drp9500@isc.rit.edu (D.R. Paradis ) (10/26/90)
I just got a file copy of TOS 2.0, has anyone done anything with or
can someone tell me some of the major changes they made?
In the dinky text file that accompanied it:
Icons can be dragged outside the windows
7 windows open at once
function keys and keyboard commands
variable icons
supports all 6 resolutions for the TT
anomg others....
Now these all sound neat but I don't know if it is worth a whole
point jump....
I heard that this TOS is supposed to ship in Dec with the TTs
Also it's just under 100,000 bytes, sounds small.
------
~r .signature
--
| "Trust, faith, understanding, reasonableness,& respect have been more|
| effective in tearing down a concrete wall than the barbed wire, |
| machine gun nest, bureaucracy, and mines were at keeping it up." |
| Just imagine what it could do to this bathroom. |apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) (10/31/90)
The file called TOS 2.0 is an illegal copy of an EARLY test version of the New Desktop. IT DOESN'T WORK! It is an old, buggy internal version that should never have gotten into the public. DON'T USE IT. In the first place, it's illegal, but in the second, it's got BUGS. You will LOSE FILES. Things will GO WRONG. Does this sound like something you want to be using? ============================================ Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt
mts10271@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (11/01/90)
* /* Written 1:57 pm Oct 30, 1990 by apratt@atari.UUCP in uxa.cso.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.atari.st */ * The file called TOS 2.0 is an illegal copy of an EARLY test version of * the New Desktop. IT DOESN'T WORK! It is an old, buggy internal * version that should never have gotten into the public. DON'T USE IT. * In the first place, it's illegal, but in the second, it's got BUGS. You * will LOSE FILES. Things will GO WRONG. Does this sound like something * you want to be using? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Nope. So how about TOS 3.0 in a hard drive bootable format. I have said it before and other people have said it before- we don't NEED it to be in ROM! It would certainly stop the use of TOS 2.0. Just a thought. :-) * ============================================ * Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. * reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt Michael Stepniczka mts10271@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Claus Brod ) (11/01/90)
apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) writes: >In the first place, it's illegal, but in the second, it's got BUGS. You >will LOSE FILES. Things will GO WRONG. Does this sound like something >you want to be using? Way back in 1987 (or was it 88?), people even used TURBODOS...8-) and then blamed data losses on hypothetical viruses. But why use an illegal and bug-ridden copy of the new DESKTOP when you can have GEMINI 1.2? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Claus Brod, Am Felsenkeller 2, Things. Take. Time. D-8772 Marktheidenfeld, West Germany (Piet Hein) csbrod@medusa.informatik.uni-erlangen.de ----------------------------------------------------------------------
larserio@IFI.UIO.NO (LarsErikOsterud) (11/01/90)
If you ask people to stop using a version of TOS 2.0 you should offer them a new bug-free version. Many people I know use 2.0 because they like the extra funtions. They keep asking if anyone can get hold of a ROM-version of this great improvement to TOS. Will such a ROM-version og TOS 2.0 for ST, STE and MEGA ST be avaiable soon ???? Lars-Erik / ABK-BBS +47 2132659 / ____ ______ ________________________ Osterud / larserio@ifi.uio.no / /___ / The norwegian ST __________/ ______________________/ ____/ / Klubben, user association
mui@atari.UUCP (Derek Mui) (11/01/90)
in article <CMM.0.88.657398135.larserio@kvart.ifi.uio.no>, larserio@IFI.UIO.NO (LarsErikOsterud) says: > > If you ask people to stop using a version of TOS 2.0 you should offer > them a new bug-free version. Many people I know use 2.0 because they > like the extra funtions. They keep asking if anyone can get hold of > a ROM-version of this great improvement to TOS. Will such a ROM-version og > TOS 2.0 for ST, STE and MEGA ST be avaiable soon ???? > > Lars-Erik / ABK-BBS +47 2132659 / ____ ______ ________________________ > Osterud / larserio@ifi.uio.no / /___ / The norwegian ST > __________/ ______________________/ ____/ / Klubben, user association Please Listen !!!!! The TOS 2.0 never exists. As far as I know, it is done by an irresponsible person who stole an alpha test version of the desktop, put in version 2.0 title in the info box and distributed among you guys. Since it is not an official release version, Atari is not obligated to replace it. And you heard it right, it is an alpha test version and it is very buggy. If you insist to use it, that's fine with us. But don't complain to us that it trashes your files or wipes out your whole partition. ================================================================== Derek Mui, Atari Corp, 1196 Borregas Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 UUCP: {..ames!atari!mui} Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own and they may be hazardous to your mind. ==================================================================
dac@ukc.ac.uk (David Clear) (11/01/90)
In article <46300106@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu> mts10271@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >[about TOS2.0] >* In the first place, it's illegal, but in the second, it's got BUGS. You >* will LOSE FILES. Things will GO WRONG. Does this sound like something >* you want to be using? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Nope. So how about TOS 3.0 in a hard drive bootable format. I have said >it before and other people have said it before- we don't NEED it to be in ROM! >It would certainly stop the use of TOS 2.0. This sounds like a good idea. Most people nowadays have at least 1Mb of memory so a couple of hundred K for TOS should not be bad news. Real machines boot from hard disk and this will give the ST a standard and easy method of OS updating. Yes, it will take longer to boot, but the person who switches his ST on for five minutes then goes away is not really the person who demands a better TOS (imho). I don't even have a hard drive but I would consider it a worthwhile expense if TOS 3.0 were hard disk based. Whether or not this will happen is, of course, out of the hands of mortal men. Dave.
