larserio@IFI.UIO.NO (LarsErikOsterud) (04/24/91)
As I sit here testing things on my MEGA STE I discover two things: a) PINHEAD won't work on TOS 2.05 b) SYSMON won't work on TOS 2.05 Does any body know if there are (or will be) new versions out soon that supports TOS 1.6, TOS 2.05 and TOS 3.05 ? Lars-Erik / ABK-BBS +47 2132659 / ____ ______ ________________________ Osterud / larserio@ifi.uio.no / /___ / The norwegian ST __________/ ______________________/ ____/ / Klubben, user association
Shervin.Shahrebani.Of.250/744@f744.n250.z1.FidoNet.Org (Shervin Shahrebani Of 250/744) (04/27/91)
You don't need Pinhead if you have TOS 1.4 and above. I have a Mega STE and have experienced the problem as well but Pinhead is nothing compared to the TOS's built in fast load. Why bother when TOS has it already? I know pinhead may be compatible with a few more packages but there is nothing to it. S.S.
adamd@rhi.hi.is (Adam David) (05/02/91)
In <672747111.0@egsgate.FidoNet.Org> Shervin.Shahrebani.Of.250/744@f744.n250.z1.FidoNet.Org (Shervin Shahrebani Of 250/744) writes: >You don't need Pinhead if you have TOS 1.4 and above. I have a Mega STE and >have experienced the problem as well but Pinhead is nothing compared to the >TOS's built in fast load. Why bother when TOS has it already? I know >pinhead may be compatible with a few more packages but there is nothing to >it. Doesn't Pinhead simply compress executables into a self-extracting form that takes less disk space and therefore less time to load? Is this what TOS 1.4 fastload does, or is there any benefit in using both methods? The time to load an application program is perhaps not a very significant factor if the program is just to be loaded in and much time then spent working in the program. On the other hand major savings in disk space matter quite a lot to most users - from single floppy machines up to Gigabyte hard disks. The shorter load time is just a useful side effect of the data compression and is paid for by the time taken to compress the files (also the extra CPU load during uncompression in a multiprogramming environment). -- Adam David. (adamd@rhi.hi.is)
vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) (05/03/91)
In article <3092@krafla.rhi.hi.is> adamd@rhi.hi.is (Adam David) writes: >In <672747111.0@egsgate.FidoNet.Org> Shervin.Shahrebani.Of.250/744@f744.n250.z1.FidoNet.Org (Shervin Shahrebani Of 250/744) writes: > >>You don't need Pinhead if you have TOS 1.4 and above. I have a Mega STE and >>have experienced the problem as well but Pinhead is nothing compared to the >>TOS's built in fast load. Why bother when TOS has it already? I know >>pinhead may be compatible with a few more packages but there is nothing to >>it. > >Doesn't Pinhead simply compress executables into a self-extracting form that >takes less disk space and therefore less time to load? >Is this what TOS 1.4 fastload does, or is there any benefit in using both >methods? TOS 1.4 and pinhead both suppress filling all of (allocated) memory with zeroes before loading and executing the program. That's all. I got a program that compressed programs, which then un-compressed upon executing, but I had a lot of trouble with it. I got it from atari.archive, but, since having all the trouble, I haven't used it much, and therefore already forgot the name. -- vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder vsnyder@jato.uucp
ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) (05/03/91)
In article <3092@krafla.rhi.hi.is> adamd@rhi.hi.is (Adam David) writes: >In <672747111.0@egsgate.FidoNet.Org> Shervin.Shahrebani.Of.250/744@f744.n250.z1.FidoNet.Org (Shervin Shahrebani Of 250/744) writes: > >>You don't need Pinhead if you have TOS 1.4 and above. I have a Mega STE and >>have experienced the problem as well but Pinhead is nothing compared to the >>TOS's built in fast load. Why bother when TOS has it already? I know >>pinhead may be compatible with a few more packages but there is nothing to >>it. > >Doesn't Pinhead simply compress executables into a self-extracting form that >takes less disk space and therefore less time to load? No, that's DC Squish, or any similar packer. >Is this what TOS 1.4 fastload does, or is there any benefit in using both >methods? The fastload bit doesn't let the ST clear the remaining memory before it loads a program. Pinhead does the same; actually, I've heard that Pinhead is actually faster than the fastload bit setting. I tried it on a 2 meg machine and the difference was one second. I run Pinhead and have my programs with the fastload bit set on