steveg@com.com (stephen harold goldstein) (10/03/89)
This is directed to the Atari folks who read this group. First off, thanks so much for your "inside" information, giving us the facts we (sometimes desperately) want/need. I know you can't always give out the all the info you'd like, but I for one, appreciate what tidbits I can get. Now for my question: I recently had a local dealer install TOS 1.4 into my Mega 4. It was my understanding that the big delay in the release was waiting for ROMs to be manufactured, but upon opening my machine (warranty already expired), I noticed that I had EPROMs (or is there some new kind of ROM with a little window on the chip? :-)) labeled TOS 1.4 with socket locations. No other markings (like copyright Atari etc.). Is this a legal set? I.E. should I march down to my dealer and demand a legal set of ROMs or was there a last minute decision to use EPROM to speed distribution? How can I tell what version of TOS 1.4 I have? (Where do I look to see the release date? I understand April 6, 1989 is the official version?). Thanks for any info you can provide. My dealer will remain nameless until I know the facts. If he's selling illegal copies I'd like to know (and I'm sure Atari would too...).
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (10/05/89)
In article <steveg.89oct3160123@narnia.com.com>, steveg@com.com (stephen harold goldstein) writes: > > I recently had a local dealer install TOS 1.4 into my Mega 4. > Thanks for any info you can provide. My dealer will remain nameless until I > know the facts. If he's selling illegal copies I'd like to know (and I'm > sure Atari would too...). Well, my feeling is that Atari has really dropped the ball on the release of TOS 1.4!! There have been 'illegal' versions of TOS 1.4 floating around for weeks now!! And the illegal copies have fixes in them for several bugs in the offical Atari TOS 1.4 release EPROMs (or ROMs). For example, TOS 1.4 has a bug in the Serial IO code which has been fixes by an industrious hacker way up North!! And the hacker had to show it to Atari in order for ATari to fix it. And Atari's fix was a patch program that you need to load in your auto folder. So, already, before you can even buy a legit copy of TOS 1.4, you need to start loading in patches!! Sounds a lot like TOS 1.0 and TOS 1.2 doesn't it?? And you can't BUY TOS 1.4 in FAST EPROMs to be used with Fast Tech's Turbo16 16 MHZ board. If you could get TOS 1.4 in 100 ns EPROMS, T16 could run even faster when accessing the TOS code. But, try to buy TOS 1.4 in fast eproms. Ha!! So, TOS 1.4 is getting spread and ATari is losing sales simply because they don't know how to market the upgrade!!! And you have to wonder how a company that can't even distribute an OS upgrade can market an multi-tasking multi-windowm multi-user super fast workstation like the TT!! Ha again!!! I am going to keep my Mega ST4 and my 520ST but it will be snowing in Phoenix in July before you see me buying a TT. Lack of support from Atari is why!! I just wish that Atari would release the source code to TOS and let the hackers support the darn thing!! It couldn't be worse then the non-support that Atari provides now!!! Richard (Proud Owner of a Souped Up T16ized Mega ST4!!!) Covert
krieg@jupiter.uucp (Andrew Krieg) (10/06/89)
I'm new to the Net, and all these questions have probably been answered a hundred times before, but..... 1) What does this new new TOS 1.4 do for me, Joe ST? Is this an upgrade everyone should get? What kind of bugs does it fix? 2) If I decide to get the upgrade, what are the pros/cons in purchasing the Roms or getting it on disk? 3) If I get it on disk, how much memory will it eat as overhead? 4) If I get it on Rom, who installs it? Do I have to send it to Atari? 5) Where can purchase either the Roms or the disk version? Any info is appreciated. ========================================================================= = = = The Marvel Historian A. Krieg = = = = G.E. Medical Systems - CT - New Berlin, WI = = USENET: krieg@jupiter.med.ge.com = = = =========================================================================
gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (10/07/89)
In article <460c4f58.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: > Well, my feeling is that Atari has really dropped the ball on the release of > TOS 1.4!! Lots of feeling, no understanding. I tried to send this email, but uunet doesn't know where "force.UUCP" is. You suggest that Atari go ahead and produce updated TOS 1.4 ROMS. This is probably a bad idea. Can't you just see customer service: "I have this problem", "What version of TOS are you running?", "TOS 1.4, I just bought it from my dealer", "Which one, new TOS 1.4 or old TOS 1.4???" Or, a user sees TOS14PATCH.ARC on his BBS, and wonders if he's supposed to run it or not. It's vastly easier to have all TOS ROMS distributed for a long time be the same, and for all users to need the same patch program. This is the only philosophy that makes sense for a home machine. Atari isn't Sun. On another topic, Richard flamed Atari for not providing more software support to people trying to get the SLM804 working with Mac software. Atari provides sufficient support that if you can make a bitmap, you can output it to the printer. This is how the DVI program for the SLM804 works. The problem is generating the bitmap on the Mac. You can either generate it using Postscript (which could be licensed from several sources), or implement Quickdraw for an arbitrary bitmap. General Computer sells Mac laser printers that work this way. In either case, this isn't an Atari-only problem -- it's the same problem you'd get hooking up ANY "dumb" laser printer to a real Mac. It's a bit silly to expect Atari to pay several programmers a bunch of money to implement such a critter when it won't sell many STs. And it's silly to expect David Small to do it if it would take so much time it wouldn't be cost-effective. Many "technical" decisions are really marketing decisions. If we want to get Atari to do something, let's ask for something useful, not something stupid. Can I get down off my soapbox yet? ;-) ------ Greg Lindahl gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA.
