Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-Atari16 Digest Vol. 89 Issue 401
Info-Atari16 Digest Tuesday, August 22, 1989 Volume 89 : Issue 401
This weeks Editor: Bill Westfield
Today's Topics:
Re: Multitasking on the ST
Re: Multitasking on the ST
Re: DOS 3
Re: Hard Drive Speeds
PC-DITTO questions
Re: Logo
Re: ST X and Ether
Re: Multitasking on the ST
Re: Hebrew wordprocessing
Re: Multitasking on the ST
Re: Loyal Atarians?!?
Re: USER BASE
Re: Multitasking on the ST
Re: Multitasking on the ST
Re: Atari GEM and GEM/3...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 10:41:53 GMT
From: unsvax!jimi!otto!rex@uunet.uu.net (Rex Jolliff)
Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
In article <62828@linus.UUCP> rachamp@mbunix (Champeaux) writes:
>Now there's a point to debate. Do you really need memory protection on a
>single user multi-tasking computer. On a multi-user computer, memory
>protection is a necessity, since if one user's program crashes, you don't
>want to bring down the 50 other users. On a personal computer, where cost
>is an important factor, is it really necessary? (kind of sounds like the
>question "Is multi-tasking really necessary?" doesn't it?)
>It would, however, be really nice.
>Rich Champeaux (rachamp@mbunix.mitre.org)
I don't see why it should cost more than about $20 to implement a
reasonable memory management scheme on a personal computer like the
Atari ST or the Amiga. It would be real nice to have, especially for
software developers. This kind of personal computer really doesn't
need it though. I seem to crash each computer equally as often when
writing code for them. It takes longer to reboot the Amiga though.
Another advantage to a reasonably implemented memory
protection/management scheme is that the code to relocate executables
before they ran could be eliminated.
Rex.
--
Rex Jolliff (rex@otto.lvsun.com, convex, texsun, mirror !otto!rex)
The Sun Newspaper - |Disclaimer: The opinions and comments in
Nevada's Largest Daily Morning | this article are my own and in no way
Newspaper | reflect the opinions of my employers.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Aug 89 05:20:29 GMT
From: hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!fgbrooks@hplabs.hp.com (Fred Brooks)
Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
In article <1069@philmds.UUCP> leo@philmds.UUCP (Leo de Wit) writes:
>In article <1989Aug11.175942.6534@sj.ate.slb.com> greg@sj.ate.slb.com (Greg
Wageman) writes:
>Processes that are
>waiting for some state change like a character from the keyboard
>becoming available, or the printer being ready to receive further data,
>are marked that way and will only be selected if the state they're
>waiting for changes (the test for the changed state is just a simple
>index comparision in most cases). Calls that can be safely assumed to
>complete within a reasonable amount of time are not marked waiting
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.
>|I must admit the idea sounds like it has merit. However it's easy to
>|try something like this when blissfully unaware of the pitfalls. The
>|biggest one I see is that GEMDOS itself is not written to be
>|re-entrant.
>
>Sure, but a) GEMDOS is not being re-entered and b) in a special way,
>GEMDOS IS re-entrant. After these stunning remarks, I'll have to make
>myself clear 8-):
GEMDOS surely can be made re-entrant. Take a quick look at my MX2 source
for an example. I admit my method is not perfect but it works 'sometimes'.
>Cheers,
> Leo.
>
>P.S. The current version screamed for job control, signalling etc. so
>that's being implemented right now (together with some system calls
>like signal() and kill()).
