micro@imada.dk (Klaus Pedersen) (01/22/91)
apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes: >The definite way to tell is to read the OS header. A pointer to the OS >header is at $4f2, and the TOS version number is found in the second >word of the OS header. For example, $0102 there means TOS 1.2. What is your numbering algoritm? How do we compare TOS versions? The number $102 implies a number seq. 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, ..., 1.10, 1.12 - doesn't it? But the actual numbering is ..., 1.6, 1.62, ($106, $162), what is to be expected next? >============================================ >Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. >reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt - Klaus (micro@imada.dk)
apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) (01/24/91)
>apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes: >>The definite way to tell is to read the OS header. A pointer to the OS >>header is at $4f2, and the TOS version number is found in the second >>word of the OS header. For example, $0102 there means TOS 1.2. And micro@imada.dk (Klaus Pedersen) writes: >What is your numbering algoritm? How do we compare TOS versions? >The number $102 implies a number seq. 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, ..., 1.10, 1.12 - >doesn't it? >But the actual numbering is ..., 1.6, 1.62, ($106, $162), what is to be >expected next? When we realized that TOS 1.6 needed to be fixed, and we didn't want to mess people up too badly, we decided to call it TOS 1.62. It just sounds like a smaller change, which it is, from TOS 1.6 than calling the new one TOS 1.8. There is no "algorithm" but it is definitely the case that within a major number (1.X, 2.X, 3.X) you can compare the minor number numerically and the greater number will be the newer version. Mega STe and TT TOS have this rule implicit in the numbering when spelled out: I always refer to "TOS 3.05" not "TOS 3.5." ROUGHLY, the major number represents increased capability or "power" of the machine: 1.X is ST and STe, 2.X is Mega STe, and 3.X is TT. This part is not a hard-and-fast rule; it is conceivable that you could see 4.X for one machine and 5.X for another, and the 4.X could be "more powerful" by some measures. Alternatively, you could easily see 3.X in a future machine which is "more powerful" than a TT. ============================================ Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt