Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-Atari16 Digest Vol. 89 Issue 465
=========================================================================
INFO-ATARI16 Digest Sat, 21 Apr 90 Volume 90 : Issue 465
Today's Topics:
Computer Shopper, Aug. '89
Formatting in Background
HiSoft BASIC Supexec problem...
One world, One CPU, One OS (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Apr 90 18:09:07 GMT
From: att!cbnewse!vld@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (vernie.l.davenport)
Subject: Computer Shopper, Aug. '89
Message-ID: <14355@cbnewse.ATT.COM>
Looking for August, 1989 issue of Computer Shopper. Specifically,
pages 423-436 and pages 246-248. I am working on a hacker project
that refers to two articles in the August issue. Please respond
by email.
Thanks in advance.
Vernie L. Davenport
att!ihlpl!vld
v.l.davenport@att.com
------------------------------
Date: 19 Apr 90 14:40:54 GMT
From:
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!ira.uka.de!smurf!gopnbg!altger!mcsh
h!malihh!gmaster@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Carsten Lutz)
Subject: Formatting in Background
Message-ID: <4168716@malihh.uucp>
Im Artikel <1037@uhnix2.uh.edu> schreibt uace0@uhnix2.uh.edu (Michael B.
Vederman):
> Yes, such a program exists! Actually, it's a DA, but it does format
> completely in the background. It is called Mystic Formatter, and it is by us,
> Double Click Software. It is shareware.
Sounds very interesting. Why don't you post it to comp.binaries.atari.st ?
>
> - mike
bye,
gm
--
+ Carsten Lutz, Rellingen, FRG +
+ gmaster@malihh ( & g.master@mcshh ) +
+ Voice : 04101/207871 Fax : 04101/27757 Carrier : 04101/22306 +
------------------------------
Date: 21 Apr 90 23:24:40 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!axion!tharr!HiSoft@uunet.uu.net (HiSoft Software)
Subject: HiSoft BASIC Supexec problem...
Message-ID: <671@tharr.UUCP>
Some one asked us whether there were any problems with
HiSoft BASIC and garbage collection bombs when switching
to TOS 1.4.
There are no known problems of this nature with version
1.23 of HiSoft BASIC; we have been using TOS 1.4 ourselves
for quite a while now,
If you (shipley@uucp.tron) have version 1.23 please send us
a copy of the program on disk by Snail Mail and we will
investigate.
Dave Nutkins, HiSoft.
------------------------------
Date: 20 Apr 90 03:24:38 GMT
From:
munnari.oz.au!metro!bunyip!moondance!uqcspe!qfagus!anvil!malcolml@uunet.uu.net
(Malcolm Lithgow)
Subject: One world, One CPU, One OS
Message-ID: <1563@anvil.oz>
eb1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edward Joseph Bennett) writes:
>I think the Mac has a great operating system. In my opinion it is the
>best, But it is far from flawless and I can see where many users that
>have special uses for their computers don't need it and may not want it.
>Any way One World , One OS brings back horror memories of pre 1984 when
>IBM and DOS where king. I think all computer users can agree that we are
>all better off because of the competition. Competition breeds inovation.
>One world, One OS would breed stagnation.
>Ed
I've been reading this discussion with probably a slightly different
view-point from most others involved. I'm a Unix programmer (on PC boxes)
so I am rapidly gaining quite an understanding of Unix, I've programmed
Mac's, and I own (and *very* much enjoy) a machine called the Archimedes
from Acorn in the UK. My favourite is still the Archimedes, but I know
quite a few people who still prefer Macs, Unix, etc. over it.
It's very easy to become complacent when your operating system is very
popular, because you assume that it has to be good, otherwise it wouldn't
be popular. This is totally incorrect. Marketting pressures have far more
impact (particularly international marketting) than technical brilliance.
I know that many of the concepts of RISC OS (the Arch's OS) are being
integrated into the Mac's System 7. I also know that many concepts in RISC
OS come from the older Mac Systems. This cross-fertilisation in good.
What would not be good is to force one of these operating systems on
everybody. Unix is one of the best multi-user operating systems (for a
variety of reasons). The Mac's System X is one of the best office
automation operating systems (remember: this was its original target).
RISC OS is one of the best programmer's and educationalist's operating
systems (due to its inheritance from the Acorn BBC: undoubtedly the *best*
educational system in the world at this moment, counting software and
peripherals).