I would like a copy if you are giving it away with source.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 22:36:33 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!CharlieBrown@uunet.uu.net (Charles F Schieber)
Subject: Re: DOS 3
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
DOS 3 Manual was printed by ATARI INC 1983.the manuel has 100 pages with and
errata printed 5/01/84 with about 20 corrections.I would think some Atari Deal
ers would still have copies of it.The title is"DISK OPERATING SYSTEM III
REFFERAENCE MANUAL".(OPPS manual is spelled wrong!)Regards
------------------------------
Date: 13 Aug 89 10:12:37 GMT
From: cca.ucsf.edu!wet!logic@cgl.ucsf.edu (Henry Kwan)
Subject: Re: Hard Drive Speeds
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
In article <676@opal.tubopal.UUCP> alderaan@tubopal.UUCP (Thomas Cervera)
writes:
>In article <399@wet.UUCP> logic@wet.UUCP (Henry Kwan) writes:
>
>>[...] Compare a ST506/412's
>>5Mbit/sec to something like an Imprimis 94181-702M's 15-24Mbit/sec (ain't
>>sure on this one but it's somewhere in that neighborhood). The Imprimis
>>will just blow your socks off.
>
> But doesn't the DMA bus limit such a speed if you solder it to an ST ?
>
True. Then again, I'm of the school of thinking that overkill is better
than underkill. The Imprimis drive will get something like 1,050K/sec on
ICD's RATEHD while the ST506/412 drive will get something like 300K/sec.
Real-life benchmarks are probably less glaring in difference but should
still be quite noticable.
I'm curious about the BMS-200 host adapter though. They claim that it
supports a 1.6MB/sec transfer rate but I always thought that the ST's DMA
bus limit was 1.33MB/sec. Or are they measuring it at the SCSI level?
--
Henry Kwan - FWB, Inc. | "Experience varies directly
claris!wet!logic@ames.arc.nasa.gov | with equipment ruined."
cca.ucsf.edu!wet!logic@cgl.ucsf.edu |
claris,ucsfcca,hoptoad,lamc !wet!logic | -- Tech Support
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 89 12:05:46 LCL
From: "Gerry Greenberg: 315-443-5378"
<MAXG%SUVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
Subject: PC-DITTO questions
I do not own PC-Ditto, and to tell the truth...I'm not interested in
PC-DittoII, but I tried out a program on a friend's PC-Ditto---and it
worked!!(much to my surprise, since this is not a big-time commercial
product). Anyway, the problem is that although this program works, it
needs ega, mcga, hercules, or vga graphics capability to display special
characters. Thus, before I go out and buy PC-Ditto (again, not the new
hardware version, but the software version), I was wondering if anyone
knows of any software out there in PC land that will fool a monochrome
or cga display into thinking it is EGA (or anything higher)? If so,
then I'll get it and try it out with my program and DITTO.IF that
works,I'll buyPC-Ditto....otherwise, i.e. if I can't get this program to
display the characters properly, I have no reason to be delving into the
ms-dos world for now. Thanks in advance for any replies---Gerry
maxg@suvm (bitnet)
ggreenbe@rodan.acs.syr.edu (internet)
PS. I have heard rumors that PC-Ditto II might have ega capabilities,
but I'd rather not deal with internal hardware if I can help it.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 AUG 89 17:27:52 BST
From: PT%VIROLOGY.GLASGOW.AC.UK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
To: info-atari16@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Hello
From: P. Taylor, MRC Virology, Glasgow
My first attempt to post.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 17:01:00 GMT
From:
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!canremote!david.megginson@rutgers
.edu (DAVID MEGGINSON)
Subject: Re: Logo
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
LOGO is a play language for children. Use MProlog for an adult
equivalent. MProlog has Eagle graphics, which are 3-d rather than 2-d
like turtle graphics.
---
* Via ProDoor 3.0R
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 17:15:00 GMT
From:
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!canremote!david.megginson@rutgers
.edu (DAVID MEGGINSON)
Subject: Re: ST X and Ether
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
Byte-Size systems in Oshawa, Ontario claimed last year that they were
developing an Ethernet Card for the ST. I don't know what came of it.
---
* Via ProDoor 3.0R
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 16:59:00 GMT
From:
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!canremote!david.megginson@rutgers
.edu (DAVID MEGGINSON)
Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
>From what I've heard, Minix is very restrictive with memory. Each
program is allowed a maximum of 64k, and there is not VM paging. A cute
toy, but useless for anything but learning.
