rrd@hpfcso.HP.COM (Ray Depew) (10/13/90)
Hi all,
Please tell me about this Atari1 emulator. Is it for real? Is it really
good? Does it use an illegal copy of TOS, or is it legit?
I read some notes in here about bootup problems, and the need for an Atari
"system" disk. I thought ST's with TOS in ROM didn't need system disks.
Is it PD? Shareware? Demo?
BTW#1: Amigas can read ST disks directly, since they're just MSODS disks.
BTW#2: Bag the "ST vs. Amiga" discussions in your response to this basenote.
I ain't interested in which is better. I'm just interested in the
emulation.
BTW#3: So, uh, how about an Amiga emulator for the ST? (serious or otherwise)
Regards
Ray Depew
HP Colorado IC Division
rrd@hpfitst1.hp.com
-----------phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Phil Kernick) (10/14/90)
I downloaded the Atari1 emulator from abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov, and when I ran it, I got the screen-resolution-requestor. If _ANY_ of the options were selected the machine would lock up and the screen would be filled with lots of pretty coloured lines (in the appropriate resolution)!! I have an A1000, .5MB Chip, 1.5MB $C0 RAM, 68010, PAL, 3 floppies. Any ideas which of the above is causing the problems? Phil. -- Phil Kernick EMail: phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au Departmental Engineer Phone: +618 228 5914 Dept. of Psychology Fax: +618 224 0464 University of Adelaide Mail: GPO Box 498 Adelaide SA 5001
mrush@csuchico.edu (Matt "C P." Rush) (10/15/90)
In article <phil.655889172@adam.adelaide.edu.au> phil@adam.adelaide.edu.au (Phil Kernick) writes: >I downloaded the Atari1 emulator from abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov, and when I >ran it, I got the screen-resolution-requestor. If _ANY_ of the options >were selected the machine would lock up and the screen would be filled >with lots of pretty coloured lines (in the appropriate resolution)!! > >I have an A1000, .5MB Chip, 1.5MB $C0 RAM, 68010, PAL, 3 floppies. > >Any ideas which of the above is causing the problems? Ya, it's the 68010. Sorry folks, but the Atari emulator bombs on a 68010 because of the modified supervisor stack frame (so I'm told). Face it, the darn thing won't run on anything except a 68000, unless the Atari OS is hacked. Of course I'd really appreciate it if someone could say, "You're WRONG, I have it running just fine on my 68010. All I did was..." but I'm not going to hold my breath on it. -- Matt *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* % "I programmed three days % Beam me up, Scotty. % % And heard no human voices. % There's no Artificial % % But the hard disk sang." % Intelligence down here. % % -- Yoshiko % % E-mail: mrush@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu % *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* This is a SCHOOL! Do you think they even CARE about MY opinions?!
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (10/15/90)
No the Atari Emulator doesn't die from the 68010 (it may) but it dies because of non $c00 ram. I own an A500 with 512k ram mounted in the empty sockets on the motherboard. (hence, I have 1megchip but not an a501/clock) The Atari emulator said in the original german docs that it doesn't with without $C00 memory. Atari1 doesnt not work for me (gabage graphics screen then guru) the reason for this is that it tries to use $C00 and theres nothing there. (atleats I think) on my machine my extra 512k chip is at $80000. The guy who said he had a 68010 and it didnt work also said he had .5Mb of chip, and external expansion ram. This doesnt help, you atleast need a A501 or memory at $C00. (I may try to use a debugger to relocate all absolute references to $C00, but if its too much, i won't bother.) (I have an idea that the TOS may be copied to $C00 ram and then executed with absolute JMP. Ill have to check on that theory though.) So to summarize. Atari Emulator not only doesn't work with >68000, but it also doesn't work on 512k machines, or Non $C00 memory. -- "NeXTs are useless... Mac's are irrelevent.. IBM's are futile. Amiga's,however, are quite nice!" -Capt Jeal-Luc Amiga | Flames to /dev/null Ray Cromwell rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu | // AMIGA! \\ "Your software will adapt to service ours!"| \X/ AMIGA! \X/
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (10/15/90)
In article <11358@life.ai.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: >So to summarize. Atari Emulator not only doesn't work with >68000, >but it also doesn't work on 512k machines, or Non $C00 memory. That's not it. My roommate has played with the Atari1 emulator on his 2000 (1MB chip) with a Microbotics 8-UP (with 2MB installed) several times. As for >68000 processors, the answer is simple: No. From what I hear (from an Atari hacker) the Atari TOS uses the line-F instructions (which are set aside for coprocessors) for some type of system calls... Therefore anything higher than an 68000 thinks it's passing instructions to a co-processor. Atari doesn't have a 32-bit bit machine (except for the new TT which is incompatible for this reason) because of this. I'm sure that this is because they never planned on _using_ anything higher than a 68000. Remember that AmigaDOS 1.0 (and I believe 1.1) used the MOVE SR, EA instruction, which also chokes 010's and higher. Sometimes people don't think ahead. The Amiga was never really expected to get this far by Jay Miner & the guys. They wanted a really hot game machine, not a multimedia/unix workstation. Of course, the IBM was never expected to last this long. Heck, the original Macs weren't supposed to compete with the Lisa... [And to those wondering, I mean the _real_ use of the word hacker above, as in _programmer_. The "Cuckoo" who wrote the book doesn't know what he's talking about, and we all know how the media can't get anything straight.] >-- >"NeXTs are useless... Mac's are irrelevent.. IBM's are futile. Amiga's,however, >are quite nice!" -Capt Jeal-Luc Amiga | Flames to /dev/null >Ray Cromwell rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu | // AMIGA! \\ >"Your software will adapt to service ours!"| \X/ AMIGA! \X/ Greg ---------------Greg-Harp---------------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu---------------- AMIGA! // // Don't you just hate those long signature files? I mean, there oughta \X/ be a law. If I were in control, .sigs would get cut off if they were
