FORTINP@BNR.CA (Pierre Fortin, P.) (04/08/89)
NOTE!!!!! The following is **NOT** intended as a FLAME or Atari bash.
I am simply recounting the facts as I know them to be true
in response to the following from Ken Badertscher.
I would sincerely like to see some tangible response from
Atari (U.S. *or* Canada). ========
To ensure that the following is responded to appropriately,
I offer this reminder:
Webster's: tangible .... a: capable of being perceived esp.
by the sense of touch : PALPABLE b: substantially
real : MATERIAL ....
WARNING: Very long...................
AGAIN, I wrote this in a TOTALLY CALM and RELAXED state. If
anyone thinks they read flames or bashing, then you are
reading out of context. I believe I am making rational
statements and posing serious questions to which I expect
Atari to view in the same light. OK, well maybe one little
spark...
>Date: 5 Apr 89 00:40:42 GMT
>From: imagen!atari!kbad@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ken Badertscher)
>Subject: ST docs
>To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
>
>In article <1221@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> rogers@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Bob
> Rogers) writes:
>|Do you folks _ever_ intend to publish this information in a readily available
>|and affordable format?
>
> Yes.
>
Ken, on July 19, 1988 I sent a letter (using the words prescribed by
Atari Canada) requesting the developer docs. It read:
(quote)
Atari Mega/520/1040 St Developer Documentation $100.00
Support (including Newsletters) $150.00
(unquote)
Since I had MWC, I did not order Alcyon C.
Note that 60% (!!!!!!) of my order was for "SUPPORT"; well read on...
When I received my package, it was accompanied by an Invoice which
*magically* changed Support to read: Atari Developer Registration
Package. I didn't know it then, but this _change_ was prophetic;
"Registration" lacked the "Support" in my order.
For this, I received a package of docs which contain little more than
volume 2 of the Abacus series "Atari ST Internals". In fact my
"package" is almost completely virgin; there isn't even a single note
penciled in. The Abacus book is starting to look pretty ratty from use.
To be fair, I *do* use the docs as the "formal" rulebook. However, how
good can this set of docs be, when most of the information is dated
as follows:
88/02/24 GEMDOS (I'm suspicious of this one.)
85/11/26 BIOS Real helpful with 1985/11/20 ROMs, but what about
1986/02/06, 1986/04/24, 1987/04/22(Mega) ROMs??
Atari documents SYSVARS 400-501, but Abacus tells
us about dump_vec, prt_stat, prt_vec, aux_stat,
aux_vec, memval3, bconstat_vec, bconin_vec,bcostat_vec,
and bconout_vec in the 502-59D range. Are these
legit? If so, when can I expect an update to this
section??
87/12/17 LINE-A
85/09/05 PRTBLK
85/05/?? VDI
85/05/?? AES
86/01/07 Hardware *NO* schematics (see more comments below)
The ONLY timing diagrams in this section are for
"Mouse Phase Directions"; everything a HARDWARE
engineer needs to know...
87/06/17 Blitter
87/10/02 Mega Bus Documents the 68000 signals...
85/09/27 ACSI Notes Contains the *VERY FIRST* "hack" of the "ST SASI
hard disk driver"; last update = 85/07/23. When I
phoned Atari Canada asking for an updated code listing
for this driver, I was flatly refused.(Support...?)
85/02/26 IKBD Refers to "Related Documents":
Atari Corp. RBP/GHU/SD Keyboard Schematic (9/14/84)
Atari Corp. RBP/GHU/SD Keyboard Layout (unnumbered, no
date)
Why put this info in the docs if they're not provided?
88/04/13 APPI
(no date) CDAR504
>|From what I saw of the developer's docs (I saw a
>|copy a couple of years ago) they're not professional quality documentation.
>
> The ST documentation is much better now than it was several years ago.
>
OH REALLY!? In my kit, the ACSI is a copy of a copy of...
Granted the remainder is of the best quality photocopy; considering,
the print quality is very good. I believe that the quality of the
Atari developer documentation is the direct cause of the current state
of Atari products. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense the symptoms
of the deadly NIH syndrome.... (Not Invented Here)
>|Given the tiny percentage of the market that the ST has, and the tiny number
>|of (mostly tiny) companies that write software for it, can you really afford
>|to "certainly break software"?
>
> Context! We definitely can afford to, and most certainly will, break...
>|>software that either a) didn't follow the rules in the first place, or
>|>b) was built on bad assumptions about the internal workings of TOS.
OK, I can buy that... but is that why Atari has not supported its
developers? Is that why not everything is documented (502-59D)??
It sounds to me more like "since we gave you a little more than half of
the _cast-in-concrete_ stuff, then we can break the rest".
What is Atari's position regarding the vectors between 502-59D?
"Assumptions" seems to be required reading for us developers...
Where can I get a copy? :-)
>
>|Bob Rogers rogers@stpaul.ncr.com or rogers@pnet51.cts.com
>|NCR Comten, St. Paul, MN GEnie: R.C.ROGERS
>
>--
> Ken Badertscher | #include <disclaimer>
> Atari R&D | No pith, just a path:
> Software Engine | {portal,ames,imagen}!atari!kbad
>
>
I have more information to pass on...