charlop@blake.acs.washington.edu (Aaron Charlop) (10/09/89)
A quick question. Where does one find the patch program for the serial port bug? I am at home trying to do some work over the modem and I keep getting spurious characters and commands being sent out. In fact it has made reading the net almost immpossible. Just a few minutes ago it even unsubscribed me from this topic. PLEASE HELP ME. Aaron the Alchemist Charlop@uwachem.washington.edu "Yes, I really am a honest-to-goodness Alchemist" Me
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (10/09/89)
In article <2074@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: > In article <460c4f58.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: > > > Well, my feeling is that Atari has really dropped the ball on the release of > > TOS 1.4!! > > Lots of feeling, no understanding. I tried to send this email, but > uunet doesn't know where "force.UUCP" is. Well, I can be reached at .../gtephx!covertr. FORCE is a node on our Apollo network. Just try gtephx!covertr. > > You suggest that Atari go ahead and produce updated TOS 1.4 ROMS. This is > probably a bad idea. Can't you just see customer service: "I have this > problem", "What version of TOS are you running?", "TOS 1.4, I just bought > it from my dealer", "Which one, new TOS 1.4 or old TOS 1.4???" Greg, the problem is one of timing. By the time Atari got the TOS 1.4 PROMs out, and notice that they are PROMS not ROMs, bugs had already been identified and repaired by hackers. Since, the offical TOS ROMs still haven't been released, it is not unreasonable to hope that Atari would fix the known bugs before releasing them. I just hate to see TOS 1.4 start off with a bunch of auto folder patches!! And there is still no legal way to buy TOS 1.4 in 100 ns EPROMs so that the Turbo16 can run at full speed. T16 can be setup to access the TOS memory without wait states if the memory is quick enough. Hence the need for 100 ns EPROMs. If Atari was selling TOS in ROMs it might be possible to buy them in 100ns roms. who knows?? > > Or, a user sees TOS14PATCH.ARC on his BBS, and wonders if he's > supposed to run it or not. It's vastly easier to have all TOS ROMS > distributed for a long time be the same, and for all users to need the > same patch program. This is the only philosophy that makes sense for a > home machine. Atari isn't Sun. Greg, the user already needs an auto folder patch for the TOS 1.4 that is being sold by Atari. How many more patches will be needed over the next six months?? > > On another topic, Richard flamed Atari for not providing more software > support to people trying to get the SLM804 working with Mac software. > it's silly to expect David Small to do it if it would take so much > time it wouldn't be cost-effective. > > Can I get down off my soapbox yet? ;-) > > > ------ > Greg Lindahl > gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA. And finally, Greg, I have stopped asking Dave Small for a 300 dpi QuickDraw driver for the SLM804. As you have just said it appears to be too hard for Dave Small, or anyone else, to develop. So, whose fault is it?? Atari?? Apple?? GBS?? All I know is that when I bought my Spectre 128 from Dave Small in Sept 1988, Dave said that he would provide a 300 dpi driver for the SLM804 laser printer. And now over a year later it has proven to be an impossible task. The best that Dave can do is 144 dpi, which is basically just draft printing on a 300 dpi laser printer. so, while I am not satisified with the Spectre printer driver for the SLM804, at least I know that Dave gave it his best shot!! So, I am NOT flaming GBS. I am just waiting for GBS to release the Spectre version 2.0 software so that I can use my SLM804 laser printer in 144 dpi mode. Richard (gtephx!covertr) Covert
Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik) (10/10/89)
What makes this all even more interesting is that rumors were flying at the WAACE AtariFest that TOS 1.4 will be showing up on 2 chip ROM (not EPROM) sets in the next few weeks (which should take care of the 'weak Bus' problems some Mega owners have been having - but even more interesting is the rumored release of TOS 1.6! Which Mr Hartmann didn't refute (although in all fairness he also didn't back this rumor...) Peter Szymonik Xorg@cup.portal.com
towns@atari.UUCP (John Townsend) (10/12/89)
in article <22918@cup.portal.com>, Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik) says: > > What makes this all even more interesting is that rumors were flying > at the WAACE AtariFest that TOS 1.4 will be showing up on 2 chip ROM > (not EPROM) sets in the next few weeks (which should take care of the > 'weak Bus' problems some Mega owners have been having - but even more > interesting is the rumored release of TOS 1.6! Which Mr Hartmann didn't > refute (although in all fairness he also didn't back this rumor...) > > Peter Szymonik > Xorg@cup.portal.com TOS 1.6 is no rumor. It does exist. However, it is the TOS that is going into the STE machines. No upgrade will be offered from TOS 1.4 to 1.6. The only differences in TOS 1.4 and TOS 1.6 are the support of the enhanced graphics and sound that are available in the STE machine. -- John Townsend ames!atari!towns Atari Corporation, Technical Support
gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (10/12/89)
