Info-Atari16 Digest Tuesday, August 22, 1989 Volume 89 : Issue 405 This weeks Editor: Bill Westfield Today's Topics: Re: ST X and Ether deskjet and Timeworks Re: Cringely on TT Atari's New Products Re~2: Loyal Atarians?!? Re: QINDEX15 measurents : QuickST 1.46 vs TurboST 1.2 My last comments about ST multitasking RE: Loyal Atarians?!? Re: My last comments about ST multitasking DALLAS WORLD OF ATARI Re: Multitasking on the ST ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Aug 89 14:41:15 GMT From: mnetor!utzoo!censor!geac!yunexus!stpl!tyler@uunet.uu.net (Tyler IVANCO) Subject: Re: ST X and Ether To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu The Byte-Size systems unit was designed and is built by us. We have 5 working systems with: 1 Ethernet 128 SRAM* 64 EPROM/ROM** 1 68000** 8 Serial ports 2 Parallel ports 1 SCSI (REAL!!!) * 64 K minimum ** Standalone configuration The card runs either standalone with its own processor or on the mega bus connector and can be configured in a variety of ways. However, due to other contract arrangements, we have had to put the software development on hold. Software is the real problem with this type of system. Hardware was working last January. We are willing to sell units to people at very nearly our cost if they are willing to develop software as a sort of VAR arrangement. All of this brings up an interesting point. For some reason, the ATARI line seems to attract very small ventures in hardware. Some have expanded and been very successful, e.g. ICD, Supra. Others (e.g. FutureDos (us)) work with the Atari part time and as such are quite small. To work full time requires a faith in the Atari future that we just don't have. Without hardware expansion, there is little future in any product line for that is how it remains current. The Mega, from this point of view is a disappointment. When we designed and contructed our ACSI controller in late 84, it was out of curiosity just as the ethernet board was. It wasn't because we expected to profit by it (after all, we were gainfully employed elsewhere). In fact we expected that someone else would come out with a similar unit very soon. Outside of a couple of european units this did not come about. A solid expansion bus need not be expensive as is demonstrated by the ubiquitous IBM PC family. This should be a priority design goal in any computer design for general use. I hope that future ATARI products consider this requirement. I still have hope for the Atari, especially if a more advanced model is released. I enjoy the system (especially with TOS 1.4 and OS/9) but have been disappointed with the lack of "bells and whistle" type components for this system. Tyler ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 89 20:18:49 GMT From: avogel@g.ms.uky.edu (Andrew Lee Vogel) Subject: deskjet and Timeworks To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu Anthony can't post to the net so reply to me, avogel, thanks alot. Just got my DJ, but having trouble printing EasyDraw GEM files from Timeworks DTP, am using the HP laserjet selection from timeworks. Any help would be appreciated, I can't post to the net, so maybe you could for me or ask around or something?? thanks. Anthony Paul avp@garfield.UUCP avp@garfield.mun.cdn ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 89 19:33:46 GMT From: ogccse!blake!themod@husc6.harvard.edu (Chris Hinton) Subject: Re: Cringely on TT To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu In article <9271@chinet.chi.il.us> saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes: >The 'Cringely' column in Infoworld today said that the TT will be officially >announced August 25. He mentions some reasonable prices and specs. By Could you, or anybody else, post the specs on the TT. From what I hear it's going to be a NeXT-like machine. Is it? Chris Hinton ---- themod@blake.acs.washington.edu Mod Software Systems Seattle, Wa 98195 "Why didn't you tell me he had one of those... things?" - The Joker. "My life is really...complex." - Bruce Wayne. "Excuse me... What does God need with a starship?" - James T. Kirk. ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 89 22:32:52 GMT From: janus.berkeley.edu!mitchell@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Evan Mitchell) Subject: Atari's New Products To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu I recently posted an article asking why Atari owners were so loyal to there machines, and ultimately to Atari. The reason I asked this is because I still have a soft spot for Atari. My first Videogame (2600) and computer (1200XL) came from them. Despite the fact I'm a happy Amiga owner, I would still like to see Atari succeed, especially in the computer business. My question is how can they? They've announced ALOT of neat sounding new gadgets, but then again, they've been doing that for a long, long time. (Remember the 1450XLD) What about the ST-E? Even if it's introduced why would anyone buy one? It sounds an awful lot like the Amiga (stereo Sound, 4096 colors, blitter, etc.) but there is NO software to take advantage of these extra features. What about the TT? If it's as good as people think it will be, I may buy one. However, I can get an '020 based Amiga or Mac today, and if I had the money, I could drop in 25MHZ '030 with 25MHZ 68882 and 32-bit memory into either one. ATW? That's out of my ballpark! I really would like to see Atari succeed, if for no other reason than to make Apple and Commodore work harder and drive down prices! -Evan _______________________________________________________________________________ | Evan Jay Mitchell EECS/ERL Industrial Liaison Program | | mitchell@janus.berkeley.edu University of California at Berkeley | | Phone: (415) 643-6687 | | "Think, it ain't illegal...yet!" - George Clinton | ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 89 19:23:41 GMT From: