[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
> 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
> 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: firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com