In article <46207fa0.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: >Greg, the problem is one of timing. By the time Atari got the TOS 1.4 PROMs >out, and notice that they are PROMS not ROMs, bugs had already been identified >and repaired by hackers. Since, the offical TOS ROMs still haven't been released, >it is not unreasonable to hope that Atari would fix the known bugs before releasing >them. What if they had already had the ROMs in production, and it was too late to change them? Did you ever ASK if this were so, or did you just charge out and say Atari was a bunch of idiots? No wonder they don't answer your postings. >> Or, a user sees TOS14PATCH.ARC on his BBS, and wonders if he's >> supposed to run it or not. It's vastly easier to have all TOS ROMS >> distributed for a long time be the same, and for all users to need the >> same patch program. This is the only philosophy that makes sense for a >> home machine. Atari isn't Sun. > >Greg, the user already needs an auto folder patch for the TOS 1.4 that is being >sold by Atari. How many more patches will be needed over the next six months?? Well, ALL tos 1.4 users use the same patch. I assume that Atari, being fairly smart people, will arrange it so that if future patches are needed, it will still be one file. This is much simpler ("Get this one latest patch file") then worrying if you have TOS 1.4a or 1.4b or 1.4c and having to get the right patch for each version. All in all, it's much easier to support one rom for which you're supposed to have one patch file, than 14 different versions and 14 different patch files. ------ Greg Lindahl gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA.
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (10/12/89)
In article <22918@cup.portal.com>, Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik) writes: > interesting is the rumored release of TOS 1.6! Which Mr Hartmann didn't > refute (although in all fairness he also didn't back this rumor...) > > Peter Szymonik > Xorg@cup.portal.com Peter, TOS 1.6 is the version of TOS for the mythical 1040STe. That much has already been said by Atari. Interesting enough, TOS 1.6 is also supposed to be the version going into the TT/P. Richard Covert
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (10/14/89)
In article <2097@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: > In article <46207fa0.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: > > Well, ALL tos 1.4 users use the same patch. I assume that Atari, being > fairly smart people, will arrange it so that if future patches are > needed, it will still be one file. This is much simpler ("Get this one > latest patch file") then worrying if you have TOS 1.4a or 1.4b or 1.4c > and having to get the right patch for each version. > > All in all, it's much easier to support one rom for which you're > supposed to have one patch file, than 14 different versions and 14 > different patch files. > > Greg Lindahl The problem Greg is that you just plain and simply can't count on Atari for support!! If Atari was going to support the ST, why didn't Atari license GPLUS from Charles Johnson and include it in TOS 1.4?? Why didn't Atari make any improvments in GDOS for TOS 1.4?? I have over 3 megs of GDOS fonts for my SLM804 and if it wasn't for Charles Johnson's GPLUS I wouldn't use any of them!! The GDOS support in TOS, even TOS 1.4, is almost zero compared to what GPLUS offers. And GPLUS has been out for a year now, so Atari could have licensed it from Charles Johnson. And Atari didn't even want to admit that there was a bug in the serial port code in TOS 1.4 until the Canadian hacker showed Atari the actual bug in the code. Pretty responsive of Atari, huh?? And this is for an OS that has been under development for 2 years!! After 2 years, you would think that Atari would have it right!!! Boy, a good outline font system, aka the macintosh system, would really be great for the ST!! But asking Atari for anything like that is like jumping to the moon, you'll never get there!! I like the third party support starting to appear for the ST. My favorite product is the Turbo16 product from FAST TECHNOLOGY. T16 really speeds up my Mega ST!! It is great!!! So, lets support the good 3rd party enhancments to the ST and hope that things will get better IN SPITE OF ATARI!! Rich (Proud owner of a souped up T16ed Mega ST4!!) Covert
Xorg@cup.portal.com (Peter Ted Szymonik) (10/15/89)
Thanks for the TOS 1.6 info John! I was beginning to worry about a shaft - go through hell to have TOS 1.4 installed and then 1.6 comes out, would not have been fun! i now have TOS 1.4 and Turbo 1.6 and the speed increase is outstanding1 Peter Szymonik Xorg@cup.portal.com
paul@cacilj.UUCP (Paul Close) (10/17/89)