larserio@IFI.UIO.NO (LarsErikOsterud) (11/02/90)
I don't use TOS 2.0 my self (use TOS 1.4) but i know many who likes the ekstra feutures in 2.0 and uses it !!!! They want to know if there will be an official release of TOS 2.0 for ST, STE and MEGA ST computers... Lars-Erik / ABK-BBS +47 2132659 / ____ ______ ________________________ Osterud / larserio@ifi.uio.no / /___ / The norwegian ST __________/ ______________________/ ____/ / Klubben, user association
mui@atari.UUCP (Derek Mui) (11/02/90)
in article <CMM.0.88.657491352.larserio@kvart.ifi.uio.no>, larserio@IFI.UIO.NO (LarsErikOsterud) says: > > I don't use TOS 2.0 my self (use TOS 1.4) but i know many who likes the > ekstra feutures in 2.0 and uses it !!!! They want to know if there will > be an official release of TOS 2.0 for ST, STE and MEGA ST computers... > > Lars-Erik / ABK-BBS +47 2132659 / ____ ______ ________________________ > Osterud / larserio@ifi.uio.no / /___ / The norwegian ST > __________/ ______________________/ ____/ / Klubben, user association I tried to reply your message but my mail couldn't get through... Derek Mui
Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com (11/02/90)
Concerning whether Atari will ever release TOS 3.0 for lesser machines than the TT, David Clear writes: >I don't even have a hard drive but I would consider it a worthwhile expense >TOS 3.0 were hard disk based. >Whether or not this will happen is, of course, out of the hands of mortal me Actually, of course, it's in the hands of those named "Tramiel".. It's not what's "Right", it's not what's "Fair", it's not even what's "Technically Feasible".. It's what will make the most money for those named "Tramiel"... If they can force you to trash whatever Atari system you've previously paid for, and force you to buy a TT to get TOS 3.0, why would they give away those profits..? Atari Corp. will NEVER release a version of TOS for orphan computers like the ST that gives the full power of TT TOS 3.0... That's the way "big business" works, and that's the best way for Atari Corp. ... that's their right, and if you don't like it, tough... BobR
daniel@hexagon.se (Daniel Deimert) (11/03/90)
In article <2726@atari.UUCP> mui@atari.UUCP (Derek Mui) writes: >buggy. If you insist to use it, that's fine with us. But don't complain to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I came to the impression that this was an _illegal_ copy of a alpha TOS release. Did I get something wrong? May I use it if I like? -- Daniel Deimert Fidonet 2:204/117 daniel@hexagon.se ...!sunic!kullmar!pkmab!hexagon!daniel
brownp@dg-rtp.dg.com (Peter Brown) (11/06/90)
In article <2726@atari.UUCP>, mui@atari.UUCP (Derek Mui) writes: |> in article <CMM.0.88.657398135.larserio@kvart.ifi.uio.no>, larserio@IFI.UIO.NO (LarsErikOsterud) says: |> > |> > If you ask people to stop using a version of TOS 2.0 you should offer |> > them a new bug-free version. Many people I know use 2.0 because they |> > like the extra funtions. They keep asking if anyone can get hold of |> > a ROM-version of this great improvement to TOS. Will such a ROM-version og |> > TOS 2.0 for ST, STE and MEGA ST be avaiable soon ???? |> > |> > Lars-Erik / ABK-BBS +47 2132659 / ____ ______ ________________________ |> > Osterud / larserio@ifi.uio.no / /___ / The norwegian ST |> > __________/ ______________________/ ____/ / Klubben, user association |> |> |> Please Listen !!!!! The TOS 2.0 never exists. |> |> As far as I know, it is done by an irresponsible person who stole |> an alpha test version of the desktop, put in version 2.0 title in the info |> box and distributed among you guys. Since it is not an official release |> version, Atari is not obligated to replace it. |> |> And you heard it right, it is an alpha test version and it is very |> buggy. If you insist to use it, that's fine with us. But don't complain to |> us that it trashes your files or wipes out your whole partition. |> |> |> |> ================================================================== |> Derek Mui, Atari Corp, 1196 Borregas Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 |> |> UUCP: {..ames!atari!mui} |> |> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own and they may be |> hazardous to your mind. |> ================================================================== |> What is the latest/best TOS that we can get from Atari for a basic ST system? Can we ever expect to see the new desktop in any form ROM/HARDISK FILE? Is any work going on for TOS version enhancements for the basic ST? --- Peter
mui@atari.UUCP (Derek Mui) (11/06/90)
in article <1430@hexagon.se>, daniel@hexagon.se (Daniel Deimert) says: > > In article <2726@atari.UUCP> mui@atari.UUCP (Derek Mui) writes: >>buggy. If you insist to use it, that's fine with us. But don't complain to > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I came to the impression that this was an _illegal_ copy of a > alpha TOS release. Did I get something wrong? May I use it if I like? > > -- > Daniel Deimert Fidonet 2:204/117 > daniel@hexagon.se ...!sunic!kullmar!pkmab!hexagon!daniel Please read the whole message and don't try to interpret the message's meaning from just one sentence! Atari Corp never endorses users to use any illegal copy of any kind of softwares including TOS. I have said enough before about the so called TOS 2.0 and this will the last time that I will say it. "PLEASE DON'T USE IT FOR YOUR OWN SAKE." It have lot of bugs and they will screw you up sooner or later. I rest my case. ================================================================== Derek Mui, Atari Corp, 1196 Borregas Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 UUCP: {..ames!atari!mui} Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own and they may be hazardous to your mind. ==================================================================
mboen@nixdorf.de (Martin Boening) (11/06/90)
In <35495@cup.portal.com> Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes: >Concerning whether Atari will ever release TOS 3.0 for lesser machines >than the TT, David Clear writes: >>I don't even have a hard drive but I would consider it a worthwhile expense >>TOS 3.0 were hard disk based. >>Whether or not this will happen is, of course, out of the hands of mortal me > >Actually, of course, it's in the hands of those named "Tramiel".. > >It's not what's "Right", it's not what's "Fair", it's not even what's >"Technically Feasible".. > >It's what will make the most money for those named "Tramiel"... > Therefore this would be the greatest idesa since the invention of .... well of whatever. Just think of the money Microsoft makes with DOS upgrades. DR has jumped on that bandwaggon and is selling a DRDOS upgrade. A diskbased TOS would be just the same: release TOS 3.0 and sell it without having to burn it into ROMS. The fix some bugs and upgrade to TOS 3.1 for a more or less substantial fee. Again, no hassle with ROMS, quick turnout, and many more people would buy it since it's so easy to install. When sales drop of, fix some more or less trivial bugs and upgrade .... And so on and so forth. At the same time make better machines and some day everybody will upgradee anyway for the better performance if the new system is relatively compatible to the old one and runs TOS 3.x. Some day in the future you release TOS 4.0, 5.0, etc. And always there'll be bugs to fix, features to add, upgrades to sell ... And all a lot easier than with ROM based systems. Yeah. Martin PS.: Disclaimer: I hope you don't believe you've seen the above. -- Email: in the USA -> mboening.pad@nixdorf.com outside USA -> mboening.pad@nixdorf.de Paper Mail: Martin Boening, Nixdorf Computer AG, SNI STO SI 355, Pontanusstr. 55, 4790 Paderborn, W.-Germany (Phone: +49 5251 146155)
