Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-Atari16 Digest Vol. 91 Issue 420
Info-Atari16 Digest Sun, 4 Aug 91 Volume 91 : Issue 420
Today's Topics:
1400XL (2 msgs)
Atari Meese 1991
Atari ST stuff for sale!
Lattice C -- Single Pass? (2 msgs)
Lattice C implicit decls OK
Looking for PD progs...
LZH Path
Minix availibility questions... (2 msgs)
ST system for sale
XCONTROL & Mouse Accel
ZOO 2.1, BUG, or is it me..... (3 msgs)
Welcome to the Info-Atari16 Digest. The configuration for the automatic
cross-posting to/from Usenet is getting closer, but still getting thrashed
out. Please send notifications about broken digests or bogus messages
to Info-Atari16-Request@NAUCSE.CSE.NAU.EDU.
Please send requests for un/subscription and other administrivia to
Info-Atari16-Request, *NOT* Info-Atari16. Requests that go to the list
instead of the moderators are likely to be lost or ignored.
If you want to unsubscribe, and you're receiving the digest indirectly
from someplace (usually a BITNET host) that redistributes it, please
contact the redistributor, not us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 91 07:50:41 GMT
From:
noao!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio
-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!pacbell!sactoh0!mfolivo@arizona.edu (Mark
Newton John)
Subject: 1400XL
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
The other day, I saw these two interesting items for sale at a
computer store, and I have a dew questions.
There were two 1400XL computers, presumably FCC test and/or Atari
engineering models for sale. One had a 1450XLD label (It obviously
wasn't, no metal case and DS built in drive) and the other had no
label. These were 1400XLs, they had the PBI and the modem
connections (RJ-11) THey were offering $150 each, and they guy
behind the counter grunted they worked.
The other was the 1090 expansion box, with some memory board in it.
It had no price.
So, what is the going price for these pieces of Atari trivia? I
know that 1450XLDs have value, but a 1400XL? (I'd still like to
find an XLD, I'm about one of ten DOS 3 users left on the planet.
And DOS 3 was designed for the XLD drive)
By the way, the 1090 box had no cover.
I had heard that Antic (rest in peace) had a 1090 holding a door
open...
Anyone know what happened to the other "lost" Ataris, like the
65XEP, 130ST, 65XEM, 121XDM, et al?
--
the good guys! Sakura-mendo, CA
Internet: mfolivo@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US
------------------------------
Date: 4 Aug 91 18:00:41 GMT
From:
noao!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!doug.cae.wisc.e
du!carter@arizona.edu (Gregory Carter)
Subject: 1400XL
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
In article <1991Aug3.075041.29626@sactoh0.sac.ca.us> mfolivo@sactoh0.sac.ca.us
(Mark Newton John) writes:
>
>The other day, I saw these two interesting items for sale at a
>computer store, and I have a dew questions.
>
>There were two 1400XL computers, presumably FCC test and/or Atari
>engineering models for sale. One had a 1450XLD label (It obviously
>wasn't, no metal case and DS built in drive) and the other had no
>label. These were 1400XLs, they had the PBI and the modem
>connections (RJ-11) THey were offering $150 each, and they guy
>behind the counter grunted they worked.
>
>The other was the 1090 expansion box, with some memory board in it.
>It had no price.
>
>So, what is the going price for these pieces of Atari trivia? I
>know that 1450XLDs have value, but a 1400XL? (I'd still like to
>find an XLD, I'm about one of ten DOS 3 users left on the planet.
>And DOS 3 was designed for the XLD drive)
>
>By the way, the 1090 box had no cover.
>
>I had heard that Antic (rest in peace) had a 1090 holding a door
>open...
>
>Anyone know what happened to the other "lost" Ataris, like the
>65XEP, 130ST, 65XEM, 121XDM, et al?
>
>
>--
>the good guys! Sakura-mendo, CA
>
> Internet: mfolivo@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US
I OH SO WANTED one of those 1450XLD's. I really did. But they got canned
when Tramiel, took over the place.
What a package I thought! But, we got the ST instead...:)..Darn eh?
I would pay for a 1450XLD, just as a collectors item. If anyone has one,
let me know how much it would take to part with it.
I have seen adds for mother boards for 1450XLD's, complete, just no
chassis to put the guts in. Which is sort of a shame cause in my
opinion the machine looked nice.
But I still like my MEGA STE a lot better. :) Did I mention it also runs
software a little bit faster too?
But, anyway...save your money and buy a NeXT station. Did you know they
got X R4 for it now?
But seriously, hopefully the TT's price will come down to about $1500.00
retail for a 4 meg 80 megabyte/HD configuration. I think that would be
a reasonable price for a TT, with its abilities.