In article <4634aec9.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: >The problem Greg is that you just plain and simply can't count on >Atari for support!! If Atari was going to support the ST, why didn't Atari >license GPLUS from Charles Johnson and include it in TOS 1.4?? You still don't get it, do you? Atari is not in the third-party software business. If a third-party product exists, and you like it better, then buy it, use it, and support the third-party developers! Does it matter if you buy GDOS from Atari or buy it from Codehead? You'll pay for it one way or another! "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch". Also, Ken B. from Atari has repeatedly stated that there isn't room in the ROMs for all of these enhancements! If you like NeoDesk, then buy NeoDesk! If you like GPLUS, then buy GPLUS! Just don't expect Atari to buy your software for you and code it into the ROMS! >And Atari didn't even want to admit that there was a bug in the serial >port code in TOS 1.4 until the Canadian hacker showed Atari the actual >bug in the code. Pretty responsive of Atari, huh?? And this is for an OS >that has been under development for 2 years!! After 2 years, you would think >that Atari would have it right!!! Oh my, a bug in RTS/CTS handling! Tsk, tsk. Forget about the zillions of bugs they fixed, forget about the months of development, and focus on one obscure bug. The reason it wasn't fixed, I'm sure, is that none of the developers who beta-tested even *use* RTS/CTS flow control! Why don't you pay up and become a developer? Try working to make the Atari better instead of complaining about how bad it is?!? Go buy an Amiga or something and quit complaining! >Boy, a good outline font system, aka the macintosh system, would really be >great for the ST!! But asking Atari for anything like that is like jumping >to the moon, you'll never get there!! Better yet, go buy a Macintosh, if they're so great! I think you'll find that Apple can afford the huge R&D costs for new fonts with all the money they make off of the Mac! (Warning: there is probably a generalization there somewhere :-) Yes, an outline font would be nice. So make one! >I like the third party support starting to appear for the ST. My favorite >product is the Turbo16 product from FAST TECHNOLOGY. T16 really speeds up >my Mega ST!! It is great!!! I agree. Hurray for the third-party support! Think about it--how much of what's really useful on the IBM-PC is produced *by* IBM? Any of it? >So, lets support the good 3rd party enhancments to the ST and hope that >things will get better IN SPITE OF ATARI!! Wrong. If it wasn't for Atari, we wouldn't have this wonderful machine that truley delivers "power without the price"! When the ST first came out, an 8MHz 68000 was *power*!!! Even today, it is a respectable machine. Ever priced a 25MHz 68030 machine? Come up with a figure a home hobbyist could afford? I didn't think so. >Rich (Proud owner of a souped up T16ed Mega ST4!!) Covert You don't sound very proud to me. I'm not trying to single you out specifically, but I sure get tired of people who think that Atari should do everthing for them. I'm glad there are developers who *do* something to improve the machine, instead of just whine and complain. -- Paul Close paul@cacilj.CTS.COM ...!{uunet, ucsd, crash}!cacilj!paul The Obi-wan Kenobi method: "Use the Source, Luke" -Jim Fulton
strasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu ( Colin J. Strasser.) (10/17/89)
In article <1266@cacilj.UUCP> paul@cacilj.UUCP (Paul Close) writes: >Oh my, a bug in RTS/CTS handling! Tsk, tsk. Forget about the zillions of >bugs they fixed, forget about the months of development, and focus on one >obscure bug. The reason it wasn't fixed, I'm sure, is that none of the >developers who beta-tested even *use* RTS/CTS flow control! Folks, what we have here is the bane of the consumer -- the "brand loyalist." By that I mean those of us who've used Ataris and (yes) Commodores since long before the IBM PC was a twinkle in Big Blue's eye. I'll bet that he (like a lot of us) stuck by his small, innovative company from Atari 400/800 through 1040ST, with all the lean years in between. Maybe some of you remember (or HAVE) the Commodore 64 and 1541 disk drive. For years Commodore denied that its DOS had any bugs despite frequent testi- mony about its file overwrite (save-with-replace, they called it) doing all kinds of strange things from swapping filenames to triggering nuclear melt- downs. Well, somebody finally PROVED that the bug existed, Commodore was forced to at least acknowledge it (and recognize that others might exist) and the users of Commodore computers were safer and happier. My point here is that a bug -- any bug -- is an IMPORTANT THING. Allowing a company to sell buggy software is tantamount to letting it screw you in any other way. Don't let Atari off the hook on this one so easily. You might regret it later, and so might they (big business doesn't deal with companies that turn a blind eye toward product shortcomings -- denying a bug is not the way to generate confidence in a small, undermarketed company like Atari). >Why don't you pay up and become a developer? Try working to make the Atari >better instead of complaining about how bad it is?!? It's ATARI's job to make its products work correctly, not its users'. >Go buy an Amiga or something and quit complaining! "My Atari -- love it or leave it," eh? Well then next time you're screwed you will know who to blame: yourself. (BTW, all my comments apply equally to Commodore -- and any other company, for that matter.) >Wrong. If it wasn't for Atari, we wouldn't have this wonderful machine that >truley delivers "power without the price"! When the ST first came out, an >8MHz 68000 was *power*!!! Even today, it is a respectable machine. Ever >priced a 25MHz 68030 machine? Come up with a figure a home hobbyist could >afford? I didn't think so. Just a note: anybody remember the original price of an Atari 800 with 16K? I seem to remember a figure around $1000 or so. >You don't sound very proud to me. He doesn't have to be proud of Atari (the company) to be proud of Atari (the machine). >...I sure get tired of people who think that Atari should do >everthing for them. I'm glad there are developers who *do* something to >improve the machine, instead of just whine and complain. When buying a computer, just as for any other high-ticket item, you're buying the company behind it. If service is nonexistent, if support is minimal, if the company is unresponsive, then the computer, no matter how technically ad- vanced, will never gain acceptance -- especially companies like Atari and Commodore who already have negative images. >-- >Paul Close paul@cacilj.CTS.COM ...!