atha!rwa@decwrl.dec.com (Ross Alexander) Subject: Re~2: Loyal Atarians?!? To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu dbsuther@PacBell.COM (Daniel B. Suthers) writes: >I'd rather have a 3B4000, but can't aford the power bill. :-) I've got a 3b4000 (yes, I'm root for the box). I like minix on my ST much better, thank you. Ross ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 89 14:16:58 GMT From: att!watmath!watdragon!dahlia!swklassen@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Steven W. Klassen) Subject: Re: QINDEX15 measurents : QuickST 1.46 vs TurboST 1.2 To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu In article <8908140948.AA13449@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> KRUYSBER@HNYKUN53.BITNET writes: > >Conclusion: the measures indicate a better BIOS text handling by TurboST >and a better GEM resource handling by QuickST. These measures however >have to be seen in the light of the human, indicating that QuickST is >(in the comparison of these two versions) preferable. > This conclusion must be tempered by the fact that QuickST and QIndex were written by the same people. ie. QuickST may be optimized more in areas which show up in QIndex but not as well in other areas. Given the large size of TurboST compared to QuickST my guess is that TurboST optimizes more system calls than does QuickST. At any rate at true comparison of the two requires a benchmark program written by a third party. I do not say this to smear the authors of QuickST, I think that they have done a wonderful job, I am merely pointing out that one may want to think twice about removing TurboST from all their disks. (On the other hand QuickST is a lot cheaper!) Steven W. Klassen Computer Science Major University of Waterloo ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1989 00:01 EDT From: Greg Csullog <01659%AECLCR.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU> Subject: My last comments about ST multitasking To: I wish that some of the people who read and reply to net postings would actually take the time to understand what they have read. As an example, one reply about my original posting about MT on the ST went on-and-on about the move towards MT in the industry; hey!, I was NOT against MT, just puzzled why anyone would want it on a system like an 68000 at 8 MHz. In addition, so many postings came back giving examples of MT when they were just glorified task switching examples. MT to me means doing several CPU intensive jobs at the same time. It's not the ability to format a disk while you type in your word processor. It's not switching out of some game to do some spreadsheet work. It's not swapping data between painting programs. Those are all task switching examples. MT is controlling some lab equipment while at the same time several users log on and do word processing and someone else is generating a database report. Look, I can format floppies from within all my ST applications, I can run a word processor, a spreadsheet and a painting program at the same time and switch between them. I can ask REVOLVER to 'rollout' a memory partition to disk. BUT, when I want to crank out dbMAN reports from my databases (one is almost 4 megabytes), I don't want to slow down my 68000 by using another application at all. I want the dbMAN stuff out asap. I reitierate, I am not anti-multitasking and I this is not a case of sour grapes (that's for you Amiga guys). I'll just wait until I can afford a machine that's got the guts to do real multitasking. Anybody understand the following? NO IFBMS NO AMIFGAS NO MFACS NO WFAY ------------------------------ Date: 15 AUG 89 23:25:33 CST From: Z4648252 To: X-Orig-To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu Subject: RE: Loyal Atarians?!? Evan Jay Mitchell asks: > I have a question for all you loyal Atarians... "Why?" Why > are you so loyal to Atari? I'm curious. Obviously this is directed to why I chose the ST rather than the Amiga. Difficult to comment without flames that is so digustingly common on local BBSes. At any rate, I have had an ST system since summer of '85. I used to have an Apple //e and lusted for the Macs when they first appeared. Lust is all that I could do because the Macs were (still are) terribly expensive. I saw the ST and was SHOCKED that I was able to get a store unit up and running within two minutes without knowing anything about the ST. Fast operations, comfortable to use without having to be a hacker, and dependability would be my partial answer to why I am loyal to the ST. I have two megs of memory in a Mega, emulate the Macintosh, and power a DeskJet printer. It all works, again is VERY FAST, and most of all for me, VERY COMFORTABLE to use. I am not a software hacker, detest anything that reaks of CLI interfacing for doing file and program maintenance tasks, and am annoyed if I have to type in a command. Hence, I LOVE the ST interface and 3rd market supports and enhancements for it (UIS, NeoDesk, quick and effortless accessories). I'll admit to wishing for improved multi-tasking but I will not give up the ST's ease of use for that desired feature. The question by Evan mentioned Atari loyalty. Sorry, won't get me there. I bought a fast and comfortable computer, not stock in a computer company. I am not loyal to a company either. If a ST-type platform comes out with multi-tasking complete with the speed, comfort, and ease of use of this Mega ST, and if it is of another company, it would cause me to take notice and possibly switch, if it delivered what was promised. As it is, though, the ST is a tough box to beat. It gets faster and easier to use almost daily. If I hang in there long enough, I might even see real multi-tasking. GRIN Larry Rymal in East Texas ------------------------------ Date: 16 Aug 89 05:03:40 GMT From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!lbl-csam.arpa!antony@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Antony