ki@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Karsten Isakovic) (11/06/90)
In article <2733@atari.UUCP> mui@atari.UUCP (Derek Mui) writes: > > Atari Corp never endorses users to use any illegal copy of any kind >of softwares including TOS. I have said enough before about the so called >TOS 2.0 and this will the last time that I will say it. > > "PLEASE DON'T USE IT FOR YOUR OWN SAKE." > > It have lot of bugs and they will screw you up sooner or later. > Hello Derek, in germany i have heard of a 'new' problem... Someone took the TT-Desk right out of the ROMs of an TT. This version has all features, the TT-Desk has. Like the TOS 2.0 you are talking of, the TT-Desk is a software that must start in the auto-folder. Since it is the same AES as in the orginal TT with TOS 3.01, it has the same 'bugs', a normal TT user has to live with. I don't have it and i know it is absolut illegal, but i think it will spread very fast. I just wanted to tell this. If someone 'else' could do this, i think it's also possible for Atari Corp. Sincerely, Karsten ki@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de
rgoseweh@digi.lonestar.org (Roy Gosewehr) (11/07/90)
In article <mboen.657831766@peun33> mboen@nixdorf.de (Martin Boening) writes: > >A diskbased TOS would be just the same: release TOS 3.0 and sell it without >having to burn it into ROMS. The fix some bugs and upgrade to TOS 3.1 for >a more or less substantial fee. Again, no hassle with ROMS, quick turnout, >and many more people would buy it since it's so easy to install. When sales >drop of, fix some more or less trivial bugs and upgrade .... > >Some day in the future you release TOS 4.0, 5.0, etc. And always there'll be >bugs to fix, features to add, upgrades to sell ... And all a lot easier than >with ROM based systems. > >Yeah. >Martin Differing Opinion: - I happen to like having TOS in ROM. The machine boots faster and is less susceptible to viruses. (This is a MAJOR benifit, IMHO.) - Upgrading to TOS 1.4 was no hassle. I took my machine down to the Atari dealer [I realize a lot of folks have no local dealer :-( ] and got it back the next day with TOS 1.4. Cost me $100 which is about what going out and buying the new MSDOS 4.xx would cost. Also, I don't upgrade (any OS) just because a new version comes out. (For example, I would just as soon stay with MS-DOS 3.3 as buy 4.xx.) I suspect a lot of people might be in this category, so why bother if it is not a MAJOR improvement. - If you want new features or functions, buy NeoDesk or DC Desktop. Neodesk 3.0 (even 2.05) is fantastic. Although I have not seen "TOS 2.0", I would be willing to bet the NeoDesk 3 compares very favorably (probably even against TT TOS). DC Desktop enhances the existing desktop with add-on modules that add many useful features. Both are excellent pieces of software. - I don't understand why everyone keeps banging on Atari to release the TT TOS for the ST/STE. First of all, that would impact both Gribnif (NeoDesk) and Double Click (DC Desktop). We already know how few GOOD developers support the ST market, why make it tougher. Secondly, if Atari came out with the TT TOS at (say) $70-$100, who would buy it? The same people that are NOT willing to spend $30-$50 on either NeoDesk or DC Desktop? Yeah, sure. I just had to get this "off my chest". :-) Please send flames to /dev/null. R.C.Gosewehr
stephen@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Steve Whitney) (11/07/90)
In article <1238@digi.lonestar.org> rgoseweh@digi.lonestar.org (Roy Gosewehr) writes: >- I don't understand why everyone keeps banging on Atari to release the >TT TOS for the ST/STE. First of all, that would impact both Gribnif >(NeoDesk) and Double Click (DC Desktop). We already know how few GOOD >developers support the ST market, why make it tougher. Secondly, if >Atari came out with the TT TOS at (say) $70-$100, who would buy it? The >same people that are NOT willing to spend $30-$50 on either NeoDesk or >DC Desktop? Yeah, sure. > >I just had to get this "off my chest". :-) Please send flames to >/dev/null. This isn't a flame. I can only speak for myself, of course, but the reason _I_ keep clamoring for the TT desktop on STs and STEs is to stimulate new sales. The new desktop just plain looks better than the old one. Unless you bundle DC Desktop or NeoDesk with new STs, the computer people see in the stores will have the nasty old desktop while other computers have nice slick looking desktops (e.g. Macintosh, new Amigas, Windows 3.0). Not selling any new machines will have a much bigger impact on the companies you mention than bundling the new desktop would. As you mentioned in part of your article that I didn't quote, they can compete with the new desktop. It doesn't try to be all things to all people. Actual operating system revisions have a similar effect on new buyers. Let's sell some machines, Atari! > >R.C.Gosewehr -- Steve Whitney "It's never _really_ the last minute" (())_-_(()) UCLA Comp. Sci. Grad. Student | (* *) | Internet: stephen@cs.ucla.edu UCLA Bruin--> { \_@_/ } GEnie: S.WHITNEY `-----'
ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) (11/07/90)
rgoseweh@digi.lonestar.org (Roy Gosewehr) writes: - Differing Opinion: - - - I happen to like having TOS in ROM. The machine boots faster and - is less susceptible to viruses. (This is a MAJOR benifit, IMHO.) I agree. I thought this was one of the advantages of having the OS in ROM: fewer viruses. Isn't this why there are so many in the Mac and IBM world? Moreover, not to give anyone any hints, but couldn't NeoDesk and DC Desktop be susceptible to viruses as well (even though I love NeoDesk with a passion)? - - I don't understand why everyone keeps banging on Atari to release - the TT TOS for the ST/STE. First of all, that would impact both - Gribnif (NeoDesk) and Double Click (DC Desktop). We already know - how few GOOD developers support the ST market, why make it tougher. I think Atari would look better in the eyes of its users if they released their newer desktop. (Remember support?) The release would show that Atari still knows that it has users out there. On the other hand, it doesn't stand a chance against NeoDesk and DC Desktop in the marketplace; the others just have too many features. I think this is why Atari won't release it; why waste time and *MONEY* (first in the Tramiels' minds :^) when no one would buy it. In addition, this point is also valid: - Secondly, if Atari came out with the TT TOS at (say) $70-$100, who - would buy it? The same people that are NOT willing to spend $30-$50 - on either NeoDesk or DC Desktop? Yeah, sure. Exactly. Who would buy it, even if it was selling for the same price as NeoDesk or DC Desktop? On the otherhand, if the new TOS had something that the others don't have, such as multitasking (e.g. MIDI-tasking), then I think there would be many people out there in line (or on the phone to their 400-mile-away, local dealer) to get it. -- Ed Krimen ............................................... ||| Video Production Major, California State University, Chico ||| INTERNET: ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu FREENET: al661 / | \ SysOp, Fuji BBS: 916-894-1261 FIDONET: 1:119/4.0
rg@sisd.kodak.com (Rich Gortatowsky) (11/07/90)