On 88/08/19, I sent a letter to Atari Canada with the following:
(quote)
I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that I find most of
the information provided to date is generally available in various
publications such as Abacus.
(unquote)
Again, "provided to date" proved to be quite prophetic.
I phoned Atari Canada in late January of this year stating that I had
NEVER received an Atari newsletter (I don't even know what one looks
like). I was told that they were being worked on and would be sent
out Mid-February. (I forgot to ask which year, but I am asking now.)
In the same letter...
(quote)
I find your hardware section to be quite sparse; is more information
available, or am I required to reverse-engineer the ST interfaces in
order to ensure the success of my development efforts?
(unquote)
On Aug 25th, I received TOS 1.4 with a letter that read in part:
(quote)
The only interface that may give you difficulty is the ACSI port.
A document giving more details and depth is being prepared by Atari
Engineering and will hopefully be available in the next few weeks.
(unquote)
...a few weeks...? It has been nearly nine months. Is the gestation
period nearly over? or, are we dealing with a "elephantus documentum"?
(quote)
All the other interfaces should be obvious.
(unquote)
EXXXCCCUUUUUUUSE ME??????? For this I paid the $150 supplementary?
(quote)
And finally, the reason you find most of the information in other
publications is because it had been taken from the development kit in
the first place. You will also find that the development kit is much
more accurate than the Abacus books.
(unquote)
I ONLY have Abacus books 2 and 13, and they cover more ground than the
official developer's kit, so I have a hard time with this statement.
The bottom line...
- The developer's kit (although official) does not warrant the
money asked at this time.
- Even comments of "reverse-engineering" did not result in my
ever being told of schematics availability (I think I saw a
comment about this in another mailing). If schematics are
available, do they cover all models, or just the original 520?
- Have newsletters ever existed? How can I get back issues?
(even photocopies)
- Will the "missing" vectors be cast in concrete? Are there any
Abacus may have missed? When will new docs be in the hands of
developers? Before answering, reread the previous promisses.
- Will developers have to wait in line for the TOS 1.4 ROMs?
- Will the "new" docs be more than typed up engineering crib notes
making up part of the original kit?
- Are Canadian developers supportable only from Atari Canada, or
is there a support organization closer to your development group
to which we foreigners can have access?
My nine months are almost up, will I be born or stillborn? It is now
all in the hands of Dr. Atari... :-) or ;~( or... I'll tell you...
Pierre Fortin
FORTINP@BNR.CAFORTINP@BNR.CA (Pierre Fortin, P.) (04/22/89)
The following was sent April 8th, but does not appear to have made it
to the net, so I'm trying again...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE!!!!! The following is **NOT** intended as a FLAME or Atari bash.
I am simply recounting the facts as I know them to be true
in response to the following from Ken Badertscher.
I would sincerely like to see some tangible response from
Atari (U.S. *or* Canada). ========
To ensure that the following is responded to appropriately,
I offer this reminder:
Webster's: tangible .... a: capable of being perceived esp.
by the sense of touch : PALPABLE b: substantially
real : MATERIAL ....
WARNING: Very long...................
AGAIN, I wrote this in a TOTALLY CALM and RELAXED state. If
anyone thinks they read flames or bashing, then you are
reading out of context. I believe I am making rational
statements and posing serious questions to which I expect
Atari to view in the same light. OK, well maybe one little
spark...
>Date: 5 Apr 89 00:40:42 GMT
>From: imagen!atari!kbad@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Ken Badertscher)
>Subject: ST docs
>To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu
>
>In article <1221@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> rogers@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Bob
> Rogers) writes:
>|Do you folks _ever_ intend to publish this information in a readily available
>|and affordable format?
>
> Yes.
>
Ken, on July 19, 1988 I sent a letter (using the words prescribed by
Atari Canada) requesting the developer docs. It read:
(quote)
Atari Mega/520/1040 St Developer Documentation $100.00
Support (including Newsletters) $150.00
(unquote)
Since I had MWC, I did not order Alcyon C.
Note that 60% (!!!!!!) of my order was for "SUPPORT"; well read on...
When I received my package, it was accompanied by an Invoice which
*magically* changed Support to read: Atari Developer Registration
Package. I didn't know it then, but this _change_ was prophetic;
"Registration" lacked the "Support" in my order.
For this, I received a package of docs which contain little more than
volume 2 of the Abacus series "Atari ST Internals". In fact my
"package" is almost completely virgin; there isn't even a single note
penciled in. The Abacus book is starting to look pretty ratty from use.
To be fair, I *do* use the docs as the "formal" rulebook. However, how
good can this set of docs be, when most of the information is dated
as follows:
88/02/24 GEMDOS (I'm suspicious of this one.)
85/11/26 BIOS Real helpful with 1985/11/20 ROMs, but what about
1986/02/06, 1986/04/24, 1987/04/22(Mega) ROMs??
Atari documents SYSVARS 400-501, but Abacus tells
us about dump_vec, prt_stat, prt_vec, aux_stat,
aux_vec, memval3, bconstat_vec, bconin_vec,bcostat_vec,
and bconout_vec in the 502-59D range. Are these
legit? If so, when can I expect an update to this
section??