{uunet, ucsd, crash}!cacilj!paul > > The Obi-wan Kenobi method: "Use the Source, Luke" -Jim Fulton -Colin strasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu ============================================================================== Colin Strasser University of Pennsylvania strasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu Moore School of Electrical Engineering CI$: 72447,1650 Class of '90 -- Penn's 250th year! There is but one law: "Don't get caught."
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (10/18/89)
In article <15579@netnews.upenn.edu> strasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP ( Colin J. Strasser.) writes: >Folks, what we have here is the bane of the consumer -- the "brand loyalist." Um, finger pointing aside, the RTS/CTS bug is fixed and a patch is available. Although the fact that the bug got through beta test is not good, the fact that an official patch is available is good. ------ Greg Lindahl gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA.
thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) (10/18/89)
strasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu ( Colin J. Strasser.) writes: >In article <1266@cacilj.UUCP> paul@cacilj.UUCP (Paul Close) writes: >>Oh my, a bug in RTS/CTS handling! Tsk, tsk. Forget about the zillions of >Folks, what we have here is the bane of the consumer -- the "brand loyalist." Not fair. I understand Paul - he's tired of someone who never stops whining, just like I am. Oh, Richard Covert's knock on the RTS/CTS bug is not too negative, but he *did* make the comment that Atari should have gone back and re-done the PROMs. To do so would be truly stupid. My point (and as I read it, Paul's point) is that for a small bug like RTS/CTS, you don't stop delivery and start a new distribution. Doing that would do a great disservice to the people who want and need the majority of the fixes you already have. It is truly unfortunate that the bug wasn't found by alpha testing at Atari, but them's the breaks. It's maybe not good at all that they didn't acknowledge the bug right away. But you don't stop everything when you've almost got stuff that people have been waiting for for two years or more ready to come out of a three month pipeline. You have to leave some stuff for the next release sometimes. I want those ROMs, and I can work around the RTS/CTS stuff, I suspect. What I don't wish to do is wait three more months for a different set of ROMs that fixes one more bug, because the odds are 99.5% that more bugs will be found in the interim, and we'll be right back again. If more bugs are found in the next few months, I *would* like to hear at that time that another release is planned. Rob T -- Rob Thurlow - Expatriate Canadian thurlow@convex.com "From the heart of 'The Friendship State'"
dnewton@carroll1.UUCP (Oh for gosh sakes.) (10/18/89)
In article <1266@cacilj.UUCP> paul@cacilj.UUCP (Paul Close) writes: >Just don't expect Atari to buy your software for you and code it >into the ROMS! I don't think we're asking Atari to buy third-party software and burn it--we are asking them for a real _WORKING_ environment. i.e. a move routine would have been nice, and has now been implemented. But why wasn't it in the first place? RTS/CTS bug? Some people might need that. Why release comm warez that are buggy? >Oh my, a bug in RTS/CTS handling! Tsk, tsk. Forget about the zillions of >bugs they fixed, forget about the months of development, and focus on one >obscure bug. The reason it wasn't fixed, I'm sure, is that none of the >developers who beta-tested even *use* RTS/CTS flow control! Doesn't really matter, does it? ATARI sells it, Atari better make sure that it works. Something as significant as this should be caught in alpha. As for the months of development, that goes into any software package meant for general consumption. >Why don't you pay up and become a developer? Try working to make the Atari >better instead of complaining about how bad it is?!? Yeah, I'm sure everyone that finds a bug is a competent enough programmer to develop their own OS patches. Get real. >Go buy an Amiga or something and quit complaining! Ugh. I'd sooner eat camel spit. >>Boy, a good outline font system, aka the macintosh system, would really be >>great for the ST!! But asking Atari for anything like that is like jumping >>to the moon, you'll never get there!! >Better yet, go buy a Macintosh, if they're so great! I think you'll find that >Apple can afford the huge R&D costs for new fonts with all the money they make >off of the Mac! (Warning: there is probably a generalization there >somewhere :-) How hard would it have been? They made