Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-Atari16 Digest Vol. 89 Issue 543
INFO-ATARI16 Digest Sat, 21 Oct 89 Volume 89 : Issue 543
Today's Topics:
CACHEXXX
official tos 1.4 release
ST in USSR (2 msgs)
TT vs 386 boxes and Apple
Turbo C
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Oct 89 18:15:45 GMT
From: cacilj!paul@ucsd.edu (Paul Close)
Subject: CACHEXXX
In article <891016190627.373581@DMZRZU71-UNI-MAINZ--GERMANY>
Ritzert@DMZRZU71.BITNET writes:
->
-> recently Allan Pratt told us about the existance of a FAT-Cache called
-> CACHEXXX.PRG. I have seen an early version of this program (supplied
-> with the first beta release of TOS1.4) running. It speeded up disk
-> accesses very significantly compared to standard TOS1.4.
-> o where to get it.
I got it off a local BBS. It came with other goodies such as MACCEL2 (a mouse
accelerator), MAKEFAST (to set/clear the don't-clear-bss bit), and assorted
patches. I will send the file to comp.binaries.atari.st, so everyone can use
them. BTW, most of the programs are directly from Atari, and all work
flawlessly with TOS 1.4. More than you can say for most cache programs! Good
job Atari!
-> oo adjusting the XXX correctly.
->
-> According to Allan, XXX must be exactly equal to the size of the FAT.
Actually, its more like XXX should be *at most* equal.... If the cache is
there, it will get used. XXX can be whatever you like or have the memory for.
I have a 68 meg drive, and I'm not about to dedicate ?300k for a cache! I use
around 150k, and it still speeds things up very nicely. I suspect even much
less would do in a pinch.
-> How do I compute XXX exactly? What happens when the FAT size (in kB) is
-> not even? Example: my Seagate ST296N (slowww) contains 4 partitions of
-> 21.2 each. Their FATs take 81 sectors (1 sector = 0.5 kB), hence 40.5 kB.
-> Do I have to take into account the sizes of all the inactive logical
-> devices (floppies, hd partitions), too? (I run AHDI 3.01).
You also need to take into account the number of sectors used by root
directories in each partition. Heck, live a little and use 50! It won't
hurt.
-> Of course, comments of Atari officials on this subject are appreciated
-> very much.
This info is indirectly from Atari. Read the docs that come with CACHExxx
(when you get them :-) and see.
Hope this helps. Look for the rainbow utilities in comp.binaries.atari.st!
--
Paul Close paul@cacilj.CTS.COM ...!?uunet, ucsd, crash?!cacilj!paul
The Obi-wan Kenobi method: "Use the Source, Luke" -Jim Fulton
------------------------------
Date: 20 Oct 89 15:17:44 GMT
From: att!chinet!saj@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Stephen Jacobs)
Subject: official tos 1.4 release
In article <2172@convex.UUCP>, thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes:
> I want those ROMs, and I can work around the RTS/CTS stuff, I suspect.
> What I don't wish to do is wait three more months for a different set
> of ROMs that fixes one more bug, because the odds are 99.5% that more
> bugs will be found in the interim, and we'll be right back again. If
> more bugs are found in the next few months, I *would* like to hear at
> that time that another release is planned.
>
> Rob T
Atari could do something to make a lot of us happy, and get a huge marketing
advantage with people who love their computers (blush) by announcing right
now that at some specific date in the moderate future the specifications for
TOS 1.8 will be frozen. All bugs known to Atari as of that date will be
addressed; all new features will have been chosen by then. After that, it's
up to the programmers. Sure, people will start getting impatient about 6
months after the drop-dead date, but that's about when the internal alpha
testing should be starting, and that's a nice thing to be able to announce.
Who knows, by having a definite freeze date, the development might even be
helped.
Steve J.
------------------------------
Date: 21 Oct 89 00:46:55 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!orca!anvil!stank@uunet.uu.net (Stan Kalinowski)
Subject: ST in USSR
In article <595@nadia.UUCP> peterii@nadia.UUCP (Peter Bechtold) writes:
.
.
.
>I don't think that the USSR is an attractive market place for ATARI.
>The computers the Soviet Union wants to buy aren't produced by ATARI.
>They need mini's and super computers and they do not have the bucks to
>buy STs for their schools.
>I've been twice in the USSR, i talked to many pupils and visited a couple
>of schools, but i didn't meet anyone who had ever worked with a computer
>(even not with a pocket-calculator; some friends of mine sold a few of those
>solar powered credit card sized calculators, each worth a few bucks.
>They got about 60 rubels, that is 90 dollars ! The average salary of a russian
>is 150 rubels ...).
>
>I can't imagine that the USSR would by ANY computers for their schools within
>the next 5 or 10 years.
>
I agree that it is unlikely that the Soviet Union offers much
potential for Atari sales, but for different reasons than Peter gives.
I believe the IBM PC class of personal computer has become the
accepted standard for personal computing in the USSR. An article in
the New York Times business section (Oct. 1, 1989, "Soviet Plant, U.S.
Managers") told of a contract awarded to Phoenix Group International,
the firm is to build some 12,000 PC AT compatible computers here in the
U.S. and will setup an assembly plant in Pensa that will deliver the
remainder of a total 6 million computers by 1994. The article said
that 3 million computers were slated to go to schools and the other 3
million were to go to factories and offices. The article also
mentioned that Siemens A.G. currently has a contract to supply
300,000 personal computers for Soviet schools.