cr1@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Anubis) (10/15/90)
I thought you all might think this was funny. On my A3000, the Atari Emulator seems to work fine, lets you select the resolution, THEN gives me 3 Atari Bombs!!! Not a Guru mind you, Atari Bombs! It' It's a strange world...So when is the A3000 version of this coming out :> -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=That is not dead which may eternal lie-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= * Christoper Roth * "Machines have no * InterNet : cr1@beach.cis.ufl.edu * Conscience..." =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Yet with strange eons even death may die-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) (10/15/90)
In article <38264@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >In article <11358@life.ai.mit.edu> rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Ray Cromwell) writes: > >That's not it. My roommate has played with the Atari1 emulator on his >2000 (1MB chip) with a Microbotics 8-UP (with 2MB installed) several times. Explain the reason why Atari1 doesn't work with my plain ole stock Amiga500 with 512k installed on the motherboard (not A501) doesn't work with the atari emul. I have the original pre-release Atari emulator that came out 6 months ago, and in the European intro screen it clearly stated that it needs $C00 ram. My symtoms are 'Choose resolution, garage screen, then reset-lockup. (it stays grey screen) and the power light is flickering a mile a minute. If I hold down both mouse buttons the screen flashs white-grey, but thats all. I have to reset to get my machine back. >as for >68000 processors, the answer is simple: No. > >From what I hear (from an Atari hacker) the Atari TOS uses the line-F >instructions (which are set aside for coprocessors) for some type of system >calls... Therefore anything higher than an 68000 thinks it's passing >instructions to a co-processor. Atari doesn't have a 32-bit bit machine >(except for the new TT which is incompatible for this reason) because of >this. I'm sure that this is because they never planned on _using_ anything >higher than a 68000. Remember that AmigaDOS 1.0 (and I believe 1.1) used >the MOVE SR, EA instruction, which also chokes 010's and higher. > >Sometimes people don't think ahead. The Amiga was never really expected to >get this far by Jay Miner & the guys. They wanted a really hot game machine, >not a multimedia/unix workstation. Actually, Ive heard a bunch of stories. Rj Mical said something like they originally wanted a game machine, but then they started making it into a dream computer. With tons of features. But when Commodore bought Amiga, they removed alot of stuff and released a buggy OS to get it out quick. > >Greg > >---------------Greg-Harp---------------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu---------------- >AMIGA! // > // Don't you just hate those long signature files? I mean, there oughta > \X/ be a law. If I were in control, .sigs would get cut off if they were -- "NeXTs are useless... Mac's are irrelevent.. IBM's are futile. Amiga's,however, are quite nice!" -Capt Jeal-Luc Amiga | Flames to /dev/null Ray Cromwell rjc@wookumz.ai.mit.edu | // AMIGA! \\ "Your software will adapt to service ours!"| \X/ AMIGA! \X/
csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod ) (10/16/90)
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >From what I hear (from an Atari hacker) the Atari TOS uses the line-F >instructions (which are set aside for coprocessors) for some type of system >calls... Therefore anything higher than an 68000 thinks it's passing >instructions to a co-processor. Atari doesn't have a 32-bit bit machine >(except for the new TT which is incompatible for this reason) because of >this. I'm sure that this is because they never planned on _using_ anything >higher than a 68000. Remember that AmigaDOS 1.0 (and I believe 1.1) used >the MOVE SR, EA instruction, which also chokes 010's and higher. There is not a single program I know that breaks on the TT because of that line-F hack that is now missing on the TT. Line F has been used for internal OS purposes only in TOS 1.0 to TOS 1.4. There is no line F in there since TOS 1.6. The problem that the ST emulator faces on a 68010 Amiga is that 68000 and 68010 use different and incompatible exception stack formats. Programs relying on 68000 stack structure (including TOS 1.0, TOS 1.2 and TOS 1.4) will break on a 68010. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Claus Brod, Am Felsenkeller 2, Things. Take. Time. D-8772 Marktheidenfeld, West Germany (Piet Hein) csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de ----------------------------------------------------------------------
gdunlap@csuchico.edu (RANZEROX) (10/17/90)
Okay folks: we know the Atari emulator won't run on a 68010; we also
know (or are at least pretty sure) that it won't work if you have no $c0
RAM; well, here's another one for you: my roommate tried it on his machine,
a 1-meg, old Fat Agnus (512k chip, 512k fast at $c00000), single floppy,
68000 A500. It didn't work, just the ol' blank screen. My own theory is
that the thing REQUIRES two floppies in order to work. What do you guys
think?