We don't yet have the skills, software, or hardware to create an operating
system that can fulfil all of these roles well. When we do we can all be
very happy. (Except those of us, like me, who enjoy being contrary. ;-))
I firmly believe that proprietry systems are not only nice to have around,
but vital. Being a programmer, I don't give that much concern to
straight-forward compatibility. Ease of programming and sheer power are
far more important to me. I know there are other mavericks out there, and
I cheer them on: Proprietry Systems Rule!
[My words are not, unlike Holy Scripture, infallible. I suggest no religions
be based on them.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Malcolm Lithgow
/| /| /||\
/ |/ |/ || \ "Gee, I hate it when people mindlessly quote others!"
???????????? - Reynard P. Zingaro
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: 21 Apr 90 03:26:07 GMT
From: eb1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Edward Joseph Bennett)
Subject: One world, One CPU, One OS
Message-ID: <wa=x=Da00UhW022ZB3@andrew.cmu.edu>
>I remember when it seemed like the Apple ][ line had the PC market about
>locked up until IBM came out with the PC. The main difference in courses
>of action IBM has taken in comparison to Apple is that IBM has provided
>the opportunity for clones, vastly incresing their "standard." One just
>has to think back to the days of Franklin Computer to see Apple's
>course of action which contunues today.
I don't agree.
1) IBM had lots of inroads in the corporate world that allowed them to
roll over the AppleII before lots of clones came into the picture. IBM
had a lock on the typewriter and mainframes before the PC. It was only
logical that when IBM brought out a PC that the business world would
flock to it because they dealt with IBM on everything else while Apple
was seen as uncertain counter culture company. IBM was not flashy but
everyone knew they would still be there 5 years down the road. Who knew
if Apple would make it! Therefore you don't need clones to account for
IBM becoming the standard (they were the standard for everything else)
2) IBM doesn't make the PC line anymore. wonder why? They couldn't
compete with their own clones. Notice how IBM has made certain that the
new PS/2 are incompatable with the old PC's. ( Gee the Apple II is still
around) Now IBM is fighting a war with its former cloners who want to
stick to the old PC standard.
Which leads to the third point:
3) Stagnation!! Look at the trouble that IBM is having pushing the
inovations of their new PS/2 line because people want to stick to their
old standards and the clone makers are more than happy to oblige them.
Not to mention that their was not a lot of innovation to the PC line
while IBM made it. When some something becomes standard the forces that
work to keep it stable, compatible and unchanging overwhelm the forces
of innovation. I mean look its been six years since the Mac came out
and IBM still hasn't been unable successfully market a Graphics, mouse
based interface because it is so standardized that it can't evolve
(except slowly and painfully).
I know everyone wants a cheap Mac clone. It would be great for Mac users
in the short run but I don't know if it may not be destructive in the
long run.
> Apple were to license their OS to Commodore, Atari, or whoever, I
>don't think their sales would really lessen, but that overall demand
>for the Mac-OS would increase across the board, including demand for
>the Macintosh. When other MS-Dos machines emerged, sales of IBMs
>didn't drop through the floor, conversely, they have remained strong.
>I believe Apple has the reputation to insure that their sales would
>continue to be strong. Furthermore, a little more competition in the
>Mac-OS industry certainly couldn't hurt.
I wouldn't be so optomistic about Apple's reputation. From what I hear
on this net most people are loyal to their Macs despite Apple not
because of Apple's good reputation. They don't like Apple's pricing
policy. They don't like Apple's service, etc., etc. (IBM probably had
lots of staisfied customers that bought typewriters, mainframes,etc. )
Also when the clones first came out most weren't fully compatable. It
took them a while to achieve full compatability and credibility. unlike
today, ads a couple of years ago really made a point of how compatable
they were because it wasn't assumed. You don't see that today because PC
compatability has been perfected and asssumed. I don't think it would
take the clone makers nearly as long to achieve compatability and
credibilty with the Mac because they have learned from cloning the PC
(and many have been working on the mac for years waiting for an
opprotunity.)
I think I have shown above that it could possiblly hurt the Mac in the
long run.
Q: Let's face it why does a company spend money to improve their OS
making it evolve and keep it innovative?
A: To sell THEIR machines. Not somebody elses. (IBM didn't )
Kiss inovated system software like system 7.0 goodbye in the future if
their are large sales of clones. Apple won't bother. They will spend
their money to build something new like IBM did with the PS/2 and leave
the Mac behind. If we're lucky maybe we will get a trade in allowance
for our Mac on the Knowledge Navigator.
Ed
------------------------------
End of INFO-ATARI16 Digest V90 Issue #465
*****************************************
