Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:It sort-of is Atari (Score 1) 127

The Amiga 500 (i.e. the first "affordable" Amiga and the one that people remember as the "classic" Amiga) came out in 1987, and I assume that's what you had.

I suspect that the original 1985 Amiga 1000 might not have come with a modulator. Then again, the list price for that was apparently $1300, and if you had the money (and inclination) for that, the $300 cost of the monitor probably wouldn't be an issue, especially as it was probably being bought by professionals and hobbyists who wouldn't spend $1300 on state-of-the-art media computer and compromise it by shoving the display through some crappy RF. :-)

Comment Re:It sort-of is Atari (Score 1) 127

Should have clarified that. When I said "that's incorrect", I meant that it was incorrect that it wasn't related through Tramiel's Atari Corp. (it was) and that it was a successor to Atari Games (which I assume was the entity you meant). Of course, as I mentioned, Atari Corp also did games-related business.

Comment Re:It sort-of is Atari (Score 3, Informative) 127

The Atari you see around these days is related to the games bit.

That's incorrect; Hasbro (and through them, Infogrames) got the "Atari" name and IP through the legal remnants of Atari Corp. who *did* deal in games.

Atari Inc. was split along *arcade* (Atari Games) and *home/consumer* (Atari Corp.) lines. The latter (Jack Tramiel's) certainly included a lot of games-related business over the years, even if Tramiel initially thought it was a dead end. They continued the VCS/2600, relaunched the 7800 (after canning it for 18 months or so), released the XE Games System (an updated Atari 800 without a keyboard), then the Lynx (a fantastic handheld console developed by Epyx that was years ahead of its time, and partly killed by their crappy marketing) and finally the ill-fated Jaguar.

Also, the deal was that Atari Games could only use the "Atari" name in the arcade; they used the "Tengen" brand for home releases. Atari Games became part of Midway and was later renamed Midway Games West around the time Hasbro got the home name (to avoid confusion, apparently). I don't know what the status is of Atari Games' rights to the name and IP, but I suspect their legal successor's use of the name will still be restricted to arcade use. (Given that even in Japan- apparently- actual arcade-based games are no longer popular, that's nowhere near as big a deal as it would have been in the mid-80s).

Comment Re:It sort-of is Atari (Score 2) 127

Actually, the Amiga was originally developed by an independent company (Amiga Inc.) who *did* have some former Atari people working for them. The old Atari Inc. provided some support with caveats attached, and when Jack Tramiel bought out Atari's computer division, he hoped (using his typical legally-dubious techniques) to use legal clauses and agreements to gain control of the Amiga. Commodore rushed in and bought them, there was a lot of fuss and legal bickering, but C= ended up with the rights and Tramiel's Atari rushed out the ST instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Amiga#Amiga_Corporation

FWIW, the ST *did* do better early on in Europe, because the Amiga was so damn expensive, so don't knock it too much- it did provide "Power without the Price", even if it was eclipsed later on as the Amiga fell in price and took over as Europe's favourite 16-bit. Of course, both flopped in the US...

Comment Didn't buy "Atari", they bought Hasbro Interactive (Score 5, Informative) 127

Infogrames bought not just the name, but the company [..] it is still the same company.

Not really, the "company" Infogrames bought and "continued" was merely Hasbro Interactive- and they themselves were merely an unrelated company that had purchased the Atari name and IP.

Quick rehash... the original "true" Atari Inc. ran into trouble following the 1983 US video game crash. It was split into arcade and consumer divisions; the former was "Atari Games" (later sold to Midway, who renamed it and eventually shut it down in 2003).

The latter was bought by Jack Tramiel and became "Atari Corp.", a legally separate company that nonetheless could still be seen as a spiritual continuation of Atari Inc's computer and console division.

Fast forward to the mid-90s, and all Atari Corp's recent products have flopped. The company is cash rich, but with no future, so Tramiel "merges" Atari Corp. with JTS, a second-rate hard drive maker. Since this is- in effect- just a means for him to transfer his investment to JTS, Atari Corp. basically ceases any meaningful operations at this point, remaining only a legal entity within JTS.