The article went on to say that a PC class machine sells for 30,000 -
50,000 rubles in the USSR and is typically "junk", the new PC's in the
Phoenix deal are expected to sell for 100,000 rubles. When asked if
such a high price might invite price competition, the article claimed
a Soviet official said "What's competition?"
One other interesting note was that the Soviet Union would pay the
split in profits from the joint venture to Phoenix Group by providing
chemicals, scrap steel, and other goods to Austrian Laenderbank for
sale in the West, as a means of generating hard currency. Sheesh, the
things 'ya gotta do to make a buck these days. OK, so the article
said the deal was worth as much as $8 billion.
stank
US Mail: Stan Kalinowski, Tektronix, Inc., Interactive Technologies Division
PO Box 1000, MS 61-028, Wilsonville OR 97070 Phone:(503)-685-2458
e-mail: ?ucbvax,decvax,allegra,uw-beaver?!tektronix!orca!stank
or stank@orca.WV.TEK.COM
------------------------------
Date: 20 Oct 89 18:43:35 GMT
From: tektronix!psueea!psueea.uucp!kirkenda@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Steve
Kirkendall)
Subject: ST in USSR
In article <595@nadia.UUCP> peterii@nadia.UUCP (Peter Bechtold) writes:
>In article <758@utacs.UTA.FI> jackin@utacs.UTA.FI (Markku M?enp??) writes:
>
>>I have just read the article 'Computing in cold' (something like that)
>>in October PCW (Personal Computer World). I have thought of USSR being
>>a very attractive marketing place for Atari ST. The writer (don't remember
>>his name) told that ATARI (the company) missed a big chance to make ST
>>de facto in Soviet schools.
>
>I've been twice in the USSR, i talked to many pupils and visited a couple
>of schools, but i didn't meet anyone who had ever worked with a computer
>(even not with a pocket-calculator; some friends of mine sold a few of those
>solar powered credit card sized calculators, each worth a few bucks.
>They got about 60 rubels, that is 90 dollars ! The average salary of a russian
>is 150 rubels ...).
>
>I can't imagine that the USSR would by ANY computers for their schools within
>the next 5 or 10 years.
I saw an article in Newsweek(?) about 8 months ago (?) about the USSR and
microcomputers. It seems that some Russians are concerned about the growing
"hacker gap" -- Soviet children aren't as computer literate as Western
children.
And, although schools don't have the money to buy computers, there are a *few*
Soviet citizens and groups that can. In particular, one of the Soviet chess
champs bought a roomful of computers for the use of the children in his
neighborhood.
>>>> AND THE COMPUTERS HE BOUGHT WERE ATARI STs! <<<<
Also, the Soviets are in the market to buy *thousands* of IBM clones for
their universities. (A friend of a friend submitted a bid to supply them;
he didn't get the sale, though.)
-- Steve Kirkendall
...uunet!tektronix!psueea!jove!kirkenda
or kirkenda@cs.pdx.edu
------------------------------
Date: 21 Oct 89 00:47:03 GMT
From: mcsun!sunic!tut!hydra!hylka!jalkio@uunet.uu.net (Varsinainen sikapossu
kuoli t?n??n.)
Subject: TT vs 386 boxes and Apple
In article <28320@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, stephen@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Stephen Whitney)
writes:
>
> Sure, Mac IIx, cx, and ci machines are nice. They're also _really_ expensive.
> If the TT truly has VME slots (yes, they _are_ a standard, even at 16 data
bits)and SIMM-based memory along with 512k of ROM space, it will be quite user
> expandable. We'll be able to plug in new and better graphics cards, run
> UNIX with hardware memory protection (built into the '030), and expand our
> memory quite effectively. With the SCSI port, we'll have cheap hard disks,
and
> the built-in video modes are nothing to sneeze at.
>
I think exactly the same way! To me, it is very significant that Atari
can really make computers affordable. For example, a ST costs less than
a third of the price of a MAC, at least here in Finland - and THAT is
something to think about...
Where does all the extra money the Apple takes go? You can even emulate
a MAC with a ST faster than a real MAC. I hope (and believe) that the TT
will be the first truly affordable machine for Unix-usage.
It takes no effort to make a good but expensive computer. It is much more
difficult to make a computer that is as good but many times cheaper!
I think that's one of the reasons for why there still are some atarians
on this planet....
Jouni
------------------------------
Date: 20 Oct 89 18:05:44 GMT
From: cacilj!paul@ucsd.edu (Paul Close)
Subject: Turbo C
I, too, would like info on Turbo-C. When it was first announced, I thought
people were saying it had a unique calling sequence: basically the first two
arguments were passed in registers! Is this true? If so, can someone please
give me more details on which registers, etc? I'm trying to use Turbo-C
object files, but I don't have Turbo-C. I can hack something with gcc if I
know which registers, etc.
Thanks,
--
Paul Close paul@cacilj.CTS.COM ...!?uunet, ucsd, crash?!cacilj!paul
The Obi-wan Kenobi method: "Use the Source, Luke" -Jim Fulton
------------------------------
End of INFO-ATARI16 Digest V89 Issue #543
*****************************************
=========================================================================