a choice (I think the wrong one) and now we have to make up for it with 3rd party. Besides, I hardly think that Apple spent the huge quantities of money for "font development" that you allude to. Most fonts are PD anyway. >Yes, an outline font would be nice. So make one! If it would be so nice, why don't you make one? >I agree. Hurray for the third-party support! Think about it--how much of >what's really useful on the IBM-PC is produced *by* IBM? Any of it? Fortunately no. Whew 8-) >Wrong. If it wasn't for Atari, we wouldn't have this wonderful machine that >truley delivers "power without the price"! When the ST first came out, an >8MHz 68000 was *power*!!! Even today, it is a respectable machine. Ever Well, I don't know about that. I'd almost be certain that someone would have come up with a machine with similar capabilities. IBM hasn't _totally_ destroyed people's creativity yet. >ever priced a 25MHz 68030 machine? Come up with a figure a home hobbyist could >afford? I didn't think so. This is quite irrelevant, as the ST isn't a 68030 machine, nor do they have one shipping yet. What I would suggest is a comparative study of 68000 machine, 80286 machines, and NS32016 machines. I think you'd find there are some very interesting machines in these classes that would lay waste to the Atari at around the same price. _And_ are expandable. >>Rich (Proud owner of a souped up T16ed Mega ST4!!) Covert >You don't sound very proud to me. I'm not trying to single you out Being proud does not mean unlimited support. Indeed no, it means being tough on whatever it is, so you can make it even _better_. -- David L. Newton | dnewton@carroll1.UUCP | The Raging Apostle-- (414) 524-7343 (work) | dnewton@carroll1.cc.edu | for the future-- (414) 524-6809 (home) | 100 NE Ave, Waukesha, WI 53186 | for the world.
towns@atari.UUCP (John Townsend) (10/20/89)
in article <4634aec9.14a1f@force.UUCP>, covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) says: > > The problem Greg is that you just plain and simply can't count on > Atari for support!! If Atari was going to support the ST, why didn't Atari > license GPLUS from Charles Johnson and include it in TOS 1.4?? > > Why didn't Atari make any improvments in GDOS for TOS 1.4?? I have over > 3 megs of GDOS fonts for my SLM804 and if it wasn't for Charles Johnson's > GPLUS I wouldn't use any of them!! The GDOS support in TOS, even TOS 1.4, > is almost zero compared to what GPLUS offers. And GPLUS has been out for > a year now, so Atari could have licensed it from Charles Johnson. > > And Atari didn't even want to admit that there was a bug in the serial > port code in TOS 1.4 until the Canadian hacker showed Atari the actual > bug in the code. Pretty responsive of Atari, huh?? And this is for an OS > that has been under development for 2 years!! After 2 years, you would think that > Atari would have it right!!! > > Boy, a good outline font system, aka the macintosh system, would really be > great for the ST!! But asking Atari for anything like that is like jumping > to the moon, you'll never get there!! > > I like the third party support starting to appear for the ST. My favorite > product is the Turbo16 product from FAST TECHNOLOGY. T16 really speeds up > my Mega ST!! It is great!!! > So, lets support the good 3rd party enhancments to the ST and hope that > things will get better IN SPITE OF ATARI!! > > Rich (Proud owner of a souped up T16ed Mega ST4!!) Covert First, TOS 1.4 is a product. GDOS is a product. They are COMPLETELY independent of each other. As for the serial port, We found the problem and we fixed it via the TOS 1.4 patch. Unfortunately, it was not found until after the release of the ROMs. To verify this, we did not receive a single SPR on this problem from the developers that had the Beta version of TOS 1.4 or any reports from anyone until AFTER the ROMs had been finalized. But, the end result is that the problem was reported, we looked into it, found there was a problem, fixed it, and released a patch program via the Networks and Dealer Network. What more do you want from us?? -- John Townsend ames!atari!towns Atari Corporation
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (10/20/89)
In article <2172@convex.UUCP>, thurlow@convex.com (Robert Thurlow) writes: > I want those ROMs, and I can work around the RTS/CTS stuff, I suspect. > What I don't wish to do is wait three more months for a different set > of ROMs that fixes one more bug, because the odds are 99.5% that more > bugs will be found in the interim, and we'll be right back again. If > more bugs are found in the next few months, I *would* like to hear at > that time that another release is planned. > > Rob T Atari could do something to make a lot of us happy, and get a huge marketing advantage with people who love their computers (blush) by announcing right now that at some specific date in the moderate future the specifications for TOS 1.8 will be frozen. All bugs known to Atari as of that date will be addressed; all new features will have been chosen by then. After that, it's up to the programmers. Sure, people will start getting impatient about 6 months after the drop-dead date, but that's about when the internal alpha testing should be starting, and that's a nice thing to be able to announce. Who knows, by having a definite freeze date, the development might even be helped. Steve J.