/\
/ / ________
/__\/\_______\
___( __ \/|_/|_/|_/|_/|_/|_/|_/|_/|_/|_/|_/|_/|_
( __ |=|=| ///_| __________________________________ \
|| _\ |=|=|__///__| ______________RANZEROX____________O) --
||/ \|=|=|\XX/___| ______________________________________\
|| | __________// |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/ |/
||___/___________/ The cutting edge
(____/ Email: gdunlap@cscihp.csuchico.eduoliphant@telepro.UUCP (Mike Oliphant) (10/17/90)
>In article <1990Oct17.021542.24427@ecst.csuchico.edu> gdunlap@csuchico.edu >(RANZEROX) writes: > > Okay folks: we know the Atari emulator won't run on a 68010; we also >know (or are at least pretty sure) that it won't work if you have no $c0 >RAM; well, here's another one for you: my roommate tried it on his machine, >a 1-meg, old Fat Agnus (512k chip, 512k fast at $c00000), single floppy, >68000 A500. It didn't work, just the ol' blank screen. My own theory is >that the thing REQUIRES two floppies in order to work. What do you guys >think? Not only does it seem to require two floppies, it seems to need df0: and df1: I've got df0: and df2: and it won't run. -- Mike Oliphant UUCP: alberta!herald!telepro!oliphant Internet: oliphant@telepro.uucp FidoNet: (1:140/91) - ZMH only * * Call TelePro, the development system for DIALOG Professional * * Phone: +1 306 249 2352 2400/9600/14400 bps HST * +1 306 652 2084 300/1200/2400 bps * FidoNet: (1:140/90) *
jeremym@brahms.udel.edu (Jeremy A Moskowitz) (10/18/90)
In article <1990Oct17.021542.24427@ecst.csuchico.edu> gdunlap@cscihp.UUCP (RANZEROX) writes: > >My own theory is >that <the atari emulator> > the thing REQUIRES two floppies in order to work. What do you guys think? > (____/ Email: gdunlap@cscihp.csuchico.edu I think you're absolutely 100% correct. The idelic setup for the ST Emulator is: 1 or More Megs of Memory. At least 512 @ $C00000 One drive in df1: only (cant have 'ami-->amax-->drive') No amax in df1:'s slot No 68010 (like this should work anyway, riiiiiiiiite) No 68000 14 MHZ hack (maybe, but, not.) No 68020/30/40/50/60/etc. (hehe wishful thinking) My setup which it works great! is: A500 with two megs (gonna be 5 soon) A1010 in df1: (had to take out amax to get it going) 68000 Clasic Cpu This'll work great. Try terminator for atarist stuff. The Juggler demo works great. Blow your ST friend's minds out! Address for Termintor: (ftp) terminator.cc.umich.edu I don't know jack squat about the ST, so if someone can tell me how to get the SpaceAce.lzh thing woking, I can offer you a big sloppy kiss. :% <-lips and tounge?? Guess not. // Ok.. Contacts, right: THE NET: jeremym@brahms.udel.edu // E pluribus Compuserve : 73055,665 // UNIX! or (73055.665@compuserve.com) \\X/ Amiga's rule, but then again, who doesn't really know this?? Know what I hate most? Rhetorical questions.