A couple of years later, JTS goes bankrupt, and Hasbro buys the Atari IP. No real connection with the original business(es) in any real sense, as there's nothing meaningful to continue by this point.

So, Hasbro weren't really "Atari" except that they bought the name and IP, and Infogrames aren't really either. Both successors that had any meaningful continuation of Atari Inc. (i.e. Atari Corp. and Atari Games) are both now long defunct with nothing left to continue.

Comment Re:i have purchased the affected products. (Score 3) 709

I would purchase them again today. Horses are not especially more intelligent than cows.

Viewing this though the issue of horsemeat misses the bigger (and more important) question raised. Namely, that if horsemeat was able to end up where it shouldn't have, what other garbage has "accidentally" made its way into these burgers over the years?

Meat rejected for human consumption (destined for pet food and the like or for destruction) making its way back into the human food chain? Quite likely, this has already been heard of. Other animals? God knows what crap?

It's not remotely surprising that burgers costing less than 13p each (inc. VAT (*)) would contain any old rubbish. Doesn't mean it's acceptable for anyone to sell that, regardless of the price, but it shouldn't be surprising.

(*) Sales tax, for the benefit of those outside the UK

Comment Re:Campbell's shows why closed source is bad (Score 2) 64

This isn't really an issue of closed source, it's an issue of pointlessly restricted access. One could quite easily (and still workably) have an open API to a closed source system.

As you say though, spending time creating an API that no-one gets access to really makes little sense- unless one assumes that the API was only ever intended as an excuse and necessary component for a marketing-driven PR campaign. Maybe it does do something useful and they're going to use it internally within the company, but I doubt it. My suspicion is that once this whole thing is over it'll be quickly forgotten about and left to moulder unused on a server somewhere.

Comment Re:What are *YOU* getting out of it? (Score 1) 64

Yes, potential employers will be impressed with your tale of losing a contest, and your app that doesn't work. These arguments are the same that some try to use to defend spec work (and that's what this is, honestly).

Yeah, well you'll be laughing out the other side of your face when the market for people with "Campbell's Recipe API" experience explodes, and I have it there on my resume, right beside the "Customise Ronald McDonald's Face Remote Protocol v1.3".

Comment Re:Wow (Score 1) 505

Cool, another teenager posting on slashdot. Why don't you fuck off to bed and stop whining about the nasty grown ups?

A teenager? Unlikely, given his low user ID, which would suggest he's been on Slashdot since early on (i.e. the late 90s), unless he bought the account on eBay.

Of course, it's possible that he really *is* a 17-year old, assuming- of course- that one accepts the plausibility of him having contributed to Slashdot as a toddler. ;-)

Comment Re:Another kind of resolution (Score 4, Funny) 266

One that is expressed as x*y pixels, not as some obscure acronym.

Amen; I don't know what any of them mean either (half of them sound like remote provinces in China) and- more importantly- I don't care. Acronyms like that may have served a purpose 20 years ago, when there were only a few standard resolutions, but there's no point in trying to remember the number that exist nowadays. Really, I may be a geek, but I've still got better things to do with my time than trying to memorise what WSXGA+ means. Who gives a toss?- just tell me the resolution!

Is it just me, or do the polls nowadays come across as a bit soulless and contrived, as if they've been put together by a corporate employee self-consciously trying to appeal to geeks rather than a Taco-like true geek? Take this one; it's like they got the "like to laugh at their own geekiness knowing obscure acronyms" aspect of geek culture, but it doesn't really get there because it doesn't have any depth (e.g. an "in-joke" option that a geek would get or a subtle reference that not everyone would get but those who did would be like "I see what you did there") and ultimately most geeks *don't* have an autistic interest in caring about monotonous acronyms.

Also, as others commented, they should have realised that true geeks would have spotted that they missed out the relatively common 1920x1080 resolution altogether. :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (2) Thank you for your generous donation, Mr. Wirth.

Working...