What do the rest of you think?
--Greg
------------------------------
Date: 1 Aug 91 20:58:54 GMT
From:
noao!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory
!ox.com!math.fu-berlin.de!rusmv1!delos!ast!steffl@arizona.edu (Stephan Block)
Subject: Atari Meese 1991
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
In article <1991Jul27.135822.4089@menudo.uh.edu> uace0@menudo.uh.edu (ATARI
Computer Enthusiasts) writes:
>Just thought I'd drop a note to the net letting all of our international
>friends know that Double Click Software will be attending, displaying and
>selling our wares at this year's Atari Meese show in Duesseldorf.
>[...]
>_only_ realtime compression program for the Atari computer. Not to mention
>our DC Port serial expansion cartridge, too.
Could you please give me some information about this serial expansion
cartridge? Is this a kind of second RS232 Interface for the ST? If yes,
how about compatibility with Comm.-Programs? And how much will it approx.
cost?
Thanks in advance,
-steffl-
--
Stephan Block E-Mail: steffl@ast.stgt.sub.org ||
Hohenstaufenstr. 16 FidoNet: 2:244/7012.3 ('')
D-7141 Moeglingen Phone: +49-7141-43688 (__)*
------------------------------
Date: 4 Aug 91 00:56:36 GMT
From:
noao!ncar!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!boingo.med.j
hu.edu!haven.umd.edu!umbc3.umbc.edu!umbc5.umbc.edu!chuck@arizona.edu (Chuck
Rickard)
Subject: Atari ST stuff for sale!
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
I have the following ST equipment for sale:
Atari SC1224 Original JVC Model $250
Beautiful condition
Brilliant display
Includes cable and power cord
Please make another if you don't like the price! Also, trades are welcome!
Currently looking for (IBM parts) ATI 8514/A video card, Hercules Graphics
Station, SCSI CD-ROM units, BIG SCSI hard drives, Laser Printers, and
any other weird or unusual IBM & Atari ST products.
Also, shipping and COD charges (if necessary) are not included in the price.
Thanks!
Chuck Rickard
(chuck@umbc5.umbc.edu)
--
Chuck Rickard
(chuck@umbc5.umbc.edu)
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 91 20:48:07 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!axion!tharr!AlexK@uunet.uu.net (Alex Kiernan)
Subject: Lattice C -- Single Pass?
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
42424242424242424242424242424242424242424242424242424242424242424242424242424242
4242
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 91 21:05:47 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!axion!tharr!AlexK@uunet.uu.net (Alex Kiernan)
Subject: Lattice C -- Single Pass?
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
In article <1991Jul31.011606.21682@lsuc.on.ca> jimomura@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Omura)
writes:
|>
|> For the record, I'm using Lattice C version 5.06.02, with the
|>first edition (Mar. 1990) manuals. As I understand it, the "current
|>off-the-shelf version" is this compiler, but with the new second
|>edition manuals. I will be calling Goldleaf shortly to see if I
|>can get the new manuals.
The current version is 5.06.02, the next version will be a major
upgrade on the current product, it will be based around the current TT
beta product, 5.08.21 (or so...)
|> I think it's worth it for me to go over what I think is the
|>situation for people thinking about buying a Lattice C compiler.
|>
|> First, the compiler has a dizzing array of switching combinations.
|>I won't bother trying to summarize them all, but the relevant switches
|>are as follows:
|>
|>-c This switch takes 16 different modifying "subswitches". When
|> this switch is NOT used, "[T]he compiler defaults to compatibility
|>with previous releases with many ANSI C language features ... " Note
|>that the default case is NOT full ANSI compatibility mode.
|>
Thats more or less correct, the compiler by default sets itself up to
compile programs rather than gratuitously reject them. Again for the
next release, if in non-ANSI mode more things explicitly outlawed by
ANSI will be allowed (like *((char *)x)++ and struct { int size,
var[0];})
|> Now, for full ANSI compatibility you use "-ca". Furthermore
|>"-caf" will give full ANSI compatibility and make function prototypes
|>necessary in ALL cases. If you want to make function prototypes
|>necessary, but WITHOUT full ANSI compatibility, then you can use "-cf".
|>
The current compiler has no fully conformant mode, we have never
claimed it was fully conformant, the next release will be much closer.
That said all of the other compilers have their own areas of
non-conformancy.
|> But there are more dialect variations: "-cl" " ... allows a
|>pre-ANSI language dialect." What are the characteristics of this
|>dialect? It's not entirely clear, but I would presume that it refers
|>to Lattice 3.04 which is covered somewhat in Appendix G in the manual.
|>But I have NOT found any clear statement to this effect. The appendix
|>also refers to HiSoft C, so there's some reason to doubt this.
