Re: [MiNT] Where shall we go tomorrow?

[Martin-Eric Racine <q-funk@pp.fishpool.fi>]

On 11.12.1999, Hartmut Keller <keller@informatik.uni-stuttgart.de> wrote:

First, thank you for jotting down your thoughts.  It's nice to
see an average user saying his piece.

> the price to power ratio is always better on the PC side, so
> I think I won't by a Falcon or TT or some newer machine, and
> if the compatibility to 68000 is lost, I think you'll also
> lose me as a user. 

I do have one question:

What about those of us that _do_ have better machines with a
68030, with an instruction cache, nvram, more advanced CPU
instruction set and an FPU installed?

Why couldn't we max out the possibilities of our machines, since
we already invested into them, just because someone absolutely
insists they need everything to work on an ST, even though it's
clear they have already moved on 90% of their time to a PC?

> There is no special feature that requires the skills of a
> 68020 and up, and speed isn't an issue either. 

I hope you are aware of the additional possibilities of a 68020
compared to plain old 68000?  What about adding an FPU?  Should
we purposely skip the benefits of an FPU because an ST has none,
even though it's clear most ST people use a PC most of the time?

Speed is very much an issue, nowadays, especially with crypto. So
is 68020 or better CPU.  I'll give you one striking example: SSH.  
Have you ever tried to compile it for 68000?  Sure, you can do it
if you disable ASM optimization, but the resulting binary is too
slow, even on a 25 MHz Stacy.  

Also, the m68k target uses some 68020 instructions to make key
calculation and verification quicker. If I compile with -m68881,
the binary is almost up to PC speed. If I disable optimization
and don't use the FPU, I get a binary that is useless, even on
the TT.  Horribly ssssslllllooowwww.

Another example:  SSL.  If you follow recent threads on usenet,
you'll see the main reason why people eventually sell their ST, 
or even their TT/Falcon, is because they complain it doesn't work
to access certain sites that require SSL to encrypt credit card
info or to perform banking transactions online.  

Do we have SSL on MiNT?  Of course we do.  Thanks to Juhani, we
even have a precompiled binary of the CAB.OVL with SSL enabled.

So why are people still selling their machine?  Cannot play MP3,
doesn't have enough colours or a big enough screen res, cannot
connect using Ethernet to the school's freenet, cannot connect to
cable-net because we don't have DHCP, etc.

Notice a pattern?  All those things refer to hardware limitations
of old ST machines.  Falcon could probably do MP3, using the DSP;
ST stands no chance. Both the TT and clones can use graphic cards
and the TT/Falcon already come with enhanced resolutions that the
ST doesn't have.  DHCP could be ported, but would only be usable
on machines that already have Ethernet cards (e.g. TT or clones -
yes Mauritz, there once was a DMA Bionet, I know).  

Also, once you start running all these things simultaneously, how
much CPU and memory resources will it require?  Can your ST cope?

Probably not.  That's the whole point.

Some years ago (I'm sure kellis and Lonny will remember), I saw
that my STE could not work in hi-res with colours, did not have
enough serial port throughput and was rather slow, even with NVDI
to speed up the display.  Also, I always ran out of ram before
CAB completed dithering and displaying photography web sites.

Therefore, it became self-evident that, if I wanted to be able to
browse in colours, at a reasonable speed, and with enough room to
boot the extra application, I needed to upgrade. This was in 1997
and SSH nor SSL had appeared yet.  Neither did most ports we now
benefit from.  I wasn't running Apache nor Perl to experiment CGI
scripting yet, because it hadn't been ported.  

So, we didn't have all those memory-hungry applications yet, but
already I noticed that, if I wanted to keep Atari as my platform
and not have to "upgrade" to a PC, I needed to at least upgrade
to a more powerfull Atari.  That was 1997. 

I never regreted buying that TT.  It now has Ethernet which gets
me on cable-net, a CD-ROM that blasts thru expansive audiophile
speakers, and a 4.5 GB hard-disk.  The only thing I currently
wish for is more colours on screen.  Otherwise, it still does
everything I need from a computer.  

Unfortunately, I really cannot say the same from my 25 MHz Stacy.
Quite honestly, it has become almost useless, even with that fast
accelerator card and a huge hard-disk, along with a PLIP link to
the outside thru the TT.  Sometimes, I think I only keep it out
of plain nostalgy....

***

Anyhow, sorry if I might have sounded pushy.  I really mean no
harm to anyone.  However, I have recently noticed that those who
still use an ST use that as an argument to hold back people using
newer TT/Falcon/clones from maximizing their hardware's potential
even though they have now moved on to PC for most of their work.

Honestly, I would really like it if those of us who still don't
have a PC "because of the job" and rely a 100% on Atari would be
able to enjoy 100% of their machine's capability, instead of be
told that Atari has become useless just because software has to
remain compatible with a 520STM running TOS 1.0.

Sorry again, if I have sounded rude or verbosed at lenght, but I
really think we should move on and give the remaining true Atari
users the software they deserve instead of "TT/Falcon-compatible"
generic meatball ST software.

Just my two markka. ;-)

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin-Éric Racine            The Atari Stacy and TT030 Homepage
Lappeenranta, Finland          http://members.tripod.com/~TT030/
----------------------------------------------------------------
   "When the time comes, I will know and I shall be."  Q-Funk