Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-Atari16 Digest Vol. 89 Issue 445
=========================================================================
INFO-ATARI16 Digest Sun, 15 Apr 90 Volume 90 : Issue 445
Today's Topics:
Can Mac SCSI devices be used on an ST?
GEMINI > Console redirection (2 msgs)
jove
One world, One CPU, One OS (2 msgs)
OVERSCAN INFO
Severe Dcreate() bug in GEMDOS 0.23
TOS 1.4 official ???
What I want to know is... (was One world, One CPU, One OS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13 Apr 90 19:59:18 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!samsung!rex!rouge!gator.cacs.usl.edu@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
(Gary Thompson)
Subject: Can Mac SCSI devices be used on an ST?
Message-ID: <6701@rouge.usl.edu>
In the not-too-distant future, I will be in the market for a new
computer. I currently own an ancient Mac 512K which has been upgraded
about as far as it is worth without buying a new machine. I have heard
many positive things about the ST and the Mac emulators for it and am
considering as my next machine.
However, it will be some time before I could afford an entire system and
I would like to try to stretch the life of my Mac a little longer by
getting a hard drive. The problem is, if I purchase a SCSI drive for the
Mac (in particular, a Syquest drive) will I have to ditch it if I should
buy an Atari? Or do drivers exist which would let me use it with an ST?
If you know anything about this please e-mail me and I'll summarize if
there is some interest.
Thanks,
Gary Thompson
gat@gator.cacs.usl.edu
------------------------------
Date: 15 Apr 90 10:52:58 GMT
From: mcsun!unido!tub!tubopal!alderaan@uunet.uu.net (Thomas Cervera)
Subject: GEMINI > Console redirection
Message-ID: <1368@sissy.tubopal.UUCP>
cs325ec@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
> Another Gemini problem: none of my TOS/TTP executables seem to output
> their information into the console window. They all run as normal,
> royally messing up the screen as it scroles apparantly without the
> Shell knowing of it. Anyone have this problem?
Yes, I have this problem like all GEMINI users with software screen speeders
may have. My workaround : Install the .T?? as an application with telling
GEMINI to close its windows. No further messing-up, but the ouput still goes
to the root window.
Another problem : .T?? programs always seem to write their output to the
directory the program is in, NOT the one you have in your top window at your
GEMINI desktop. GEMINI seems not to change the current dir like it does before
launching .APP and .PRG files. Is there any setup I missed ? For now, I rename
all .T?? files to .PRG with installing them as an application expecting para-
meters. But I think there should be antother solution.
-thomas
--
Thomas Cervera | UUCP: alderaan@tubopal.UUCP
SysMan RKOFBI (PDP/VAX)| ...!unido!tub!opal!alderaan (Europe)
D-1000 Berlin 30 | ...!pyramid!tub!opal!alderaan (World)
Motzstrasze 14 | BITNET: alderaan%tubopal@DB0TUI11.BITNET (saves $$$)
------------------------------
Date: 15 Apr 90 13:21:25 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!cs325ec@ucsd.edu (Gregory
Lemperle-Kerr)
Subject: GEMINI > Console redirection
Message-ID: <1990Apr15.132125.15870@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
I think the fact that TOS/TTP programs under Gemini run in the current dir
is a feature, not a bug. When I type arc v xxx, I dont want to have to
type ?/xxx as a parameter.
-- Greg
------------------------------
Date: 13 Apr 90 21:14:22 GMT
From: ubc-cs!buchanan@beaver.cs.washington.edu (John Buchanan)
Subject: jove
Message-ID: <7511@ubc-cs.UUCP>
In article <6158@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> cstein@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Clifford
Stein) writes:
>Has anyone been able to get jove to execute the .joverc file? I can't.
>
>Here's what I have in my gulam.g file:
>
>setenv JOVERC f:\joverc
ok
>
>Now, won't jove.ttp execute the .joverc file called joverc?
>Is this right?
yes.
>
>BTW, my joverc file looks something like this:
>
>bind-to-key execute-command-line ~Z
What is execute-command-line? I did apropos exe on both my jove(st)
and the unix version, and could not find it. The version of jove that
I posted does not support shell interaction. Look at your RC buffer to
see if there is any errors reported.
=========================================================================
| |===============================|
| John Buchanan (juancho) | buchanan@cs.ubc.ca |
| |===============================|
| Imager | (604) 228-2218 |
| Department of Computer Science |===============================|
| University of British Columbia | Standard disclaimer |
| Vancouver, BC, Canada | included in this |
| | box, right here. |
=========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: 13 Apr 90 15:24:00 GMT
From: usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!murdu!ucsvc!wehi!baxter_a@apple.com
Subject: One world, One CPU, One OS
Message-ID: <6742@wehi.dn.mu.oz>
In article <93.26244db9@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
> Reading the articles that say how alike Amiga, Atari, and Mac users
...
> What does Apple have to lose by liscensing the Mac OS to
> Commodore and Atari?
>
I don't give a stuff what Apple stands to loose! The rest of us would loose
a real OS and be lumbered with an OS that can't even multitask!
Now I've got a MUCH better idea... Why doesn't Apple license (c for us readers)
the Amiga OS, then all these poor folk using a gerry built, discount
Joberised os could find out what REAL computing is about.
:-) <--- This talisman wards off all flames.
Regards Alan
------------------------------
Date: 13 Apr 90 21:42:30 GMT
From: eb15+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edward D. Berger)
Subject: One world, One CPU, One OS
Message-ID: <8a9YT6K00WB9Q7bMFJ@andrew.cmu.edu>
Supposedly OS9 is available for all three machines, and Minix will be this
fall...
