Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-Atari16 Digest Vol. 89 Issue 405
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: <INFO-ATARI16@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU>
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 <Z4648252%SFAUSTIN.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
To: <info-atari16@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU>
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 <Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET>
------------------------------
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 <Z4648252%SFAUSTIN.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
To: <INFO-ATARI16@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU>
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 <Z4648252@SFAUSTIN.BITNET>
------------------------------
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
**************************
-------
