[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MiNT Computing!

> Wouldn't the PAK-030 boards supply sufficient computing power for MiNT-X'ed STe computers?

Maybe. Then add the price for a graphics card. Who's going to pay that?

> My idea is that since STe's, Falcons, and TT's are inexpensive in the case of second hand units,
> it would seem to be a great way for people that can't afford more expensive new systems to get
> familiarized with Unix, Multimedia, MIDI, and computing in general.  ESCOM is still selling

Second hand Macs and PCs are inexpensive as well.

> Amiga 1200 computers world wide as well as C-Labs selling Falcon computers.  The main difference

Escom sold the Amiga Division and is reducing their workforce by nearly 50%.

> is that ESCOM has set up a web page informing prior and new users of their plans for the 
> Amiga platform.  Basically, I am talking about maintaining the Operating System more so than 
> anything else.  MiNT, with it's ability to truly multitask, unlike the Mac operating system
> is available for both Atari's and Apples.  This gives 68k computing a standard operating system

MacMiNT is poorly supported, doesn't have VDI, AES or X and itself relies
on MacOS.

> since Apple is moving away from the 68k family.  More powerful TOS/MiNT based systems have been
> released in the form of the DirectTT040/060 and the Medusa Hades computers.  The Falcon, with 
> it's 68030 and 56001 upgradeable to 68040 using the Afterburner, is still a better platform for
> music creation compared to PowerMacs which can only have a total of 6 digital audio tracks.
> No other computer, except the BeBOX has a larger array of built-in ports than the Falcon.

Really? I doubt that. The truth is that every modern computer can be
extended with standard (PCI-) cards, which is not possible with the Falcon.

> The main thing that I see for the Falcon interms of upgrading the hardware in future models
> would be the support of the 68040, 68060, Ethernet, PCI, and Very Wide SCSI (III).  I recall
> reading about the possible development of a Falcon clone coming from France.  The question is,
> is the Falcon computing platform less useful than the Amiga platform?  What is going to happen 

No, it isn't. Both were fine machines, but they don't have a future.

> to all of those 68k Macintoshes once Apple releases the PowerPC only Copeland?  MagiC is nice
> and now it is available to Atari, Mac and PC platforms, however, MiNT has better support of
> Unix and internet related software.  MiNT support can be extended to STonX, thus allowing PC's
> to be able to utilize Atari software.  
> Why should there be support for MiNT?
> Being that the Atari platform is SO rich in hardware features such as JagPaDS, LocalTalk,
> Centronics Printer, Serial, DSP 56001, etc.  It would make sense to allow MiNT to become

No *modern* parallel port, no PCMCIA, no Ethernet...

> a rich multimedia oriented operating system.  Perhaps MiNT will blossom with the release
> of Fenix.  The Falcon has the ports, upon its release Byte magazine gave it a best product 
> reward.  What we have to do is just what Amiga developers have done, they have realized that
> Commodore is no longer around, ESCOM is maintaining the Amiga platform.  The same can be said

Not anymore.

> about the Falcon and the TT, with C-Labs, Direct Computing, Medusa Computers, and the people
> who create the Eagle, TOS platform computing continues.  Most of the emulators that I mentioned

Eagle? The company doesn't exist anymore. Does that teach something about
investing money into TOS clones?

> were created to run on most DOS based computers.  Some of those computers are running 286's
> or 386's.  The developers aren't concerned about whether IBM or Microsoft will drop DOS,
> they were more concerned about allowing users of these computers to utilize their computers
> in a different way, allowing them to enjoy the TONS of games and educational titles available
> for the system.  TOS/MiNT based computers aren't as well supported as DOS computers, this 
> is more of a reason for emulation to be a VERY important area for Atari's.  I guarantee you
> that if ShapeShifter were released for the Falcon, and Falcon users brought in their Falcons
> to work and connected them to AppleTalk networks, many people would be amazed at the capabilities
> of the Falcon and more would be sold.  I personally got some people into the MegaSTe when 
> the Spectre GCR was released.

You can get a used Performa 475 for around 500 US$. That's 040 with 25 MHz.
Where's the point in getting a Falcon to run Mac software?

> Peter Rottengatter:  Do you feel that a 68060 based TT clone is not powerful enough for running
> 			MiNT-X?  Is a Falcon030 a good enough system for running MSX software?

Which MSX software would be woth the effort?

> 			MSX was a MIDI based computer system that was adopted by many countrys
> 			as a computing standard.  Lots of educational and musical software	
> 			had been released for it.  Would the ability to run Super NES game
> 			cartridges on a Falcon with a parallel port based cart adapter satisfy
> 			your craving for 256 color, stereo based games until more Falcon specific
> 			titles, such as Bad Mood and Willie's Adventure are perfected?  

If you want a game machine, get the real thing :-)

> 			Children from other countries, familiar with MSX would be pleased to be
> 			able to run some of the software used in their schools on their 1040 STe's.
> 			The idea is to figure out solutions to continue the usefulness of these 
> 			computers.  I applaud the creation of X for MiNT without the requirement
> 			of a floating point math unit.

Why would X ever want to see a float unit?

Sorry, but your ideas are *really* weird.

MiNT and MagiC are nice systems for people who already have an Atari and
want to continue to use it. But there's no way to more than a few new
people into it.

Julian F. Reschke, Hensenstr. 142, D-48161 Muenster
 eMail: reschke@math.uni-muenster.de jr@ms.maus.de