---
* Via ProDoor 3.0R
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 16:56:00 GMT
From:
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!canremote!david.megginson@rutgers
.edu (DAVID MEGGINSON)
Subject: Re: Hebrew wordprocessing
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
There's a font editor from England which allows you to edit the system
font and to type from right to left. I don't remember the name, but the
ST club in London should be able to help you. The PD version will do
what you want, and the commercial version will edit GDOS fonts as well.
---
* Via ProDoor 3.0R
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 17:28:00 GMT
From:
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!canremote!david.megginson@rutgers
.edu (DAVID MEGGINSON)
Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
MX2 already does a fairly good job of simple multi-tasking. What we
need to be able to do is multi-task in GEM. Right now, the machine will
crash because the GEM code cannot be reentred when it is being used (it
uses global rather than local variables). To multi-task with real ST
applications, you would have to at least save all of the internal GEM
variables with every context switch.
---
* Via ProDoor 3.0R
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 03:58:00 GMT
From:
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!canremote!david.megginson@rutgers
.edu (DAVID MEGGINSON)
Subject: Re: Loyal Atarians?!?
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
The ST is the best selling personal computer in free Europe, and second
in England. Personally, I'd prefer a Sun, but it's an imperfect world
and I'm not rich.
Meanwhile, Atari software is powerful, cheap and easy to use. I have
not yet seen a DTP program as good as Calamus (I've tried PageMaker on
the IBM and Mac), and I like paying ca $100 for Lattice C instead of
$500+. If you look to North America, forget it. I read German, so I
have the priviledge of being able to use the hundreds of wonderful PD
and commercial titles coming out of Europe.
Besides, I love the windows and icons.
---
* Via ProDoor 3.01R
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 17:03:00 GMT
From:
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!canremote!david.megginson@rutgers
.edu (DAVID MEGGINSON)
Subject: Re: USER BASE
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
I have read that the ST is the best selling personal computer in free
Europe (an archaic term at best), and in England specifically, it is
second in sales to Amstrad.
In North America the largest user base is probably around Toronto. A
Timeworks sales rep told me that they sell more software in Eastern
Canada for the ST than in all of the US. Remember that we have a tenth
of the US population...
Forget about the US market. They are still debating whether the mouse
is a good thing or whether real men should use line interfaces. I'm
surprised that they use a crutch like the keyboard, instead of punch
cards or dipswitches!
Software companies have told me that it is better to deal with Atari
Canada than Atari US for help in North America, so tell your friend to
give Atari Canada a call (I think it's in Markham, Ontario).
---
* Via ProDoor 3.0R
------------------------------
Date: 13 Aug 89 22:54:45 GMT
From: rex!hoang@g.ms.uky.edu (Dzung Hoang)
Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
In article <89081310545051@masnet.uucp> david.megginson@canremote.uucp (DAVID
MEGGINSON) writes:
>From what I've heard, Minix is very restrictive with memory. Each
>program is allowed a maximum of 64k, and there is not VM paging. A cute
>toy, but useless for anything but learning.
>---
> * Via ProDoor 3.0R
Minix for the IBM-PC's are restricted to 64K due to the PC's
architecture. The 68000 in the ST does not have any such restriction so it
can run programs larger than 64K. It is not "useless for anything but
learning." Post a message in comp.os.minix and you'll see what I mean.
I used to have an ST but now own an AT compatible. I wish I still have
the ST (and a big hard drive) to run minix.
Dzung Hoang
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hoang@comus.cs.tulane.edu hoang@rex.cs.tulane.edu
hoang@comus.UUCP hoang@rex.UUCP
tulane!comus!hoang tulane!rex!hoang
------------------------------
Date: 13 Aug 89 21:48:05 GMT
From: uvaarpa!hudson!astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@mcnc.org (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
In article <89081310545051@masnet.uucp> david.megginson@canremote.uucp (DAVID
MEGGINSON) writes:
>From what I've heard, Minix is very restrictive with memory. Each
>program is allowed a maximum of 64k, and there is not VM paging. A cute
>toy, but useless for anything but learning.
