let's all pretend that the Falcon 030 is actually the Falcon 000. That's right, Atari was originally going to release the machine with a 68000 chip in it. So they build in a true PDS slot. They build in a 16 bit path to RAM. Everything looks great. Then someone comes up with an idea: "Hey, let's throw a 68030 in there instead. It's a faster chip and will increase speed and performance. The users will love it!" ... Yeah, well, read through the last hundred messages to see what the users have to say, informed or not. Which only goes to show that people will never be happy with anything. Give them cake, and they'll complain there isn't enough frosting. On another note, it warms my heart to see that Fifth Crusade started another, uh, crusade against the holy Amigae. See you in Cat 18... Soul Manager ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 197 Mon Nov 23, 1992 Z-NET at 03:53 EST Regarding 1,000 Falci a month into the USA... that's about 10 per month per "dealer". Not a lot. But not a lot of dealers, now. If they built 10,000 a month for the USA, I wonder how many would moulder in a warehouse and make Atari's cashflow plummet. John ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 198 Mon Nov 23, 1992 R.WATSON15 [Wayne Watson] at 04:27 EST With an unsure market for the Falcon at this point in time, would it be in Atari's best interest to build 20,000 machines a month and in 2 months they have only sold 5,000 machines? It is much easier to increase production as the demand grows than to start production and then stop it for awhile and then start it back up again. Starting up a production run is a lot more work than maintaining a steady production flow. Atari seems to be in first gear at the moment, hopefully the machine will take off and then they can change into second, third, etc. as needed. It's like traveling on the city streets with a lot of red lights versus going the highway where you don't have a lot of start and stop. Which is easier? ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 199 Mon Nov 23, 1992 FIFTHCRUSADE at 04:30 EST Soul Manager, >Let's pretend that the Falcon 030 is actually the Falcon 000. That's >right, Atari was originally going to release the machine with a >68000 chip in it. Aww. I was going to say this. >Then someone comes up with an idea [to put in a 68030 instead]. Why would Atari do this? It's a better chip. It's faster. It's easier to market. But I think the most important reason is Multi-TOS. Multi-TOS won't work real well without the memory protection offered by the 68030. In a multitasking system without memory protection, as you add processes to the mix, you're essentially building a house of cards. When one process goes haywire, chances are good it'll take every other process with it. >...Fifth Crusade started another, uh [sic], crusade against the >holy Amigae. Whoops. I'll have to stop doing that. Ben White ------------ Category 14, Topic 20 Message 200 Mon Nov 23, 1992 B.STOREY [Billy B.] at 07:13 EST >In any case why don't we all wait until we can play with a Falcon before we >start to criticize it! > Some people just can't wait! ----------------------------------------------------- >it seams OBVIOUS to me that thare is a SIMPLE way around the 16 bit wide buss >in the PDS for use with 040's and 486s.. If you will think back to the >Previous "Argument" over the fact of the Memory board, and the fact that there >is not an Iota of memory on the motherboard of the falcon (Except for the Non- >Volital Ram wich if probably les than a K anyway). If you want you Upgrade >board to have FULL access to the 32 bit wide RAM on the Memory board, Why not >UN-PLUG the memory board from the Mother Board and Plug a "Tap" in between the >Mother board and the memory? > >This wuld let you get at the Memory FAST at a FULL 32 bits wide! You wuld >STILL nead to watch the PDS addres lines to make shure that you don't conflict >with the Other DMA stuff... But I am Shure that this Little trick Could be >done! > >Josh @ Cali-Co. > "There is no limit to people's ingenuity!" ------------