Re: Quaint old equipment

[P3D John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 00:53:54 -0500
>From: P3D Gavin Stokes  <gstokes@xxxxxxx>
>Subject: Quaint old equipment

>Gregory remarked,
>"For example, I own and use Atari ST and TT computer equipment.  How's that
>for obscure? The funny thing is, mention of Atari computers gets me *exactly*
>the same funny looks as mention of my collecting/using stereo cameras.  'Oh,
>how quaint.  Didn't they go out of business in the <insert decade>'s?'"

>I'll go further: I own and use an Atari 800, so imagine the altitude of
>eyebrows when I mention that one! As a professional software developer, I
>can tell you that you still can't buy an IBM-compatible that has the
>graphics capabilities of the Atari. Hardware-based moving objects, graphic
>overlaps, automatic collision detection, and true scrolling. 

I noticed that when the ST and Amiga were widespread, software developers
tended to write graphics-intensive software for them first, then figure out
how to port it to a PC-compatible.

I own an Atari *400*, and a Commodore 64, and an Amiga 1000, and an Amiga 2000,
but I use PC-compatibles and Unix machines 99+% of the time. I just built a
Pentium machine, but I still use a 286 as a terminal, and I'm debating
whether to stick with a completely functional 486DX50 system, or triple its
performance with a $150 upgrade. I keep my 1200 and 2400 modems as backup,
in case the 14400 and 28800 get blown out at a critical time. I think
old pieces of computer equipment have some worth, and it often makes sense
not to throw them away, but you have to consider the costs, such as
maintenance and the time required to remain proficient with them.

>In fact, the
>IBM is moving backward: Intel is now putting sound and graphic support in
>the CPU. Come on, even the Atari and Amiga were advanced enough to offload
>those chores to dedicated hardware! What good is a 200-mHz Pentium when it's
>bogged down in bitmaps and audio samples?

Well, my Pentium 100 benchmarks at ~240x the speed of a PC-XT for general
processor functions, and ~4300x for math functions (those numbers may
improve when my cache memory arrives). Even if it's doing a couple of "Amigas"
of work on graphics, there are plenty of cycles for other things. The main
challenge I see is the memory bandwidth required for a "unified memory
architecture". I don't personally understand how they intend to address it,
but I know that a large number of companies are convinced that's the way to
go, given the current state of technology and economics. As technology
changes, what makes a good choice changes too - I remember when polling
loops were preferred because interrupts were considered so slow - now
interrupts appear to be the most widely used interface approach.

>The point is, the Ataris and 3-D pictures get the same response from people
>today: "That's amazing! Why don't people use this anymore?"  I can't tell
>you how many times I've heard this.  My answer is the same: People no longer
>recognize quality.  In the case of cameras and audio, among other things,
>they only recognize convenience.  3-D is too much trouble. Records are too 
>much trouble. Give me a plastic 35-mm camera for
>$600, 'cause hey, it's advanced POLYCARBONATE.  It's so much lighter, and
>you know, that AE-1 was sooooo heavy and tiring to lug around.

Talk about timing! Column 1, page 58 of the May 1996 Popular Photography
reveals... the Canon AE-1 *is* plastic! :-)

>On one hand, I get great satisfaction out of preserving and presenting these
>great old artifacts to friends and strangers.  On the other, I'm irritated
>at everyone out there who buys the crap companies are making today, without
>complaint.  Because these people are voting for crap, the rest of us can't
>buy high quality AT ANY PRICE.

I agree with you on that, though I have some different specific gripes.
I suspect all those point and shoot cameras are cutting into the economies
of scale of cameras with better optics and more user controls in the
medium-price range. However, I don't have statistics on quality vs volume
from before the P&S era for comparison. High quality equipment usually
is available, but it may be very hard to find and very expensive.

Of course, those 1950's 3D slide cameras make it hard for 3D prints and
Holmes stereoscopes to maintain a foothold. It could also be argued that
the 50's cameras are inhibiting the development of a market for superior
modern stereo cameras - thousands or tens of thousands of Realist/etc. owners
convince themselves that their cameras are "good enough", and therefore
fail to clamor for a new design. :-)

(In case you hadn't guessed, I like the Realist because it's *stereo* and
it's also a reasonably good camera - I don't place any value on the fact
that it's manual-everything and that it uses decades-old optics technology.)

John R


------------------------------