The -cl option is misdocumented in the manual, I believe the README
file has the correct description which is to align externals on long
word boundaries.
|> And also there's "-co" which " ... [p]rovides a compatibility
|>mode to use the pre-ANSI style preprocessor found in previous releases
|>of the compiler. The most important aspect of this occurs in
|>substitution of symbols within quoted strings."
i.e. perform macros expansion inside quoted strings as per pre-ANSI
compilers.
|>-j "This option allows control over the error messages reported by
| the compiler. . . ."
|>
|> Ok, so that's an overview of the problem area I've been concerned
|>with. I've tried a *lot* of variations and yet have not covered all
|>the possibilities, but I think I have a feeling for what's going on.
|>
|> IF you make function prototypes completely necessary, in effect
|>there isn't any problem. You simply have to have function prototypes
|>everywhere and if you have them, you get no warnings or error reports.
|>
|> IF NOT, then IF you have the functions in "bottom up order", all
|>in the same source code, then again there's no problem. You won't
|>get any warnings or errors (ok, assuming everything else is right :-).
|>
|> But if you use a different function definition order, you will
|>get a WARNING (non-fatal) that the compiler is presuming an "int" is
|>to be passed. Now, that's not in itself terrible, but what I'm used
|>to in other compilers is that such warnings only occur where there's
|>reason to doubt the situation. I would expect to be able to get rid
|>of the warnings by properly declaring type "int" returns and forcing
|>dummy values to be returned, or alternatively, by specific casting
|>of functions as they are used. NEITHER of these approaches will stop
|>the Lattice C compiler from issueing these clearly unnecessary warning.
|>Thus they are clutter and make it difficult to isolate important warning.
|>
|> There are 2 methods to get rid of the warnings. First is to
|>use the "-j" switch to stop *all* warnings of this type. That's
|>not really great because you might want these warnings in appropriate
|>cases. The other alternative is to make your function declarations.
|>
|> So what it boils down to is that despite all those variations
|>of switching, you might as well just stick in function prototypes
|>all over the place anyway. But there's really nothing *wrong* with
|>the compiler per se. At least not in regard to this problem.
|>
Your final alternative is to ask me to change it. I am the the
developer in charge of the project, I will assume you are asking me
and will investigate it for the next release. The obvious to
option to tie it to is -cw, which does a similar thing but in reverse,
Alex Kiernan.
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 91 21:09:26 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!axion!tharr!AlexK@uunet.uu.net (Alex Kiernan)
Subject: Lattice C implicit decls OK
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
In article <3006@atari.UUCP> kbad@atari.UUCP (Ken Badertscher) writes:
|> I seem to remember one "old-style" or "K&R" switch in the compiler
|>that had problems. You probably shouldn't use that switch. If you're
|>dealing with old-style code, there are lots of switches you can use to
|>customize the error handling and reporting of the Lattice compiler.
|>It's probably worth your while to take a look at the switch summary
|>in the back of Vol 1 of the manual and check the ones that look useful
|>to you.
I suspect this is the -l with -w problem you found which blows away
passing of short automatics. The 'official' solution is don't use -l,
use -cl instead, -l will be reused RSN
|>--
|> ||| Ken Badertscher (ames!atari!kbad)
|> ||| Atari R&D System Software Engine
|> / | \ #include <disclaimer>
Alex Kiernan.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 91 15:47
From: "Falcon"
<UK1J%DKAUNI2.BITNET@YALEVM.YCC.Yale.Edu>
Subject: Looking for PD progs...
To: info-atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu, atarst-l@DEARN.BITNET
Hello there !
I've just installed TEX v. 3.1//2.1cs on my harddisk, and now I'm
looking for a tool called TEX-DRAW for the ST. As far as I know, it's
a vektor-oriented drawing program which can convert its own (as well
as *.IMG and STAD pics) into a special TEX text file. It might be
more flexible than the GEM-UTIL.PRG which comes with TEX. So, can
anybody tell me where I can get this nice tool ?
I'd also like to know if there is any PD Smalltalk system (like
GNU Smalltalk on Unix Computers) available for the ST ? If so, where
can I get it ? I've already got GNU C++ for the ST, but I'd also like
to try Smalltalk if I can. Anybody's got some information on this ?
