My response was to what they could have improved upon or had done better with the ST, but you're right, I didn't provide solutions. Atari should have had something that would have allowed for all programs/games to run on any output provided, even if it meant games in B&W., or programs crammed into a tiny window instead of isolating it to one specific output only and after a quick Google search, as stated before, I found that a muli-sync monitor would have resolved this issue but it wasn't something that Atari offered and price for such a monitor is a different topic really. I'm not sure what hardware restrictions there were or why it was only one or the other but that's how it was. I checked out the 1435 (Never owned one but would love to, only ever had the SC1224 and SM124) and it doesn't appear to be Multisync, just a 1084 in Atari casing. *And apparently there was a solution for this, to run monochrome-only programs you could use to emulate Hi-Res mode called Sebra, though I know nothing about it and it's not a solution provided from Atari directly.AtariZoll wrote:@Mindthreat: I forgot something to say in my first comment of your first comment: you are off topic. You just criticize, but did not say anything about better solutions.
For instance, the monitor case. How Atari should solve sharp, non-flickering resolution of 640x400 px monitor without it cost a fortune in 1985 ?
If it would support color modes, then it will be: very expensive, cost more than 2 monitors what were released then. + high-res mode would be not so sharp on color CRT with color masks. What Atari did was actually very good and solution for everyone: who wanted only to play games and maybe little programming could go without buying any monitor. Who wanted serious work bought mono monitor. And people with money bought color monitor (too) .
I would say that it was really good policy/design .
Finally, TOS was not made to impress people with it's speed. But you talk rather about part of it: Desktop (as is pointed already) . I would not call it slow, and icon sizes were good, considering that it is not Windows 95 and later, and never were there many icons, so large ones fit without problem even in low res. Desktop did it's purpose well - starting SW, some basic informations, floppy format and copy functions. Who wanted more and faster could choose among thousands of diverse utilities.
Should I say now that Windows and it's Desktop (Explorer) is utter crap because I use Total Commander in most time ?
So TOS wasn't made for speed... well then, maybe that's something they should have worked on and improved. How they do that is beyond me but it clearly didn't happen anyways, even almost 10 years later.
And when I mentioned how overly large or huge the icons were on TV, I was suggesting that the improvement could have been for smaller icons (even if a little bit) but I thought that would've been obvious. I remember resizing windows and moving around icons or the general refresh of it all being painfully slow in color but maybe I'm wrong or maybe something was wrong with my ST, but I don't think so because I definitely remember the Falcon being the same way without an accelerator... I am going from memory and I did state that it's been a long time since I've touched one. I did have the flashback though as stated to watching the Computer Chronicles video so I did see it again and the slowness hit me again. I don't come with full criticism and I'm not bashing the ST by any means, I like the machine and definitely plan on getting another one (STe) when the right one crosses my path. If we want to start another thread on what Atari did right with the ST and how great it is, I'll post in that one too and assure you, the good outweighs the bad.