jds@duke.UUCP (Joe Sloan) (05/30/84)
This is a review of INSIDE THE IBM PC by Peter Norton. I'll be frank. I'm prejudiced against this book because of the way it is marketed. At first glance it looks to be a pretty complete book. The problem is that it is closely tied to software that will run you another $65 if bought separately. Stuck in the book is an order form/envelop for the software. Nothing is said about the need for the software on the cover. Indeed, the copies I've seen for sale recently are now wrapped in plastic. When I talk about being tied to the software, I don't mean you'll have to type stuff in yourself. Its worse than that. It seems, to me at least, that just when a topic gets interesting in the book, Norton tells you that he won't go into it any more-- the details are taken care of by, you guessed it, his code. This left me feeling, at times, like all I had bought was a copy of a user's manual. The book really does have some useful information, but I will certainly think twice before I ever buy another book written by Peter Norton or published by Brady. Joe Sloan duke!jds
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (06/02/84)
I, too, was annoyed by Inside the IBM PC by Peter Norton. Not only does it
keep referring you to the software package, even with it the book leaves
oodles to be desired. It is, I will say, sometimes a source of clarification
when the TechRef is mysterious (and for that, you don't need the software.)
My bigest gripe is that the book could be written by almost any
halfway-competent assembler programmer. That means if you need the
book, you probably already know most of what's in it, and what
you want to know probably isn't in it!
Norton is a great source of information on self-promotion, however,
and is quite open about that being the key to his success.
D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgarywizard@intelca.UUCP (06/07/84)
I also have some complaints about Mr. Norton and his book. It disgusts me that someone should encourage anyone to bypass the bios and write directly to the video screen ram. This is the prime reason why it is so hard to integrate a higher resolution video card into the PC. What is going to happen if a better display technology comes along. This is pureignorance to suggest that writing to the screen is to save time, when the user can assimilate the data only so fast. The Norton utilities version 2.0 causes alot of snow on the screen when changing menus. This is probably due to his failure to check for vertical and horizontal retrace.
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (06/09/84)
>From: wizard@intelca.UUCP Wed Jun 6 17:54:49 1984 >It disgusts me that someone should encourage anyone to bypass the >bios and write directly to the video screen ram. This is the prime reason why >it is so hard to integrate a higher resolution video card into the PC. >[It's ignorant to suggest writing to the screen] to save time, when the >user can assimilate the data only so fast. Sometimes I flip through screens the same way (and for the same reason) I flip through pages in a book. I'm not reading what's on the screen but scanning it, and in that case fast screen updating is a necessity. So I agree with Norton that writing directly into display RAM is often a very good idea. The problem of dealing with new display cards is a very good point, however. It's just that I'd advocate a different solution. New display cards should provide a hardware capacity for imitating the memory layout of older displays. Several high-res displays on the market now do this. D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
geller@rlgvax.UUCP (David Geller) (06/12/84)
Someone strongly urged programmers not to alter screen memory directly but rather to use the ROM BIOS routines. That's great, sometimes. There are times when, despite however long it takes to recognize and comprehend the information, it is nicer to see things appear on the screen quickly - much faster than how ROM BIOS does it. Graphics have to be done this way. Also - why are you assuming that ROM BIOS is so stable. It seems as if this may not be so. There are good arguments for both schools of thought. I, personally, agree with those that favor methods that are more stable and portable (ROM BIOS). rlgvax!geller David P. Geller