Thanks a lot in advance,
Markus D. (uk1j@dkauni2.bitnet)
------------------------------
Date: 31 Jul 91 21:43:32 GMT
From: mcsun!unido!horga!nathan!ue@uunet.uu.net (Udo Erdelhoff)
Subject: LZH Path
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
In <1991Jul30.145703.24784@actrix.gen.nz>, Roger Sheppard writes:
>How does one LZH a Folder that is say 3 deep, that also contains
>folders, but not to include paths of the 3 folders in the archive.
>
>Sample Path..C:\path1\path2\main\auto\boot.prg
> \folder\files.etc
> \program.prg
>
>So all the Files and Folders that in Main must be in the
>Archive but not \path1\path2\main...
Try it like this:
(if you're using lha from the desktop, you must strip the leading
'lha.ttp'.)
lha.ttp a -r example.lzh c:\path1\path2\main\ *.*
~
Be aware of that space! By setting this space, you set the so called
"archiver base directory". Now Lharc behaves as if the folders "auto" and
"folder" and the file programm.prg are in the base directory. When using
the above command, LHarc will still show the full path while compressing
(at least 2.01b does), but things look different within the archive.
When calling Lharc with "lha.ttp v example.lzh", you'll get:
AUTO\BOOT.PRG
FOLDER\FILES.ETC
PROGRAM.PRG
I think that what you wanted, isn't it? Eh, I should add that you can not
use LHarc "archive base directory" feature from any LZH Shell if seen
until now. So you've got to do it from the desktop or any cli. If you're
using Gemini, don't forget to quote the *.*....
/s/ Udo
--
Udo Erdelhoff ue@nathan.ruhr.de Fido: Udo Erdelhoff on 2:245/52.1
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 91 14:27:34 GMT
From: bu.edu!m2c!wpi.WPI.EDU!juemar@uunet.uu.net (Julian Tyrone Bean)
Subject: Minix availibility questions...
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
Hi,
I was wondering which is best the Minix, or the MiNT, since I am thinking about
getting one of then. Which is the most suported by people out there.
Thank you
Julian
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 91 21:34:33 GMT
From:
noao!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!thun
der.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!generic.
physics.utoronto.ca!julian!ria. (Eric Smith)
Subject: Minix availibility questions...
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
In article <1991Aug3.142734.9364@wpi.WPI.EDU> juemar@wpi.WPI.EDU (Julian Tyrone
Bean) writes:
> I was wondering which is best the Minix, or the MiNT, since I
>am thinking about getting one of then. Which is the most suported by
>people out there.
As usual with software questions, that depends on what you mean by
"better". MiNT and minix fill different needs, and which one is best
for you depends on what you want:
(1) MiNT is (mostly) TOS compatible, so you can run most ordinary GEM
and TOS programs under it. Minix, on the other hand, is (mostly) Unix
version 7 compatible; it cannot run GEM or TOS programs, but it also
isn't limited by TOS compatibility, so it provides a more Unix-like
environment.
(2) Minix is multi-user; users must login and the file system controls
access to files. MiNT is single-user, like TOS.
(3) Minix comes with a utility to read TOS format diskettes, but
cannot use them directly (i.e. to access a file on a TOS diskette you
must copy it using the utility). MiNT (version 0.7 and later) can use
both Minix and TOS diskettes, but certain features of Minix file
systems (such as file owners and permissions) are ignored.
(4) Versions of Minix exist for the IBM, Macintosh, and Amiga as well
as the ST, so the Minix user community is much larger than the MiNT
one. However, there are some differences between different versions of
Minix (e.g. the 8086 version of Minix limits programs to 128K of
memory).
(5) Since MiNT can run TOS programs, in some sense MiNT is "supported"
by all the people who write TOS programs. MiNT specific programs tend
to be a bit rarer so far, but there are some interesting/useful
utilities available (e.g. mgr, a window manager, and several shells
including bash and ksh).
(6) Minix comes with a lot of software bundled (including a C
compiler). MiNT comes with very little (a bare bones shell) in the
package, but most ST users already have a lot of TOS utilities that
can run under MiNT, and there are lots of freeware utilities (such as
GNU C) available on the network.
(7) MiNT runs on the TT; Minix doesn't (yet).
(8) The source code for both Minix and MiNT is available. The Minix
source code is much better written and documented, since it was
designed as a teaching system. On the other hand, the MiNT source code
is a lot shorter.
(9) Minix is a commercial product; you must pay for it. MiNT is free.
(10) Minix and MiNT are both somewhat "experimental" and are designed
really for people who know what they're doing; neither one is very
novice-friendly.
Personally, I would recommend that you try MiNT first, since you won't
have to pay for it. There's also a free "demo" version of Minix that
you could get to compare the two.
