uucigj@swbatl.UUCP (3531) (06/27/89)
I have heard that the two versions of smalltalk from digitalk (V and V/286) are essentially the same. One difference is the pc version (V) doesn't have the support for the EGA and VGA, but you can get it via the goodies package. Are there any functional differences. For example the V/286 needs one meg of memory where V needs only 640k, what is the major reason here. I have a 386 machine with 1 meg of memory (but I can only use 640 k the other is wasted), and would like to use the smalltalk from digitalk but I do not want to buy the extra memory (right now the funds would only allow one of the purchases not V/286 and the memory both). Will there be anything I will not be able to do with the V and the goodies package to enhance to VGA that I can do with the V/286? Also, another thought is that if I run Unix on the 386 box latter and have a dos session running I theoretically can use the stV rather than the V/286, right? Any help would be appreciated. Gregg Jensen
cca@pur-phy (Charles C. Allen) (06/27/89)
In article <596@swbatl.UUCP>, uucigj@swbatl.UUCP (3531) writes: > I have heard that the two versions of smalltalk from digitalk (V and V/286) > are essentially the same. The following is from Digitalk's "Scoop" newsletter, spring 1989 issue: "Since the last newsletter, Smalltalk/V has been joined by Smalltalk/V 286 and Smalltalk/V Mac. Here is a comparison of features in the three: * The original Smalltalk/V runs in 512K bytes (up to 640K), has 16-bit pointers, uses an object table, has a 64K byte maximum object size and does object-swapping to disk when no more memory is available. Smalltalk/V 286 and Smalltalk/V Mac run comfortably in 1.5 Mbyte of memory, have 32-bit object pointers with no object table, support objects larger than 64K and will use as much memory as you have with no object swapping. * Color is available for Smalltalk/V as an extension kit; Smalltalk/V 286 has integrated color graphics; color for the Mac is not available yet. * Multiporcessing is available for Smalltalk/V in Goodies #1; Smalltalk/V 286 and Smalltalk/V Mac have it included in the product. * Smalltalk/V's source-level debugger has been extended for Smalltalk/V Mac and Smalltalk/V 286 to push-button debugging with the ability to set breakpoints and single-step through code. * Smalltalk/V has a 10-chapter tutorial; Smalltalk/V 286 and Smalltalk/V Mac have two extra chapters on application design and development. * All have complete environments with graphics, overlapping windows, menus and mouse support. Smalltalk/V Mac's environment is the standard Macintosh environment. * All come with the same example file on disk including the bit and form editors and object-oriented Prolog." I have no affiliation with Digitalk other than as an owner of Smalltalk/V Mac. Charles Allen cca@newton.physics.purdue.edu
dgh@unify.UUCP (David Harrington) (06/29/89)
In article <596@swbatl.UUCP> uucigj@swbatl.UUCP (3531) writes: >I have heard that the two versions of smalltalk from digitalk (V and V/286) >are essentially the same. >... Are there any functional differences. For example the V/286 >needs one meg of memory where V needs only 640k, what is the major reason >here. V/286 does not do object swapping at all; V does, hence it can run in 640K. V/286 needs expanded (or extended) memory so it can fit in the entire image. I would recommend loading up the 386 with as much memory as you can afford. >I have a 386 machine with 1 meg of memory (but I can only use 640 k >the other is wasted), and would like to use the smalltalk from digitalk but >I do not want to buy the extra memory (right now the funds would only allow >one of the purchases not V/286 and the memory both). See above. The V/286 image grows past 1 meg pretty quickly. >Will there be >anything I will not be able to do with the V and the goodies package to >enhance to VGA that I can do with the V/286? Sorry, don't know on this one. >Also, another thought is that >if I run Unix on the 386 box latter and have a dos session running I >theoretically can use the stV rather than the V/286, right? Any help would >be appreciated. Yes, but why? You'll have the same problems. I would recommend, since you have a 386, that you look at ParcPlace's 386 Smalltalk. It is *far* superior to the Digitalk product (either one), but it does cost more ($995 retail). In general, I found that V/286 is unreliable running on a 386 unless it is a Model 80, which is what Digitalk uses for development. I had all kinds of problems with protection exceptions, GC crashes, and trashed images for no reason using V/286 on a Micronics 386 w/ 4 megs of memory. Digitalk was no help. Good luck.