-A gentle reminder, please do not submit messages to all three comp.sys
groups, as the followups are almost certain to cause flames.
------------------------------
Date: 15 Apr 90 13:22:19 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!cs325ec@ucsd.edu (Gregory
Lemperle-Kerr)
Subject: OVERSCAN INFO
Message-ID: <1990Apr15.132219.15986@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
OOPS, seems the hard drive just had to warm up first...
-- Greg
------------------------------
Date: 15 Apr 90 12:29:01 GMT
From: mcsun!unido!tub!tubopal!alderaan@uunet.uu.net (Thomas Cervera)
Subject: Severe Dcreate() bug in GEMDOS 0.23
Message-ID: <1371@opal.tubopal.UUCP>
Hi,
there seems to be a severe bug in GEMDOS 0.23's Dcreate() Call (TOS 1.?4,6?).
If you have a file with a given name somewhere on your disk and you create a
directory with the same name at the same path location, this Dcreate call
completes SUCCESSFUL ! This won't happen with the GEM desktop, because there
the existance of a file with the same pathname as requested for the new folder
is checked before calling GEMDOS. BUT, ?GEMINI, gulam, NeoDesk?, ...? users,
please be careful !!!
Because of the successful Dcreate (), the file, however, will be clobbered
by this operation. Even the FAT will be consistent (clusters of the dead file
will be released correctly). No chance for recovery.
I'm going to patch this bug by telling GEMDOS to do the check itself. To
realize this, I have to write some reentrant GEMDOS code. Is there anybody
out there remembering the discussion about this subject several months ago ?
Someone posted a trick to make GEMDOS a bit :-) reentrant (if my memory
serves me right, something has to be added to the SP after each call) ...
Could someone repost this article or send it by mail (BITNET preferred) ?
Thanks -thomas
--
Thomas Cervera | UUCP: alderaan@tubopal.UUCP
SysMan RKOFBI (PDP/VAX)| ...!unido!tub!opal!alderaan (Europe)
D-1000 Berlin 30 | ...!pyramid!tub!opal!alderaan (World)
Motzstrasze 14 | BITNET: alderaan%tubopal@DB0TUI11.BITNET (saves $$$)
------------------------------
Date: 13 Apr 90 19:42:16 GMT
From: mcsun!unido!uniol!rode@uunet.uu.net (Dirk Rode)
Subject: TOS 1.4 official ???
Message-ID: <2053@uniol.UUCP>
Moin,
felner@inf.ethz.ch (Tomas Felner) writes:
>OK, I just had a chat with my dealer here in Switzerland about TOS 1.4.
>He said there is *no* official TOS 1.4 yet. The current 1.4s are all
>beta versions. The current 1.4 is the same as 1.6 without the STE
>specific stuff. The official and final 1.4 (or whatever) will be due
>this fall when the TT will be available. It will contain code for full
>support for a real SCSI interface (-> TT) and also all the STE specific
>code, i.e it seems to be exactly the same chipset for all three machines.
i have to see that to believe it ....
I think this is another story / tale of the Atari 1.4 Story.
Hopefully this information is true !!!!
in advance
mfG Waldi
--
************************************************************************
* Dirk Rode * UUCP: ...!unido!uniol!rode *
* Zwischenahner Str. 64 * Bitnet: 077481@Doluni1.Bitnet *
* 2910 Howiek * Nickname: Waldi *
* Irre oder nicht Irre ... ************************************
*************************** DAS ist hier die Frage !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *
* Arbeitsgruppe Rechnerbetrieb Informatik der *
* Universitaet Oldenburg (FB 10 - ARBI) *
************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: 14 Apr 90 21:41:40 GMT
From: uoft02!desire!demon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Subject: What I want to know is... (was One world, One CPU, One OS)
Message-ID: <101.262752c4@desire.wright.edu>
Thanx for all the good input (and output)! I guess the gist of my post
(which wasn't really as clear as I intended :) should have been "why can't
these three companies come up with a common base operating system?" It
wouldn't have to be Mac OS (I used that as an exampl), or any existing OS.
With the MS-DOS world (ugh) breeding like rabbits, you'd think these
three companies would be eager to increase the customer base for their
products. The market for MS-DOS supports cheap clones, high priced clones and
high priced IBM's. There's no reason to think the 68k world with a common OS
wouldn't be the same. Already it is segmented into niches by cost and
application. Price/power users with the Atari, multitasking/power with the
Amiga and almost multitasking/(high priced) power with the Apple. I'm sure a
lot of people go with Apple's because of the name, just like in the IBM world.
Without a common OS, one (or two) of the current 68k lines will not be
around in 5-7 years. We can argue about which machine is better, but that is
not my point, all three lines are good machines or they wouldn't still be
around. So, Apple, Atari, Commodore: why can't you get your act together for
the benefit of your customers?
For myself, I'll be buying a 386 clone this year since I can get one
with 1 meg ram, VGA display, 60 meg hard disk and 1.44 floppy for around $1600.
You can't even buy a 2-floppy Mac SE for that price, much less a base Mac II.
I could go with the ST or Amiga, but I use Mac's and DOS machines at work and
WSU and have lots of software for these machines. So...because Apple is too
shortsighted about their profit margins, they lose a customer. There are 3rd
party programs that would let me run Mac or DOS software on ST's and Amigas,
but working with software emulation is not what I want.
How about us as customers? What are the good points of the OS we use?
What from other OS's would we like?
I'll start off by saying TRUE multitasking on the MAC.
Brett Kottmann
demon@wsu.bitnet
(P.S. thanx everyone for keeping this as a discussion and not a "my machine is
great, yours sucks" thread.)
------------------------------
End of INFO-ATARI16 Digest V90 Issue #445
*****************************************