A. Courtney) Subject: Re: My last comments about ST multitasking To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu In article <8908160401.AA01009@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> 01659@AECLCR.BITNET (Greg Csullog) writes: >I wish that some of the people who read and reply to net postings would >actually take the time to understand what they have read. As an example, >one reply about my original posting about MT on the ST went on-and-on >about the move towards MT in the industry; hey!, I was NOT against MT, just >puzzled why anyone would want it on a system like an 68000 at 8 MHz. Right. These people responded because it is important to note that with a well written OS, things don't have to slow down, and generally don't. Multitasking adds functionality and versatility to any system. And one of the fundamental ideas behind most multitasking OSs is that things do not stop, they just slow down. Slowing down a little always beats stopping or exiting an application. >In addition, so many postings came back giving examples of MT when they were >just glorified task switching examples. > >MT to me means doing several CPU intensive jobs at the same time. It's not >the ability to format a disk while you type in your word processor. It's >not switching out of some game to do some spreadsheet work. It's not >swapping data between painting programs. Those are all task switching examples. Oh, Gee--So you define multitasking differently from everyone else in the world and then say you don't think multitasking is a good idea?! :) The conventional definition of multitasking as I have learned it is transparent control by the OS over multiple execution streams. Yes, this does involve context switching, but the application never knows about the context switch and is in fact not aware that it ever stops executing. Each process thinks it has the whole of the system's resources available to it. And multitasking implies a very fine granularity between context switches, such that if two processes are competing for CPU time, it is extremely difficult to tell that they are not both running concurrently. > [ Example about not wanting to multitask while generating dbMan reports > because it would slow them down..] As everyone else said: "Not if the other processes sleep pending some user action like they are SUPPOSED to...." > >I reitierate, I am not anti-multitasking and I this is not a case of sour >grapes (that's for you Amiga guys). I'll just wait until I can afford a >machine that's got the guts to do real multitasking. > And your 68000 _HAS_ the guts to do multitasking. And in some ways better than a lot of other "Industrial" machines. I'd be willing to bet that your 8 Mhz. 68000 can do a context switch faster than my Sun 4/280! :) For those technical-minded types who think I am exaggerating: the SpArc is a RISC chip, meaning it has something well upwards of 200 32 bit registers. The 68000 has 14 32 bit registers. Which do you think pushes them to the stack faster? (And being register-rich is one of the arguments people make for RISC architecture! Gimme a good hardware based LRU register buffering scheme, and then maybe we'll talk...:) >Anybody understand the following? > >NO IFBMS NO AMIFGAS NO MFACS NO WFAY Multitasking is the best thfing since sliced bread! :) Antony ******************************************************************************* Antony A. Courtney antony@lbl.go Advanced Development Group ucbvax!lbl-csam.arpa!antony Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory AACourtney@lbl.go ------------------------------ Date: 15 AUG 89 23:54:14 CST From: Z4648252 To: Subject: DALLAS WORLD OF ATARI The following info was gracious relayed to me from John Stiborek who is a member of the net: This is the schedule of the speakers for the World of Atari Show sponsored by ST-World, as given to by Jim Urbaniak of ST-World: Saturday 8-19-89 11:00AM Sig Hartmann (Atari): The Future of Atari Player Missile Graphics on the 8-Bit 1:10PM Samuel G. Steeper: Networking Your ST's Today 2:00PM Tom Harker (ICD): Constructing a Hard disk Drive 3:00PM George Miller (MichTron): Desktop Publishing Sunday 9-20-89 11:00AM David Small (Gadgets By Small) Spectre 128 GCR 1:00PM George Miller (MichTron): Programming in HiSoft BASIC 2:00PM Allen Reeve (ReeveSoft): Graphic Operating Systems for the 8-Bit 4:00PM James Allen (FaST-Tech): What the Turbo-16 Will do For You The show will be at the Holiday Inn at Highway 183 & Valley View Lane (south side of the service road). 4440 W. Airport Freeway Irving TX 75061 (214)399-1010-->information about the show (Holiday Inn) Admission: $5 one day pass $7 two day pass Larry Rymal in East Texas ------------------------------ Date: 15 Aug 89 15:36:08 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!gryphon!crash!fgbrooks@ tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Fred Brooks) Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu In article <1072@philmds.UUCP> leo@philmds.UUCP (Leo de Wit) writes: >|I intercept the BIOS trap vector and add my own routine to do the BConin >|call. If nothing is waiting in the buffer then I swapout the current process >|, if a char is is the buffer it is passed on to the calling process and a >|countdown variable is set to say 100 so that when then next time the buffer >|is empty it won't swapout until it has checked the buffer a few times. > >You'll have to be careful this BIOS call was not done from GEMDOS, I think. >I'm interested to know how you save a process's state. > I save the GEMDOS/BIOS stack for every process that's stored in the location pointed by the sav-vector in low memory. It's a tricky process and taking a look at my MX2 source will explain it better that I can here. fred ------------------------------ End of Info-Atari16 Digest ************************** -------