DISCLAIMER: I wrote MiNT because I wasn't really satisfied with Minix,
so obviously I'm biased :-).
--Eric
--
ersmith@julian.uwo.ca ersmith@uwovax.bitnet
------------------------------
Date: 4 Aug 91 14:20:39 GMT
From: noao!asuvax!ukma!news@arizona.edu (Greg Parsons)
Subject: ST system for sale
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
For Sale:
1040STF, 1 meg, Internal DS Drive...$275
SC1224 Color Monitor (JVC - sharp picture)...$275
ST314 Double Sided External Drive...$75
Or the whole lot for $500.
Also:
65 meg Hard Drive, ICD host port adapter, shoebox case...$450
Contact Richard Bradley at (606)276-1681 (4pm to 9pm works best).
If you really want to, you can mail a reply here, too. (Calling works
better).
--
parsons@b.ee.engr.uky.edu (The Molletts - for now)
Laffa while you can Monkey Boy!
"They're French grenades, they don't go bang, they go 'Le Boom'"
Disclaimer: These opinions are NOT my own!
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 91 15:59:45 GMT
From:
noao!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.ed
u!rjast1@arizona.edu (Robert J Anisko)
Subject: XCONTROL & Mouse Accel
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
In article <2311@tharr.UUCP> steveh@tharr.UUCP (Steve Hebditch) writes:
>In article <1991Jul10.141741.14032@sae.com> malay@sae.com (Bob Malay) writes:
>>Hi,
>>I just got XCONTROL from a.a and tried out all the setups on my 1040STe.
>..
>You need a copy of MACCEL3 in your AUTO folder. Unfortunately this doesn't
>yet appear to have been made available to non STE and TT purchasers.
Dude, MACCEL3 has been out far longer than Xcontrol - just check in
the atari.archive.umich.edu FTP site (probably in the utilities section).
Robert Anisko
rjast1@unix.cis.pitt.edu
------------------------------
Date: 2 Aug 91 16:08:30 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!mucs!logitek!alanh@uunet.uu.net (Alan Hourihane)
Subject: ZOO 2.1, BUG, or is it me.....
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
The recent posting of Zoo 2.1 in comp.binaries.atari.st, works fine for me
bar one thing......Explanation follows....
Command:
zoo ah// archive archive\
Where ah is add and high compression, // is full pathname add...
If the directory structure ends in a letter all is fine...
Everyone try this..
zoo ah// archive1 archive1\
Where the name ends in a number...
Well, I get a bus error every time. I am using TOS 1.0, so this could
be a problem, but anybody willing to comment...
Alan Hourihane
email: alanh@logitek.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 91 17:08:51 GMT
From:
noao!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-
state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!bjsjr@arizona.edu (Bill Shroka)
Subject: ZOO 2.1, BUG, or is it me.....
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
In article <alanh.681149310@krypton> alanh@logitek.co.uk (Alan Hourihane)
writes:
>
>The recent posting of Zoo 2.1 in comp.binaries.atari.st, works fine for me
>bar one thing......Explanation follows....
>
> Command:
>
> zoo ah// archive archive\
>
> Where ah is add and high compression, // is full pathname add...
>
> If the directory structure ends in a letter all is fine...
>
> Everyone try this..
>
> zoo ah// archive1 archive1\
>
> Where the name ends in a number...
>
>
> Well, I get a bus error every time. I am using TOS 1.0, so this could
>be a problem, but anybody willing to comment...
>
> Alan Hourihane
I just tried the above example and everthing archives just fine. I am using
TOS 1.4 so I suppose 1.0 could be the problem, but I don't know for sure.
I'll continue testing zoo and see if I can duplicate the problem.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Shroka
bjsjr@NCoast.ORG
ncoast!bjsjr@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu
------------------------------
Date: 3 Aug 91 21:02:42 GMT
From:
noao!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu
!yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!fischer-michael@arizona.edu (Michael Fischer)
Subject: ZOO 2.1, BUG, or is it me.....
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
In article <alanh.681149310@krypton> alanh@logitek.co.uk (Alan Hourihane)
writes:
>
>The recent posting of Zoo 2.1 in comp.binaries.atari.st, works fine for me
>bar one thing......Explanation follows....
I too am having a minor problem with Zoo 2.1. When I make an archive,
the creation time of the .zoo file is exactly 1 hour later than the
time of the youngest file in the archive. They should be the same.
==================================================
| Michael Fischer <fischer-michael@cs.yale.edu> |
==================================================
--
==================================================
| Michael Fischer <fischer-michael@cs.yale.edu> |
==================================================
------------------------------
End of Info-Atari16 Digest
******************************