In article <2733@atari.UUCP> mui@atari.UUCP (Derek Mui) writes: >in article <1430@hexagon.se>, daniel@hexagon.se (Daniel Deimert) says: >> >> In article <2726@atari.UUCP> mui@atari.UUCP (Derek Mui) writes: >>>buggy. If you insist to use it, that's fine with us. But don't complain to >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> I came to the impression that this was an _illegal_ copy of a >> alpha TOS release. Did I get something wrong? May I use it if I like? >> >> -- >> Daniel Deimert Fidonet 2:204/117 >> daniel@hexagon.se ...!sunic!kullmar!pkmab!hexagon!daniel > > > Please read the whole message and don't try to interpret the message's >meaning from just one sentence! > > Atari Corp never endorses users to use any illegal copy of any kind >of softwares including TOS. I have said enough before about the so called >TOS 2.0 and this will the last time that I will say it. > > "PLEASE DON'T USE IT FOR YOUR OWN SAKE." > > It have lot of bugs and they will screw you up sooner or later. > > I rest my case. > > >================================================================== >Derek Mui, Atari Corp, 1196 Borregas Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 > >UUCP: {..ames!atari!mui} > >Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are my own and they may be > hazardous to your mind. >================================================================== Ok, I'll byte. Tos 2.0 has lotsa bugs (dunno I've never seen it). And... The bugs dont surprise me, considering the years it's taken to fix Tos period (though at best its still lame). If it is dangerous to a atarites computer, HD, files et al... Why... preytel is it floatin' around? If atari itself cannot keep items like tos 20 under lock and key, this means someone's handin; it about... correct? If, circumstantially mind you.... I got this item say from a users group or BBS and it had atari's name on it, and... it wiped out say thousands of dollars of biz data (not that I'd use it for biz anyway) atari'd be hearin' from me... or a lawyer.... etc. IF! in fact, it leaked out... every registered atari user should get a note from atari (maybe on a postcard of a pretty Sun) tellin' em' if they see it report it, relate its puter' poison... etc. -- Jeff Gortatowsky {seismo,allegra}!rochester!kodak!elmgate!jdg Eastman Kodak Company These comments are mine alone and not Eastman Kodak's. How's that for a simple and complete disclaimer?
fk@vall.dsv.su.se (Fredrik Kilander) (11/07/90)
To throw fuel onto the old debate over ROM-based vs diskbased TOS I'd like to point out an incident that may not only be my private experience but is possibly shared by other ST owners around the world. As I took my 1040 to the local repair shop for a new power supply (it worked almost three years before it broke, not bad) I asked for a new version of TOS to be installed at the same time. This was promptly done but no clear statement was obtainable from the repair shop exactly what version of TOS I was going to get. As I went to fetch the computer I brought with me a compilation of net-news comments (what lovely a source of information this network is) and together I and the guy who had made the installation managed to deduce that the 6-chip ROM set was (dont gasp) TOS 1.2. In september 1990! 1.4 has been around for a year, at least! Anyway, It turns out that 1.2 is what they can get their hands on in terms of *SPARE PARTS*. Get it? Not, system software, that volatile substance we so dearly address, but little tiny chips which makes the machine work. Without any deeper investigation to back this up, it does gives one pause for thought. For starters, ROM-based OS does give faster boot, a better security against viruses, but also a slower rate of release and bug-fixes. But the major impediment of ROMs is in my opinion that ROMs that are once manufactured represent a significant investment. Even when EPROMS are used the media is not as easily reusable as when diskettes are used. This means that the investment must be secured (ie the chips sold) before a new release is considered. Naturally this encourages everyone who have obtained ROMs in order to sell them further, to get their money back on old ROMs first. I should point out that I did not buy from Atari directly (the repair shop services several brands of computers) and if I had I may have been able to obtain 1.4 or higher. -- =============================================================================== Fredrik Kilander, Dpt. of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University Internet: fk@dsv.su.se Voice: +46 8 16 45 00 Fax: +46 8 703 90 25 ===============================================================================
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov06.213749.13906@ecst.csuchico.edu> ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) writes: >rgoseweh@digi.lonestar.org (Roy Gosewehr) writes: > >- Differing Opinion: >- >- - I happen to like having TOS in ROM. The machine boots faster and >- is less susceptible to viruses. (This is a MAJOR benifit, IMHO.) It boots faster??? While this may save you 5 seconds on startup, I really don't think the pain in the ass involved in upgrading ROMS is negated by that. MS-DOS and Macs take a few seconds to boot, but I don't see people complaining about that. You just can't argue with the fact that the Mac and MS-DOS OS' have been regularly updated and cleansed of bugs. That is definitely worth a few extra seconds at bootup. Hell, there are/were bugs in TOS that people have known about for *5* years that have only just been corrected (like the 40 folder bug, the pool bug, etc...)! > >I agree. I thought this was one of the advantages of having the OS >in ROM: fewer viruses. Isn't this why there are so many in the Mac >and IBM world? This is simply baloney. It is just as easy to write virii for the ST as any other machine. The reason you see so many more for other machines is because MORE PEOPLE USE THEM. If you have 50,000,000 people using a machine, the chances are greater that you'll have more miscreants writing virii than if you only have 1,000,000 people using the other brand. The fact that the OS is in ROM is really no big deal regarding virii. >Moreover, not to give anyone any hints, but couldn't NeoDesk and DC >Desktop be susceptible to viruses as well (even though I love NeoDesk >with a passion)? Any application is succeptible. >- - I don't understand why everyone keeps banging on Atari to release >- the TT TOS for the ST/STE. First of all, that would impact both >- Gribnif (NeoDesk) and Double Click (DC Desktop). We already know >- how few GOOD developers support the ST market, why make it tougher. I think holding back progress to wetnurse a couple of devlopers would be counterproductive to the eventual success of the machine. > >I think Atari would look better in the eyes of its users if they >released their newer desktop. (Remember support?) Support??? Hehe, you must be kidding. This is comp.sys.atari.st, not comp.sys.mac. Anyhow, I think it would be in their best interests to do so also, though I think price is the most important factor in this market segment. >- Secondly, if Atari came out with the TT TOS at (say) $70-$100, who >- would buy it? The same people that are NOT willing to spend $30-$50 >- on either NeoDesk or DC Desktop? Yeah, sure. > >Exactly. Who would buy it, even if it was selling for the same price >as NeoDesk or DC Desktop? That is why they should have a sane upgrade policy like Apple. Why should a person get reamed over and over just to have the most bug free OS? Jeez, you buy the OS with the computer so I think that it isn't unreasonable to expect upgrades as they become available at a reasonable price. $100 is 17% of the cost of a new 1040STe. If you're going after the bargain-basement computer market, then you can't expect to earn huge premiums on things like TOS upgrades. People won't go for it. > >On the otherhand, if the new TOS had something that the others don't >have, such as multitasking (e.g. MIDI-tasking), then I think there >would be many people out there in line (or on the phone to their >400-mile-away, local dealer) to get it. Or you could just call up David Beckemeyer and get a multitasking shell for the ST now and thumb your nose at Atari. Cheers, Chris ------------------------------+--------------------------- Chris Mauritz |D{r det finns en |l, finns cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |det en plan! (c)All rights reserved. | Send flames to /dev/null | ------------------------------+---------------------------