my 4meg machine. >The time to load an application program is perhaps not a very significant >factor if the program is just to be loaded in and much time then spent working >in the program. On the other hand major savings in disk space matter quite a >lot to most users - from single floppy machines up to Gigabyte hard disks. >The shorter load time is just a useful side effect of the data compression and >is paid for by the time taken to compress the files (also the extra CPU load >during uncompression in a multiprogramming environment). > If you've never used Pinhead or set the fastload bit on a TOS1.4 and up machine, then you should really check it out. There is a great speed difference when loading programs, even on a one meg machine; the difference can be seen especially when loading a lot of AUTO folder programs. -- ||| Ed Krimen [ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu or al661@cleveland.freenet.edu] ||| Video Production Major, California State University, Chico / | \ SysOp, Fuji BBS: 916-894-1261
boyd@nu.cs.fsu.edu (Mickey Boyd) (05/03/91)
In article <3092@krafla.rhi.hi.is>, adamd@rhi.hi.is (Adam David) writes: > >Doesn't Pinhead simply compress executables into a self-extracting form that >takes less disk space and therefore less time to load? >Is this what TOS 1.4 fastload does, or is there any benefit in using both >methods? No, you are thinking of Packer or DC Squish (or some variant therein). What Pinhead does is prevent the clearing of memory before loading binaries. Since any well written program should not depend upon a blank "slate" to run correctly, this is safe and speeds up load time dramatically. The TOS 1.4 fastload bit does the same thing. Note that some programs do depend upon "clean" memory to work. Pinhead has a provision to allow for clearing of memory for only the programs that need it (and only the amount of memory that is needed). I don't think Pinhead hurts anything in TOS 1.4, and it is more flexible than the fastload bit method. I am sure this is discussed in detail in the Pinhead docs (I think 1.8 is the latest version). It should be on atari.archive.umich.edu. -- ---------------------------------+------------------------------------- Mickey R. Boyd | "Kirk to Enterprise. All clear FSU Computer Science | down here. Beam down Technical Support Group | yeoman Rand and a six-pack . ." email: boyd@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu | ---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
healy@cod.NOSC.MIL (Mike Healy) (05/04/91)
Regarding pinhed, while well-written programs should not require a blank slate, real-life programs apparently often do. I was getting random crashes especially during booting. I was starting to think that my power supply was getting flaky, but figured I'd go through the auto folder analysis. Removing pinhed from my auto folder eliminated my boot-time crashes. I have an awful lot of junk in my auto folder. I don't think it's pinhed's fault, but he's outta there anyway. I guess the moral is: if things work fine with pinhed, great; but if you start getting random crashes ... Mike Healy healy@cod.nosc.mil
boyd@nu.cs.fsu.edu (Mickey Boyd) (05/04/91)
In article <3043@cod.NOSC.MIL>, healy@cod.NOSC.MIL (Mike Healy) writes: > >Regarding pinhed, while well-written programs should not require >a blank slate, real-life programs apparently often do. I was >getting random crashes especially during booting. I was starting >to think that my power supply was getting flaky, but figured >I'd go through the auto folder analysis. Removing pinhed from >my auto folder eliminated my boot-time crashes. I have an >awful lot of junk in my auto folder. I don't think it's pinhed's >fault, but he's outta there anyway. I guess the moral is: if >things work fine with pinhed, great; but if you start getting >random crashes ... > The latest version of Pinhead allows you to specify whether you wish to clear memory or not for any particular program. It also allows you to specify exactly how much memory to clear. The docs come with a list of problem programs that require the use of this feature. Using this, you can still enjoy the benifits of Pinhead for the majority of your stuff. -- ---------------------------------+------------------------------------- Mickey R. Boyd | "Kirk to Enterprise. All clear FSU Computer Science | down here. Beam down Technical Support Group | yeoman Rand and a six-pack . ." email: boyd@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu | ---------------------------------+-------------------------------------