PC-Minix suffers from this feature, because of the design of the 8086. ST
Minix has no such limit, and allows you to run a program as large as you
have contiguous free memory...
------
Greg Lindahl
gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 89 03:19:22 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!lbl-csam.arpa!antony@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Antony
A. Courtney)
Subject: Re: Atari GEM and GEM/3...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
In article <8907030235.AA29001@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> chuck@UMBC1.UMBC.EDU ("Chuck
Rickard; ", PC) writes:
> From what I remember,
>Xerox was sued by Apple (during the sueing days...) for infringing on the
>"look and feel" of the Macintosh Desktop. Was this drastic change to GEM a
>part of that legal action, or was it voluntary? (The former seems more likely
>than the latter...) If the suit did make them change, why didn't Atari have
>to change their GEM, considering it was identical to the original IBM GEM?
>Allan, would like to explain this one for me? :-)
>
Well, insofar as I know GEM was(is?) a product of Digital Research Corporation.
And yes, I believe Apple did sue them, and they(DR) backed down. I don't know
exactly why Atari's GEM didn't change, suffice it to say that Atari has never
been one for avoiding lawsuits. :)
I find your article rather ironic in that Xerox are the folks who really
developed the mouse and windows interface with their Tajo and STAR products.
In my opinion Apple really doesn't have any right to be suing ANYONE, given
that they really copied the idea from Xerox. And most people agree that Apple
is really just whining and trying to make life difficult for other companies.
Fortunately Sun has Xerox on their side with their OpenLook product, so Apple
won't dare try and sue them. And an extremely high percentage of companies
have pledged support for AT&T's System V release 4 of UNIX, which will
incorporate the OpenLook Graphical User Interface.
*******************************************************************************
Antony A. Courtney antony@lbl.go
Advanced Development Group ucbvax!lbl-csam.arpa!antony
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory AACourtney@lbl.go
------------------------------
End of Info-Atari16 Digest
**************************
-------
Info-Atari16 Digest Tuesday, August 22, 1989 Volume 89 : Issue 401
This weeks Editor: Bill Westfield
Today's Topics:
Re: Multitasking on the ST
Re: Multitasking on the ST
Re: DOS 3
Re: Hard Drive Speeds
PC-DITTO questions
Re: Logo
Re: ST X and Ether
Re: Multitasking on the ST
Re: Hebrew wordprocessing
Re: Multitasking on the ST
Re: Loyal Atarians?!?
Re: USER BASE
Re: Multitasking on the ST
Re: Multitasking on the ST
Re: Atari GEM and GEM/3...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 10:41:53 GMT
From: unsvax!jimi!otto!rex@uunet.uu.net (Rex Jolliff)
Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
In article <62828@linus.UUCP> rachamp@mbunix (Champeaux) writes:
>Now there's a point to debate. Do you really need memory protection on a
>single user multi-tasking computer. On a multi-user computer, memory
>protection is a necessity, since if one user's program crashes, you don't
>want to bring down the 50 other users. On a personal computer, where cost
>is an important factor, is it really necessary? (kind of sounds like the
>question "Is multi-tasking really necessary?" doesn't it?)
>It would, however, be really nice.
>Rich Champeaux (rachamp@mbunix.mitre.org)
I don't see why it should cost more than about $20 to implement a
reasonable memory management scheme on a personal computer like the
Atari ST or the Amiga. It would be real nice to have, especially for
software developers. This kind of personal computer really doesn't
need it though. I seem to crash each computer equally as often when
writing code for them. It takes longer to reboot the Amiga though.
Another advantage to a reasonably implemented memory
protection/management scheme is that the code to relocate executables
before they ran could be eliminated.
Rex.
--
Rex Jolliff (rex@otto.lvsun.com, convex, texsun, mirror !otto!rex)
The Sun Newspaper - |Disclaimer: The opinions and comments in
Nevada's Largest Daily Morning | this article are my own and in no way
Newspaper | reflect the opinions of my employers.