pegram@kira.UUCP (Robert B. Pegram) (11/07/90)
From article <1990Nov6.203608.28993@cs.ucla.edu>, by stephen@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Steve Whitney): > This isn't a flame. I can only speak for myself, of course, but the reason > _I_ keep clamoring for the TT desktop on STs and STEs is to stimulate new > sales. The new desktop just plain looks better than the old one. Unless you > bundle DC Desktop or NeoDesk with new STs, the computer people see in the > stores will have the nasty old desktop while other computers have nice slick > looking desktops > Steve Whitney "It's never _really_ the last minute" (())_-_(()) Guess what, I read in Znet (thanks again, Greg) that Atari Canada did/does have a package bundling some or all new STs with NeoDesk. I'd take that over a disk loaded TT desktop, but then, I already did! I'm the only guy stupid enough to have all desktops known to man 8-). Comments from Canada about the promotion? Even more pointedly, comments on the feasability of this idea in the rest of N.A. from Atari U.S. sales???! Waiting to hear from you, Bob Pegram Internet Domain: pegram@griffin.uvm.edu UUCP: ...uvm-gen!pegram
ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) (11/08/90)
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) writes: - MS-DOS and Macs take a few seconds to boot, but I don't see people - complaining about that. From a cold boot, my BBS is up and in "waitring" mode in 20 seconds. It takes the Mac IIfx I use close to a minute, if not more just to get to the desktop. I'm complaining. - You just can't argue with the fact that the Mac and MS-DOS OS' - have been regularly updated and cleansed of bugs. And they're still slow and worthless. Now, I see why I think IIfx is so slow: it's highly dependent on the hard drive. When you select a drop down menu, for example, it reads the hard drive. - >On the otherhand, if the new TOS had something that the others don't - >have, such as multitasking (e.g. MIDI-tasking), then I think there - >would be many people out there in line (or on the phone to their - >400-mile-away, local dealer) to get it. - - Or you could just call up David Beckemeyer and get a multitasking - shell for the ST now and thumb your nose at Atari. I knew there was going to be trouble with this. I should have added "easy-to-use." Sure, MT C-Shell with VSH is nice, but I don't like command lines; if I did, I would have bought an IBM. We have a graphics-based machine; why can't the multitasking interface be like Multifinder or the Amiga's? - Cheers, - - Chris As always. -- Ed Krimen ............................................... ||| Video Production Major, California State University, Chico ||| INTERNET: ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu FREENET: al661 / | \ SysOp, Fuji BBS: 916-894-1261 FIDONET: 1:119/4.0
PHB100@psuvm.psu.edu (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov7.144925.10232@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) says: > >In article <1990Nov06.213749.13906@ecst.csuchico.edu> >ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu >(Ed Krimen) writes: >>rgoseweh@digi.lonestar.org (Roy Gosewehr) writes: >>- >>- - I happen to like having TOS in ROM. The machine boots faster and >>- is less susceptible to viruses. (This is a MAJOR benifit, IMHO.) > Me too. I like the fact that I can turn on my ST and be ready to go in five seconds. The macs at work take about 30-45 seconds minimum to bring up the desktop. This is a big difference to me. >> >>I agree. I thought this was one of the advantages of having the OS >>in ROM: fewer viruses. Isn't this why there are so many in the Mac >>and IBM world? > >This is simply baloney. It is just as easy to write virii for the >ST as any other machine. The reason you see so many more for other Yes, just as easy to write them, but when you have TOS in ROM that's one less source of spreding infection. TOS in ROM can't be infected, Mac's system and finder can and DO get infected all the time, and then spread the viroids in their turn. I know, it's part of my job at school to disinfect them. >machines is because MORE PEOPLE USE THEM. If you have 50,000,000 this is also true. >people using the other brand. The fact that the OS is in ROM is >really no big deal regarding virii. Except ROM OS can't be infected and spread it further. > ------- Disclaimer: This is me. Do I sound like anyone else? Paul Baughman PHB100@psuvm.bitnet
MBERNAR@ERENJ.BITNET (11/08/90)
To those people complaining about taking 20-45 seconds to book a hard disk based system: HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO TURN YOUR COMPUTER ON EACH DAY? I usually turn mine on in the morning and off at the end of the WORK day. I think it's well worth waiting the extra seconds to boot for the convenience and flexibility of switching operating systems. I don't need to bring my Mac IIci to the dealer just to upgrade to a new OS. And if there's a problem with the new OS, I can always just easily reload the old system back. Regards, Marcelino Bernardo mbernar@erenj.bitnet
Seitz@cup.portal.com (Matthew Eric Seitz) (11/08/90)
On Atari's TT desktop competing with 3rd party developers: The best results seem to occur when the computer manufacturer develops a reasonably priced basic item (such as a peripheral or program). The existance of an item supported by the manufacturer builds consumer confidence by making the item widely available. Making the unit a basic model leaves room for other developers to enhance the product. Take hard drives for the Atari ST. When Atari produced a hard disk for the ST, that gave a baseline expectation for the capabilities of the machine. Consumer confidence is bolstered by knowing there is an easily available, manufacturer supported hard disk. On the other hand, by not underpricing the unit, Atari allows 3rd party developers to thrive by providing less expensive, improved version. Desktops work the same way. Atari's desktop will be viewed as the "regular" or "average" configuration. When people compare Ataris to Macs, Windows, or Amigas, they will compare them to Atari's desktop. It is therefore important that Atari's desktop compare favorably with these competing interfaces. However, Atari should only do the minimum necessary to provide a favorable comparison. It should not attempt to co-opt the 3rd party developers by implementing all of their improvements. If Atari simply undercuts 3rd party developers, they'll leave the market, and creativity is stifled. I'd rather see Atari bundle NeoDesk than simply copy all their features and leave Gribnif high and dry.