87/12/17 LINE-A
85/09/05 PRTBLK
85/05/?? VDI
85/05/?? AES
86/01/07 Hardware *NO* schematics (see more comments below)
The ONLY timing diagrams in this section are for
"Mouse Phase Directions"; everything a HARDWARE
engineer needs to know...
87/06/17 Blitter
87/10/02 Mega Bus Documents the 68000 signals...
85/09/27 ACSI Notes Contains the *VERY FIRST* "hack" of the "ST SASI
hard disk driver"; last update = 85/07/23. When I
phoned Atari Canada asking for an updated code listing
for this driver, I was flatly refused.(Support...?)
85/02/26 IKBD Refers to "Related Documents":
Atari Corp. RBP/GHU/SD Keyboard Schematic (9/14/84)
Atari Corp. RBP/GHU/SD Keyboard Layout (unnumbered, no
date)
Why put this info in the docs if they're not provided?
88/04/13 APPI
(no date) CDAR504
>|From what I saw of the developer's docs (I saw a
>|copy a couple of years ago) they're not professional quality documentation.
>
> The ST documentation is much better now than it was several years ago.
>
OH REALLY!? In my kit, the ACSI is a copy of a copy of...
Granted the remainder is of the best quality photocopy; considering,
the print quality is very good. I believe that the quality of the
Atari developer documentation is the direct cause of the current state
of Atari products. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense the symptoms
of the deadly NIH syndrome.... (Not Invented Here)
>|Given the tiny percentage of the market that the ST has, and the tiny number
>|of (mostly tiny) companies that write software for it, can you really afford
>|to "certainly break software"?
>
> Context! We definitely can afford to, and most certainly will, break...
>|>software that either a) didn't follow the rules in the first place, or
>|>b) was built on bad assumptions about the internal workings of TOS.
OK, I can buy that... but is that why Atari has not supported its
developers? Is that why not everything is documented (502-59D)??
It sounds to me more like "since we gave you a little more than half of
the _cast-in-concrete_ stuff, then we can break the rest".
What is Atari's position regarding the vectors between 502-59D?
"Assumptions" seems to be required reading for us developers...
Where can I get a copy? :-)
>
>|Bob Rogers rogers@stpaul.ncr.com or rogers@pnet51.cts.com
>|NCR Comten, St. Paul, MN GEnie: R.C.ROGERS
>
>--
> Ken Badertscher | #include <disclaimer>
> Atari R&D | No pith, just a path:
> Software Engine | {portal,ames,imagen}!atari!kbad
>
>
I have more information to pass on...
On 88/08/19, I sent a letter to Atari Canada with the following:
(quote)
I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that I find most of
the information provided to date is generally available in various
publications such as Abacus.
(unquote)
Again, "provided to date" proved to be quite prophetic.
I phoned Atari Canada in late January of this year stating that I had
NEVER received an Atari newsletter (I don't even know what one looks
like). I was told that they were being worked on and would be sent
out Mid-February. (I forgot to ask which year, but I am asking now.)
In the same letter...
(quote)
I find your hardware section to be quite sparse; is more information
available, or am I required to reverse-engineer the ST interfaces in
order to ensure the success of my development efforts?
(unquote)
On Aug 25th, I received TOS 1.4 with a letter that read in part:
(quote)
The only interface that may give you difficulty is the ACSI port.
A document giving more details and depth is being prepared by Atari
Engineering and will hopefully be available in the next few weeks.
(unquote)
...a few weeks...? It has been nearly nine months. Is the gestation
period nearly over? or, are we dealing with a "elephantus documentum"?
(quote)
All the other interfaces should be obvious.
(unquote)
EXXXCCCUUUUUUUSE ME??????? For this I paid the $150 supplementary?
(quote)
And finally, the reason you find most of the information in other
publications is because it had been taken from the development kit in
the first place. You will also find that the development kit is much
more accurate than the Abacus books.
(unquote)
I ONLY have Abacus books 2 and 13, and they cover more ground than the
official developer's kit, so I have a hard time with this statement.
The bottom line...
- The developer's kit (although official) does not warrant the
money asked at this time.
- Even comments of "reverse-engineering" did not result in my
ever being told of schematics availability (I think I saw a
comment about this in another mailing). If schematics are
available, do they cover all models, or just the original 520?
- Have newsletters ever existed? How can I get back issues?
(even photocopies)
- Will the "missing" vectors be cast in concrete? Are there any
Abacus may have missed? When will new docs be in the hands of
developers? Before answering, reread the previous promisses.
- Will developers have to wait in line for the TOS 1.4 ROMs?
- Will the "new" docs be more than typed up engineering crib notes
making up part of the original kit?
- Are Canadian developers supportable only from Atari Canada, or
is there a support organization closer to your development group
to which we foreigners can have access?
My nine months are almost up, will I be born or stillborn? It is now
all in the hands of Dr. Atari... :-) or ;~( or... I'll tell you...
Pierre Fortin
FORTINP@BNR.CA