------------------------------
Date: 13 Aug 89 05:20:29 GMT
From: hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!fgbrooks@hplabs.hp.com (Fred Brooks)
Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
In article <1069@philmds.UUCP> leo@philmds.UUCP (Leo de Wit) writes:
>In article <1989Aug11.175942.6534@sj.ate.slb.com> greg@sj.ate.slb.com (Greg
Wageman) writes:
>Processes that are
>waiting for some state change like a character from the keyboard
>becoming available, or the printer being ready to receive further data,
>are marked that way and will only be selected if the state they're
>waiting for changes (the test for the changed state is just a simple
>index comparision in most cases). Calls that can be safely assumed to
>complete within a reasonable amount of time are not marked waiting
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.
>|I must admit the idea sounds like it has merit. However it's easy to
>|try something like this when blissfully unaware of the pitfalls. The
>|biggest one I see is that GEMDOS itself is not written to be
>|re-entrant.
>
>Sure, but a) GEMDOS is not being re-entered and b) in a special way,
>GEMDOS IS re-entrant. After these stunning remarks, I'll have to make
>myself clear 8-):
GEMDOS surely can be made re-entrant. Take a quick look at my MX2 source
for an example. I admit my method is not perfect but it works 'sometimes'.
>Cheers,
> Leo.
>
>P.S. The current version screamed for job control, signalling etc. so
>that's being implemented right now (together with some system calls
>like signal() and kill()).
I would like a copy if you are giving it away with source.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 22:36:33 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!CharlieBrown@uunet.uu.net (Charles F Schieber)
Subject: Re: DOS 3
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
DOS 3 Manual was printed by ATARI INC 1983.the manuel has 100 pages with and
errata printed 5/01/84 with about 20 corrections.I would think some Atari Deal
ers would still have copies of it.The title is"DISK OPERATING SYSTEM III
REFFERAENCE MANUAL".(OPPS manual is spelled wrong!)Regards
------------------------------
Date: 13 Aug 89 10:12:37 GMT
From: cca.ucsf.edu!wet!logic@cgl.ucsf.edu (Henry Kwan)
Subject: Re: Hard Drive Speeds
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
In article <676@opal.tubopal.UUCP> alderaan@tubopal.UUCP (Thomas Cervera)
writes:
>In article <399@wet.UUCP> logic@wet.UUCP (Henry Kwan) writes:
>
>>[...] Compare a ST506/412's
>>5Mbit/sec to something like an Imprimis 94181-702M's 15-24Mbit/sec (ain't
>>sure on this one but it's somewhere in that neighborhood). The Imprimis
>>will just blow your socks off.
>
> But doesn't the DMA bus limit such a speed if you solder it to an ST ?
>
True. Then again, I'm of the school of thinking that overkill is better
than underkill. The Imprimis drive will get something like 1,050K/sec on
ICD's RATEHD while the ST506/412 drive will get something like 300K/sec.
Real-life benchmarks are probably less glaring in difference but should
still be quite noticable.
I'm curious about the BMS-200 host adapter though. They claim that it
supports a 1.6MB/sec transfer rate but I always thought that the ST's DMA
bus limit was 1.33MB/sec. Or are they measuring it at the SCSI level?
--
Henry Kwan - FWB, Inc. | "Experience varies directly
claris!wet!logic@ames.arc.nasa.gov | with equipment ruined."