cliff@ficc.uu.net (cliff click) (06/30/89)
In article <2331@pur-phy>, cca@pur-phy (Charles C. Allen) writes: > The original Smalltalk/V [...] does object-swapping to disk when no > more memory is available. Smalltalk/V 286 and Smalltalk/V Mac run > comfortably in 1.5 Mbyte of memory, [...] with no object swapping. Why??? Why NO OBJECT SWAPPING in Smalltalk/V 286??? I bought it for my 1 Meg machine, only to discover that I couldn't run the bit editor or clone my system because 1 Meg was not enough! Actually I assumed Smalltalk/V did NOT object-swap since V 286 did not. Because of that lack I decided to do a product (I write games) in C instead; overlays are painful but I can run in 512K. Now I have to go re-think my choices... Digitalk, are you listening??? Object-swapping gives Smalltalk/V 286 the equivalent of Virtual Memory! Applications of *any* size can run on a lowly PC (or even AT!). This is a big deal; you should install it *right away* on the 286 version. -- Cliff Click, Software Contractor at Large Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!cliff, cliff@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5368 (w). Disclaimer: lost in the vortices of nilspace... +1 713 568 3460 (h).
david@cullsj.UUCP (David Taylor) (07/01/89)
In article <4832@ficc.uu.net>, cliff@ficc.uu.net (cliff click) writes: > > Why??? Why NO OBJECT SWAPPING in Smalltalk/V 286??? I bought it for > my 1 Meg machine, only to discover that I couldn't run the bit editor > or clone my system because 1 Meg was not enough! > > Actually I assumed Smalltalk/V did NOT object-swap since V 286 did not. > Because of that lack I decided to do a product (I write games) in C > instead; overlays are painful but I can run in 512K. > > Now I have to go re-think my choices... > > Digitalk, are you listening??? Object-swapping gives Smalltalk/V 286 > the equivalent of Virtual Memory! Applications of *any* size can run > on a lowly PC (or even AT!). This is a big deal; you should install > it *right away* on the 286 version. I have Smalltalk/V. Originally, I ran it on a dual-floppy, 640K, 4MHz 8088. That was fine for learning, when the Smalltalk objects really were small (Smalltalk/V does no object-swapping on dual-floppy systems. It just suddenly aborts when space is exhausted). As the objects grew, I migrated to a 640K 10MHz 8088 with a 65 ms. hard disk. That's when I experienced object-swapping. Please believe me when I say that it is painfully SSSSLLLLOOOOOWWW on such a system. Unless your games never exhaust memory, or they do but are targeted towards the masochist market, I do not think you will be very successful using Smalltalk/V on the above platforms (PLUG: My old systems are for sale - see misc.forsale). Now I run Smalltalk/V on a 1Meg, 16Mhz 80286 with a 28 ms hard disk. Object-swapping is not as painful, but I must say I still dread the tones heralding its start. The Moral: Yes, object-swapping is better than no object-swapping in most cases. But the cost is high. In my case, satisfying Smalltalk's voracious resource appetite has been my ONLY reason for upgrading my hardware. Without object-swapping, I would need lots of memory. With object-swapping, I need sufficient memory, a fast hard-disk, and lots and lots of patience. david l. taylor I don't think my employer has any opinions on Smalltalk/V.
trr@rayssd.ray.com (Terry R. Raymond) (07/03/89)
In article <4832@ficc.uu.net>, cliff@ficc.uu.net (cliff click) writes: > > Why??? Why NO OBJECT SWAPPING in Smalltalk/V 286??? I bought it for > my 1 Meg machine, only to discover that I couldn't run the bit editor > or clone my system because 1 Meg was not enough! You really need at least 1.5 meg, too bad Digitalk does not make this clearer. > Actually I assumed Smalltalk/V did NOT object-swap since V 286 did not. > Because of that lack I decided to do a product (I write games) in C > instead; overlays are painful but I can run in 512K. > > Now I have to go re-think my choices... > > Digitalk, are you listening??? Object-swapping gives Smalltalk/V 286 > the equivalent of Virtual Memory! Applications of *any* size can run > on a lowly PC (or even AT!). This is a big deal; you should install > it *right away* on the 286 version. Cliff, Digitalk is well aware of the ramifications. They made the tradeoff. Smalltalk/V 286 is faster and more flexible than Smalltalk/V. If you do not have enough memory then use Smalltalk/V. Although there are some improvements they included in V 286 which could be incorporated into Smalltalk/V and make a nicer product. > > -- > Cliff Click, Software Contractor at Large > Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!cliff, cliff@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5368 (w). > Disclaimer: lost in the vortices of nilspace... +1 713 568 3460 (h). -- Terry Raymond Raytheon Submarine Signal Division; Portsmouth RI; (401)-847-8000 x5597 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internet: trr@rayssd.ray.com (trr%rayssd.ray.com@a.cs.uiuc.edu) UUCP: {decuac,gatech,mimsy,mirror,necntc,sun,uiucdcs,ukma}!rayssd!trr