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (10/21/89)
In article <1734@atari.UUCP>, towns@atari.UUCP (John Townsend) writes: > > As for the serial port, We found the problem and we fixed it via the > TOS 1.4 patch. Unfortunately, it was not found until after the release of > the ROMs. To verify this, we did not receive a single SPR on this problem > from the developers that had the Beta version of TOS 1.4 or any reports > from anyone until AFTER the ROMs had been finalized. > > But, the end result is that the problem was reported, we looked into it, > found there was a problem, fixed it, and released a patch program via the > Networks and Dealer Network. What more do you want from us?? At the risk of seeming picky, I'd like a few things from a company whose president announced the release of new operating system ROMs in front of developers and press at Spring COMDEX. I'd like my dealer (Software Plus, a local Chicago-area chain) to get decent supplies of ROMs. I'd like those ROMs to be honest-to-pete mask programmed ROMs by now, not PROMs or (heaven help us) EPROMs. I'd like to be able to buy a Mega with the new operating system installed as original equipment. That's a fair fraction of what I want from Atari. Is there any special reason why the TOS 1.4 rollout is going so fitfully? Suggestions that it's going smoothly will be cheerfully laughed at. Suggestions that ROMs always have startup problems this bad will be greeted with incredulity. Steve J.
nemeth@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Gabe Nemeth) (10/23/89)
What I find annoying is that ROMs that fix bugs in the operating system that was promised years ago is costing me $100. Surely Atari could afford to foster some loyalty by offering a "nominal" trade in price for ROMs. The mac os is essentially free (you can buy an official disk for $45) and I wonder how the copywrite would affect TOS. Are updates to TOS separately copywrited? If I own a copy of TOS 1.0, am I legally entitled to make an updated copy to 1.4? /leonard
fischer-michael@CS.YALE.EDU (Michael Fischer) (10/23/89)
In article <1734@atari.UUCP> towns@atari.UUCP (John Townsend) writes: >But, the end result is that the problem was reported, we looked into it, >found there was a problem, fixed it, and released a patch program via the >Networks and Dealer Network. What more do you want from us?? How about posting the patch to comp.binaries.atari.st? ================================================== | Michael Fischer | | Arpanet: <fischer-michael@cs.yale.edu> | | Bitnet: <fischer-michael@yalecs.bitnet> | | UUCP: <fischer-michael@yale.UUCP> | ==================================================
depeche@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Sam Alan EZUST) (10/25/89)
In article <15579@netnews.upenn.edu> strasser@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP ( Colin J. Strasser.) writes: >In article <1266@cacilj.UUCP> paul@cacilj.UUCP (Paul Close) writes: > >>Why don't you pay up and become a developer? Try working to make the Atari >>better instead of complaining about how bad it is?!? > >It's ATARI's job to make its products work correctly, not its users'. > Why should a USER PAY for the privilege of fixing bugs that Atari Employees are being paid to do, and evidently can't do? If I was fixing Atari's bugs, I would expect to be paid for it! Well, that's my two cents worth........ -- S. Alan Ezust aka "Depeche Modem" depeche@calvin.cs.mcgill.ca McGill University Computer Science Disclaimer: I claim everything! Montreal, Quebec, Canada (je pense que.... ) je me souviens "This kind of pornography is a matter of artistic creativity"
stank@anvil.WV.TEK.COM (Stan Kalinowski) (10/26/89)
In article <1989Oct22.195156.14155@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> nemeth@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Gabe Nemeth) writes: >What I find annoying is that ROMs that fix bugs in the operating system >that was promised years ago is costing me $100. Surely Atari could >afford to foster some loyalty by offering a "nominal" trade in price >for ROMs. C'mon folks, give Atari a break. They're trying to provide support for their product and all they get are complaints. Trade-in's on ROMs don't make sense, they don't have any intrinsic value so what's the point of trading them in? It's not like a used car where the manufacturer could resell it. Mask programmed ROMs cannot be reused, so they have no value. Why