cca.ucsf.edu!wet!logic@cgl.ucsf.edu |
claris,ucsfcca,hoptoad,lamc !wet!logic | -- Tech Support
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 89 12:05:46 LCL
From: "Gerry Greenberg: 315-443-5378"
<MAXG%SUVM.BITNET@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
Subject: PC-DITTO questions
I do not own PC-Ditto, and to tell the truth...I'm not interested in
PC-DittoII, but I tried out a program on a friend's PC-Ditto---and it
worked!!(much to my surprise, since this is not a big-time commercial
product). Anyway, the problem is that although this program works, it
needs ega, mcga, hercules, or vga graphics capability to display special
characters. Thus, before I go out and buy PC-Ditto (again, not the new
hardware version, but the software version), I was wondering if anyone
knows of any software out there in PC land that will fool a monochrome
or cga display into thinking it is EGA (or anything higher)? If so,
then I'll get it and try it out with my program and DITTO.IF that
works,I'll buyPC-Ditto....otherwise, i.e. if I can't get this program to
display the characters properly, I have no reason to be delving into the
ms-dos world for now. Thanks in advance for any replies---Gerry
maxg@suvm (bitnet)
ggreenbe@rodan.acs.syr.edu (internet)
PS. I have heard rumors that PC-Ditto II might have ega capabilities,
but I'd rather not deal with internal hardware if I can help it.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 AUG 89 17:27:52 BST
From: PT%VIROLOGY.GLASGOW.AC.UK@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU
To: info-atari16@SCORE.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Hello
From: P. Taylor, MRC Virology, Glasgow
My first attempt to post.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 17:01:00 GMT
From:
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!canremote!david.megginson@rutgers
.edu (DAVID MEGGINSON)
Subject: Re: Logo
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
LOGO is a play language for children. Use MProlog for an adult
equivalent. MProlog has Eagle graphics, which are 3-d rather than 2-d
like turtle graphics.
---
* Via ProDoor 3.0R
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 17:15:00 GMT
From:
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!canremote!david.megginson@rutgers
.edu (DAVID MEGGINSON)
Subject: Re: ST X and Ether
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
Byte-Size systems in Oshawa, Ontario claimed last year that they were
developing an Ethernet Card for the ST. I don't know what came of it.
---
* Via ProDoor 3.0R
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 16:59:00 GMT
From:
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!canremote!david.megginson@rutgers
.edu (DAVID MEGGINSON)
Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
>From what I've heard, Minix is very restrictive with memory. Each
program is allowed a maximum of 64k, and there is not VM paging. A cute
toy, but useless for anything but learning.
---
* Via ProDoor 3.0R
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 16:56:00 GMT
From:
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!canremote!david.megginson@rutgers
.edu (DAVID MEGGINSON)
Subject: Re: Hebrew wordprocessing
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
There's a font editor from England which allows you to edit the system
font and to type from right to left. I don't remember the name, but the
ST club in London should be able to help you. The PD version will do
what you want, and the commercial version will edit GDOS fonts as well.
---
* Via ProDoor 3.0R
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 17:28:00 GMT
From:
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!canremote!david.megginson@rutgers
.edu (DAVID MEGGINSON)
Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
MX2 already does a fairly good job of simple multi-tasking. What we
need to be able to do is multi-task in GEM. Right now, the machine will
crash because the GEM code cannot be reentred when it is being used (it
uses global rather than local variables). To multi-task with real ST
applications, you would have to at least save all of the internal GEM
variables with every context switch.
---
* Via ProDoor 3.0R
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 03:58:00 GMT
From:
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!canremote!david.megginson@rutgers
.edu (DAVID MEGGINSON)
Subject: Re: Loyal Atarians?!?
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
The ST is the best selling personal computer in free Europe, and second
in England. Personally, I'd prefer a Sun, but it's an imperfect world
and I'm not rich.
Meanwhile, Atari software is powerful, cheap and easy to use. I have
not yet seen a DTP program as good as Calamus (I've tried PageMaker on
the IBM and Mac), and I like paying ca $100 for Lattice C instead of
$500+. If you look to North America, forget it. I read German, so I
have the priviledge of being able to use the hundreds of wonderful PD
and commercial titles coming out of Europe.
Besides, I love the windows and icons.
---
* Via ProDoor 3.01R
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 89 17:03:00 GMT
From:
jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!tmsoft!masnet!canremote!david.megginson@rutgers
.edu (DAVID MEGGINSON)
Subject: Re: USER BASE
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
I have read that the ST is the best selling personal computer in free
Europe (an archaic term at best), and in England specifically, it is
second in sales to Amstrad.