grahamt@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Graham Thomas) (11/08/90)
From article <1990Nov6.203608.28993@cs.ucla.edu>, by stephen@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Steve Whitney): > This isn't a flame. I can only speak for myself, of course, but the reason > _I_ keep clamoring for the TT desktop on STs and STEs is to stimulate new > sales. The new desktop just plain looks better than the old one. Unless you > bundle DC Desktop or NeoDesk with new STs, the computer people see in the > stores will have the nasty old desktop while other computers have nice slick > looking desktops (e.g. Macintosh, new Amigas, Windows 3.0). While I'm personally very happy to use NeoDesk, I have to agree with the above posting. Most dealers can't be bothered even to put a disk in the machine when they switch it on in their shop, so what potential buyers see is an ST, often with an inferior TV monitor, showing the plain old desktop, in the lowest resolution the machine's capable of, and with that sickly green background. Atari don't (in the UK at least) supply any demonstration disks to dealers, while many PC/clone suppliers do - and for some reason Amigas are more likely to be shown up & running than STs. The result is a visual comparison of an Amiga running some game or other, a PC clone with an animated spreadsheet/graphics demo, and the sickly green low-res static ST desktop. Amstrad chairman Alan Sugar has been known to talk of the 'mug's eyeful' which helps to sell products in shops. While Atari might feel smug about not pandering to mugs, the firm sure doesn't do much to help sell the STs in dealers' shop windows. Graham -- Graham Thomas, SPRU, Mantell Building, U of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RF, UK JANET: grahamt@uk.ac.sussex.syma BITNET: grahamt%syma.sussex.ac.uk@UKACRL INTERNET: grahamt%syma.sussex.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk UUCP: grahamt%syma.sussex@ukc.uucp PHONE: +44 273 686758 FAX: [..] 685865
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov07.185434.18457@ecst.csuchico.edu> ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) writes: >cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) writes: > >- MS-DOS and Macs take a few seconds to boot, but I don't see people >- complaining about that. > >From a cold boot, my BBS is up and in "waitring" mode in 20 seconds. >It takes the Mac IIfx I use close to a minute, if not more just to >get to the desktop. I'm complaining. That is ridiculous. I have a MacIIcx in front of me with 7 INITS that load up on bootup and it takes approximately 10-15 seconds to get the desktop when I power up. I think you are exaggerating. > >- You just can't argue with the fact that the Mac and MS-DOS OS' >- have been regularly updated and cleansed of bugs. > >And they're still slow and worthless. Now, I see why I think IIfx is >so slow: it's highly dependent on the hard drive. When you select a >drop down menu, for example, it reads the hard drive. Hehe, I think what we have here is a case of sour grapes. I don't know what programs you use,but I use MacIIcx's and fx's on a regular basis, and I think you are mis-representing the facts. > >- >On the otherhand, if the new TOS had something that the others don't >- >have, such as multitasking (e.g. MIDI-tasking), then I think there >- >would be many people out there in line (or on the phone to their >- >400-mile-away, local dealer) to get it. >- >- Or you could just call up David Beckemeyer and get a multitasking >- shell for the ST now and thumb your nose at Atari. > >I knew there was going to be trouble with this. I should have added >"easy-to-use." Sure, MT C-Shell with VSH is nice, but I don't like >command lines; if I did, I would have bought an IBM. We have a >graphics-based machine; why can't the multitasking interface be like >Multifinder or the Amiga's? Ah, now you tell us that you like Multifinder (I do too!) and the Amiga OS. If you dislike the ST OS so much then why did you buy one? You'll spend a long time waiting for a decent multi-tasking OS from Atari. Hell, they are just starting to get the bugs out of the single-tasking one! The TT doesn't even have a method of multitasking. It is, for all intents and purposes, just a faster, more expensive ST. None of the really innovative features of the 68030 are used (oops, they might use the burst fill mode...I'm not sure). Their version of unix will be out RSN, etc...ad nauseum... >As always. > >-- > Ed Krimen ............................................... > ||| Video Production Major, California State University, Chico > ||| INTERNET: ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu FREENET: al661 > / | \ SysOp, Fuji BBS: 916-894-1261 FIDONET: 1:119/4.0 Chris ------------------------------+--------------------------- Chris Mauritz |D{r det finns en |l, finns cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |det en plan! (c)All rights reserved. | Send flames to /dev/null | ------------------------------+---------------------------
towns@atari.UUCP (John Townsend) (11/09/90)
in article <1990Nov5.170229.24342@dg-rtp.dg.com>, brownp@dg-rtp.dg.com (Peter Brown) says: > What is the latest/best TOS that we can get from Atari for a basic ST > system? Can we ever expect to see the new desktop in any form > ROM/HARDISK FILE? > Is any work going on for TOS version enhancements for the basic ST? > > --- Peter The latest version of TOS for the ST computers is TOS 1.4. As for the other questions, I don't have the answers for those. -- John Townsend ..ames!atari!towns Atari Corp.