should Atari take them on trade in? Most manufacturers of industrial computers charge some sort of annual software maintainence fee, for this fee you may or may not get your bugs fixed, depending on how severe they are. Atari is simply doing the same thing, only they are doing it on a "pay as you go" basis. I realize that Atari is selling into the consumer market and customer expectations are different, but I don't think their upgrade policies are any different than the other home computer vendors. > The mac os is essentially free (you can buy an official disk >for $45) and I wonder how the copywrite would affect TOS. $45 doesn't seem much like free to me. I think you are really alluding to the fact that Mac os releases are sold on disks and are thus easier to illegaly pirate. (I don't know what Apple's view of copying is, but I suspect they don't approve.) You must also keep in mind the cost of the distribution media, Apple ships their OS upgrades on 3.5 in. floppies which cost significantly less than the six ROMs that Atari is using. Also, the ROM set is going for $90 in my area, so it sounds like your dealer is overcharging, unless that $100 includes installation, in which case it's a good deal. > Are updates >to TOS separately copywrited? If I own a copy of TOS 1.0, am I legally >entitled to make an updated copy to 1.4? I'm not a copyright expert, but I don't believe copyright law entitles me to an update. When is the last time you heard of anyone getting a new copy of a book when the revised edition comes out? TOS 1.4 is not the same as TOS 1.0, you are not making a copy of TOS 1.0 when you copy a TOS 1.4 ROM, thus the "backup copy" clause of copyright law does not apply. Making a copy of a TOS 1.4 ROM that you do not own for your personal use is a violation of copyright law. DISCLAIMERS: These opinions are my own and have nothing to do with Tektronix. I do not represent Atari, I am only an St owner. I also own an IBM PC. I sometimes use an Apple Macintosh at work. I don't LOVE any of those machines, they all suck, one way or another. stank US Mail: Stan Kalinowski, Tektronix, Inc., Interactive Technologies Division PO Box 1000, MS 61-028, Wilsonville OR 97070 Phone:(503)-685-2458 e-mail: {ucbvax,decvax,allegra,uw-beaver}!tektronix!orca!stank or stank@orca.WV.TEK.COM
oplinger@minerva.crd.ge.com (B. S. Oplinger) (10/27/89)
In article <5115@orca.WV.TEK.COM> stank@anvil.WV.TEK.COM (Stan Kalinowski) writes: >In article <1989Oct22.195156.14155@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> nemeth@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Gabe Nemeth) writes: >>What I find annoying is that ROMs that fix bugs in the operating system >>that was promised years ago is costing me $100. Surely Atari could >>afford to foster some loyalty by offering a "nominal" trade in price >>for ROMs. >> The mac os is essentially free (you can buy an official disk >>for $45) and I wonder how the copywrite would affect TOS. >$45 doesn't seem much like free to me. I think you are really >alluding to the fact that Mac os releases are sold on disks and are >thus easier to illegaly pirate. (I don't know what Apple's view of >copying is, but I suspect they don't approve.) You must also keep in >mind the cost of the distribution media, Apple ships their OS upgrades >on 3.5 in. floppies which cost significantly less than the six ROMs >that Atari is using. Also, the ROM set is going for $90 in my area, >so it sounds like your dealer is overcharging, unless that $100 >includes installation, in which case it's a good deal. Lets get a few facts straight. Every Apple system software update cost $0. Thats right -- it's free. Now if you want the docs and would like to get brandy new disks instead of copies over your old disks, you can pay $45. I think $100 (list price, you dealer can charge what he wants, this is America after all) for a set of ROMS WITH DOCUMENTATION OF NEW FEATURES would be a good deal. But what does my $100 get me. Roms? No, EPROMS (an rather cheap, slow ones at that). Documentation. No, just a Xerox of the sheet the developers got, if my dealer feels like making me a copy. C'mon Atari, surely you can be just one little bit professional. Can't you? (Maybe not). After all, the upgrade was promised, but like the blitter support for the 520 and 1040, I guess all Atari is good at is hot air. brian (like the machine, but the company leaves alot to be desired) oplinger@crd.ge.com