In North America the largest user base is probably around Toronto. A
Timeworks sales rep told me that they sell more software in Eastern
Canada for the ST than in all of the US. Remember that we have a tenth
of the US population...
Forget about the US market. They are still debating whether the mouse
is a good thing or whether real men should use line interfaces. I'm
surprised that they use a crutch like the keyboard, instead of punch
cards or dipswitches!
Software companies have told me that it is better to deal with Atari
Canada than Atari US for help in North America, so tell your friend to
give Atari Canada a call (I think it's in Markham, Ontario).
---
* Via ProDoor 3.0R
------------------------------
Date: 13 Aug 89 22:54:45 GMT
From: rex!hoang@g.ms.uky.edu (Dzung Hoang)
Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
In article <89081310545051@masnet.uucp> david.megginson@canremote.uucp (DAVID
MEGGINSON) writes:
>From what I've heard, Minix is very restrictive with memory. Each
>program is allowed a maximum of 64k, and there is not VM paging. A cute
>toy, but useless for anything but learning.
>---
> * Via ProDoor 3.0R
Minix for the IBM-PC's are restricted to 64K due to the PC's
architecture. The 68000 in the ST does not have any such restriction so it
can run programs larger than 64K. It is not "useless for anything but
learning." Post a message in comp.os.minix and you'll see what I mean.
I used to have an ST but now own an AT compatible. I wish I still have
the ST (and a big hard drive) to run minix.
Dzung Hoang
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hoang@comus.cs.tulane.edu hoang@rex.cs.tulane.edu
hoang@comus.UUCP hoang@rex.UUCP
tulane!comus!hoang tulane!rex!hoang
------------------------------
Date: 13 Aug 89 21:48:05 GMT
From: uvaarpa!hudson!astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f@mcnc.org (Greg Lindahl)
Subject: Re: Multitasking on the ST
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
In article <89081310545051@masnet.uucp> david.megginson@canremote.uucp (DAVID
MEGGINSON) writes:
>From what I've heard, Minix is very restrictive with memory. Each
>program is allowed a maximum of 64k, and there is not VM paging. A cute
>toy, but useless for anything but learning.
PC-Minix suffers from this feature, because of the design of the 8086. ST
Minix has no such limit, and allows you to run a program as large as you
have contiguous free memory...
------
Greg Lindahl
gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 89 03:19:22 GMT
From: agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!lbl-csam.arpa!antony@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Antony
A. Courtney)
Subject: Re: Atari GEM and GEM/3...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
In article <8907030235.AA29001@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> chuck@UMBC1.UMBC.EDU ("Chuck
Rickard; ", PC) writes:
> From what I remember,
>Xerox was sued by Apple (during the sueing days...) for infringing on the
>"look and feel" of the Macintosh Desktop. Was this drastic change to GEM a
>part of that legal action, or was it voluntary? (The former seems more likely
>than the latter...) If the suit did make them change, why didn't Atari have
>to change their GEM, considering it was identical to the original IBM GEM?
>Allan, would like to explain this one for me? :-)
>
Well, insofar as I know GEM was(is?) a product of Digital Research Corporation.
And yes, I believe Apple did sue them, and they(DR) backed down. I don't know
exactly why Atari's GEM didn't change, suffice it to say that Atari has never
been one for avoiding lawsuits. :)
I find your article rather ironic in that Xerox are the folks who really
developed the mouse and windows interface with their Tajo and STAR products.
In my opinion Apple really doesn't have any right to be suing ANYONE, given
that they really copied the idea from Xerox. And most people agree that Apple
is really just whining and trying to make life difficult for other companies.
Fortunately Sun has Xerox on their side with their OpenLook product, so Apple
won't dare try and sue them. And an extremely high percentage of companies
have pledged support for AT&T's System V release 4 of UNIX, which will
incorporate the OpenLook Graphical User Interface.
*******************************************************************************
Antony A. Courtney antony@lbl.go
Advanced Development Group ucbvax!lbl-csam.arpa!antony
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory AACourtney@lbl.go
------------------------------
End of Info-Atari16 Digest
**************************
-------