tar@naucse.cse.nau.edu (Tim Roeder) (11/09/90)
In article <1990Nov7.145759.6425@uvm.edu>, pegram@kira.UUCP (Robert B. Pegram) writes: > I'm the only guy stupid enough to have all desktops known to man 8-). You're not the only one. I have Neodesk 2.05 (waiting for my upgrade), DC-Desktop 1.2a, and Gemini UK 1.1 all sitting on my hard drive right now. I tend to alternate between NeoDesk and DC-Desktop...the Gemini package is there mostly because I haven't deleted it yet. Regards, -- Timothy A. Roeder - Northern Arizona University(NAU)/Univeristy of Arizona(UA) UUCP: ...!arizona!naucse!tar (NAU) Internet: tar@naucse.cse.nau.edu (NAU) -- troeder@mis.arizona.edu (UA) Bitnet: roedert@arizvm1.BITNET (UA)
ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) (11/09/90)
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz)
- That is ridiculous. I have a MacIIcx in front of me with 7 INITS
- that load up on bootup and it takes approximately 10-15 seconds to
- get the desktop when I power up. I think you are exaggerating.
Next time you're in the area, bring your stopwatch and a magazine to
read. I'll show how long it takes to boot. And that's even when
by-passing SAM.
- Hehe, I think what we have here is a case of sour grapes. I don't
- know what programs you use,but I use MacIIcx's and fx's on a regular
- basis, and I think you are mis-representing the facts.
I use Persuasion 2.0. Pixel Paint Professional. Not to mention
Illustrator, Freehand, Zing!, MacDraw II, MicroSoft Word 4.0 and a
couple of others I use on occasion that I can't remember. Since I
use Persuasion a lot more than the others, I notice the drive reads
more on it.
- Ah, now you tell us that you like Multifinder (I do too!) and the
- Amiga OS. If you dislike the ST OS so much then why did you buy
- one? You'll spend a long time waiting for a decent multi-tasking OS
- from Atari.
I didn't say I disliked the ST OS. I said I wish it had multitasking
implemented. In fact, I prefer the ST OS to the Amiga's, Mac's,
MS-DOS, Unix. It's quick and painless.
And I don't necessarily want a multitasking OS from Atari. In fact,
I'd prefer one from a third party 'cause I know they'd update it more
frequently and give it better support than Atari could.
Enough of this bickering. Other people don't want to see it. If you
want to continue it, reply to it via e-mail.
--
Ed Krimen ...............................................
||| Video Production Major, California State University, Chico
||| INTERNET: ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu FREENET: al661
/ | \ SysOp, Fuji BBS: 916-894-1261 FIDONET: 1:119/4.0mboen@nixdorf.de (Martin Boening) (11/14/90)
In <1990Nov06.213749.13906@ecst.csuchico.edu> ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) writes: >rgoseweh@digi.lonestar.org (Roy Gosewehr) writes: >- Differing Opinion: >- >- - I happen to like having TOS in ROM. The machine boots faster and >- is less susceptible to viruses. (This is a MAJOR benifit, IMHO.) > >I agree. I thought this was one of the advantages of having the OS >in ROM: fewer viruses. Isn't this why there are so many in the Mac >and IBM world? Well, you'd better NEVER power up with any disk in drive A. If the boot sector is executable, it'll be executed. And that's with a ROM OS! If the boot sector is a virus, you'll get hit by a virus. That's all there is to a boot sector virus. It's true though, that there probably won't be many link viruses infesting command.com, cause there's no command.com. Up to now, I haven't been hit by viruses (viri ? Argh, not again. :-) even though I use PCs with disk based OSes and STs with ROM based OSes, so in my opinion the danger is exaggerated. So much for safety arguments. Bye bye data, Martin -- Email: in the USA -> mboening.pad@nixdorf.com outside USA -> mboening.pad@nixdorf.de Paper Mail: Martin Boening, Nixdorf Computer AG, SNI STO SI 355, Pontanusstr. 55, 4790 Paderborn, W.-Germany (Phone: +49 5251 146155)
ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu (Ed Krimen) (11/15/90)
mboen@nixdorf.de (Martin Boening) writes: - Well, you'd better NEVER power up with any disk in drive A. If the - boot sector is executable, it'll be executed. And that's with a ROM - OS! If the boot sector is a virus, you'll get hit by a virus. - That's all there is to a boot sector virus. Well, I ALWAYS power up with a disk in drive A. The boot sector on my disk is never executable. On the other hand, I accidentally booted a disk last night with a virus on it, and as soon as I accessed the disk, I got a skull on the left side of my screen. The skull is the result of a program in HOSPITAL.ARC which checks for viruses. If a virus is loaded into memory, the skull appears and locks up the machine. I couldn't do a hardware reset with the reset button, nor a coldboot with CTRL-ALT-RightSHIFT-DEL. Another trick to avoiding viruses is looking for the 'E' on the information line of NeoDesk 3. This will tell you if a disk has an executable boot sector on it. I've found quite a few viruses, mostly the Key/Signum virus, this way. -- Ed Krimen ............................................... ||| Video Production Major, California State University, Chico ||| INTERNET: ekrimen@ecst.csuchico.edu FREENET: al661 / | \ SysOp, Fuji BBS: 916-894-1261 FIDONET: 1:119/4.0
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) (11/15/90)
In article <90311.201626MBERNAR@ERENJ.BITNET> MBERNAR@ERENJ.BITNET writes: >To those people complaining about taking 20-45 seconds to book a hard >disk based system: > > HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO TURN YOUR COMPUTER ON EACH DAY? I >usually turn mine on in the morning and off at the end of the WORK >day. I think it's well worth waiting the extra seconds to boot for >the convenience and flexibility of switching operating systems. >I don't need to bring my Mac IIci to the dealer just to upgrade to a >new OS. And if there's a problem with the new OS, I can always just >easily reload the old system back. > I agree completely. Honestly, how many times does an average person power up and down in a day? It simply isn't worth the hassle of a ROM based OS to save you a few seconds once or twice a day. Marcelino brings up another good point that you can always go back to the old OS if you have to (in case it breaks your favorite software or whatever) just by reloading it to your hard drive or by using something like Apple's system switcher. ST users would have to open up their machines and carefully pry out the TOS1.X ROMs and carefully put the old ones back in and then re-assemble the machine. A MAJOR pain in the ass if you ask me. >Regards, >Marcelino Bernardo >mbernar@erenj.bitnet Cheers, Chris ------------------------------+--------------------------- Chris Mauritz |D{r det finns en |l, finns cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |det en plan! (c)All rights reserved. | Send flames to /dev/null | ------------------------------+---------------------------
rgoseweh@digi.lonestar.org (Roy Gosewehr) (11/16/90)
In article <mboen.658534305@peun33> mboen@nixdorf.de (Martin Boening) writes: > >Well, you'd better NEVER power up with any disk in drive A. If the boot >sector is executable, it'll be executed. And that's with a ROM OS! >If the boot sector is a virus, you'll get hit by a virus. That's all there >is to a boot sector virus. It's true though, that there probably won't be >many link viruses infesting command.com, cause there's no command.com. Yes, I ALWAYS power up with a disk in Drive A. It is my own "standard drive holder disk" :-) which is guaranteed to not have a virus on it. And with a disk in A, I boot from the hard disk MUCH MUCH faster! Try it - you will like it! >Up to now, I haven't been hit by viruses (viri ? Argh, not again. :-) >even though I use PCs with disk based OSes and STs with ROM based OSes, >so in my opinion the danger is exaggerated. I have been hit by a virus on a COMMERCIALLY PURCHASED UPGRADE DISK from the ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER. The danger is NOT exaggerated and I don't EVER boot with anything other than my own "clean" disk in the floppy drive. >So much for safety arguments. You may not care about your programs/data, but I do and my operational methods increase the probability that I will not get "hit" again. You know what the FRAM Oil Man says !!!!! :-) >Bye bye data, Hellloooo safety, Roy C. Gosewehr
kmm2765@isc.rit.edu (K.M. Mosiejczuk ) (11/16/90)
In article <1990Nov15.144731.18865@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) writes the same thing as: >In article <90311.201626MBERNAR@ERENJ.BITNET> MBERNAR@ERENJ.BITNET writes: >>To those people complaining about taking 20-45 seconds to book a hard >>disk based system: >> >> HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO TURN YOUR COMPUTER ON EACH DAY? I >>usually turn mine on in the morning and off at the end of the WORK >>day. I think it's well worth waiting the extra seconds to boot for >>the convenience and flexibility of switching operating systems. >>I don't need to bring my Mac IIci to the dealer just to upgrade to a >>new OS. And if there's a problem with the new OS, I can always just >>easily reload the old system back. >> > [rehash of previous paragraph deleted] Honestly, is there any reason why you posted your message. I deleted your part simply because it was the same as the previous. And just to put my $.02 in, ROM based OSes have many merits. First of all, the STs with ROM based TOS can also run disk based versions of the same thing. Perhaps atari could be nice enough release old TOS versions on disk. I had a friend who fried his TOS ROMs (I don't know how) and he was still ale to use his computer by using a disk-based TOS. As for the how many times a day do you turn on or off your system: **News Flash** Not everyone has a hard drive!! Rebooting is very standard for people with floppy drives. Also, if you were to reload the "old" system on your Macs, I am sure you would reinstall it on the hard drive. That would involve first digging out the old disk (assuming you still have it) and then going through the install process. I could personally reinstall the old ROMs in about ten minutes, about the same time I am sure it would take you to restore your old software OS. I don't see any advantages in that.
mboen@nixdorf.de (Martin Boening) (11/17/90)
In <1271@digi.lonestar.org> rgoseweh@digi.lonestar.org (Roy Gosewehr) writes: >Yes, I ALWAYS power up with a disk in Drive A. It is my own "standard >drive holder disk" :-) which is guaranteed to not have a virus on it. And >with a disk in A, I boot from the hard disk MUCH MUCH faster! Try it - >you will like it! >I have been hit by a virus on a COMMERCIALLY PURCHASED UPGRADE DISK from >the ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER. The danger is NOT exaggerated and I don't >EVER boot with anything other than my own "clean" disk in the floppy >drive. >You may not care about your programs/data, but I do and my operational >methods increase the probability that I will not get "hit" again. You >know what the FRAM Oil Man says !!!!! :-) Perhaps I didn't make myself quite clear: Of course I care about safety of my data. Therefore I make regular backups of my HD. I use virus checkers all the time. I also use a CLEAN disk in drive A to boot the machine because it's faster that way. And there we are, back at the original issue: a ROM based OS is no safer against infection than a disk based one, and that's all I said to start this side issue. It MIGHT be safer if it didn't start up faster with a disk in drive A: and if it didn't have executable bootsectors but since it does, your valuable SW can just as easily fall prey to viri as on a disk based OS if you're not careful. The original argument that a ROM based OS cannot be infected is right. But it doesn't lead us anywhere. Why else do you have all these nifty virus checker, scanners, killers, etc. Why was GFA Systems hit by a virus that even made it onto some production disks? Why are people writing programs like Hospital, Sakrotan and why is Ed Krimen always using them. Because: a ROM based OS gives only one level of safety: you think you're sure the ROMs aren't and never will be virus-ridden (unless SOMEBODY inserted a virus into the release used to make the ROM masks, eh. This would be extremely bad because then you have a ROM based virus which cannot as easily be replaced as a virus-infected, diskbased OS. Back to the original issue: I don't see too many (if any) arguments against distributing an OS on disk/tape/streamers. Most OSes come that way. Only a few don't. Stop it right now, Martin, you're rambling again! OK, boss. :-) So long, Martin -- Email: in the USA -> mboening.pad@nixdorf.com outside USA -> mboening.pad@nixdorf.de Paper Mail: Martin Boening, Nixdorf Computer AG, SNI STO SI 355, Pontanusstr. 55, 4790 Paderborn, W.-Germany (Phone: +49 5251 146155)