med@druhi.ATT.COM (Myron Drapal) (08/27/88)
I hear through the grapevine that there is what I would
consider a very serious bug in the new BETA ROMS. I can't verify
this myself, but the problem affects the way I use the ST enough
to ask and see if this is really a bug.
I tend to create a number of windows in my desktop.inf
file in which I change the pattern (via an editor) from the standard
*.* pattern to a known pattern (i.e. for Micro C shell - gemcsh.prg).
This then brings up a window at boot time that has only this entry in
it, so I can quickly start Micro C shell, or Magic Sac, or...
Well, on the new BETA ROMS, the window comes up at usual, but
you *cannot open* the ICON (e.g. it won't execute)! You can select it
(in fact, many times), but it will not execute. In fact, after some
number of clicks, you get 2 bombs and the system reboots.
This is all hearsay, as I couldn't possibly have my own
copy of these ROMs (;-)... But I do feel that this is another case of
fix a few, and create some new - bugs, that is....
Myron Drapal
AT&T Denver
att!druhi!med
P.S. Has anyone else heard of any new bugs introduced in the BETA ROMS?
Are there any (real) BETA testers out there who would like to comment?
Any news from the *official* Atari mouthpieces? Inquiring minds
want/need to know...poole@forty2.UUCP (Simon Poole) (08/29/88)
In article <3446@druhi.ATT.COM> med@druhi.ATT.COM (Myron Drapal) writes: > [Description of a bug in the beta test version of the new TOS deleted] Now come on, what do you expect from a version of a OS that is in beta-test? -> It has bugs! <- (why would one do a beta-test otherwise?) What you should do: is to make sure whoever told you, reported the bug back to Atari with their new SPR system (which incidentlly works very well, a lot better than a few other companies I know about....). >P.S. Has anyone else heard of any new bugs introduced in the BETA ROMS? > Are there any (real) BETA testers out there who would like to comment? > Any news from the *official* Atari mouthpieces? Inquiring minds > want/need to know... As you know beta-testers are NOT allowed to comment on the testing, while I did not sign a formal agreement, I have no intention of breaking my promise to keep my mouth shut. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP: ...mcvax!cernvax!forty2!poole Simon Poole BITNET: K538915@CZHRZU1A ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
good@atari.UUCP (Roy Good) (08/30/88)
in article <3446@druhi.ATT.COM>, med@druhi.ATT.COM (Myron Drapal) says: > > I hear through the grapevine that there is what I would > consider a very serious bug in the new BETA ROMS. I can't verify > this myself, but the problem affects the way I use the ST enough > to ask and see if this is really a bug. > > [details deleted - read the original posting] > > This is all hearsay, as I couldn't possibly have my own > copy of these ROMs (;-)... But I do feel that this is another case of > fix a few, and create some new - bugs, that is.... > Myron Drapal > AT&T Denver > att!druhi!med > P.S. Has anyone else heard of any new bugs introduced in the BETA ROMS? > Are there any (real) BETA testers out there who would like to comment? > Any news from the *official* Atari mouthpieces? Inquiring minds > want/need to know... I was going to let this one go by, since a Developer Release (softloaded) is imminently available - details are being mailed to all registered developers. But then I realized this is just the sort of unthinking posting that starts off a rumor chain and network explosion. The mature way to handle this concern would have been to call/email me or someone at Atari, rather than posting what is clearly rumor and hearsay to an already sensitive group of readers. But no... it seems it is better to to launch another missile that can only do damage, either to reputations or to morale. The closing comment is entirely unnecessary, regarding "fix a few, create a few..". Why on earth do you think we have have an extended Beta with the subsidiaries? Why do you think we are making the Developer Release before committing to ROM? This version fixes some bugs found in Beta, and also includes even more performance improvement. I have tried to keep a conservative tone to my responses, but the lack of foresight and thought behind this posting got to me. That and a teething baby [:-)]. PLEEEEEEASE: before putting this sort of muckspreading out for public view, get the FACTS!! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roy J. Good Product Development, Atari Corporation Views expressed are my own. Atari may agree or disagree; they have the right. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) (08/30/88)
> in article <3446@druhi.ATT.COM>, med@druhi.ATT.COM (Myron Drapal) says: > > > > I hear through the grapevine [ ... ] > > > > This is all hearsay, as I couldn't possibly have my own > > copy of these ROMs (;-)... [Roy Good:] > PLEEEEEEASE: before putting this sort of muckspreading out for public view, > get the FACTS!! I second this, but would like to add that we DID fix the very bug Mr. Drapal mentions between the BETA ROMs and the Developer RAM release. So not only don't we want this stuff on the net, but we ARE responsive when we get feedback through channels. (It didn't come from Mr. Drapal.) I infer from Mr. Drapal's simley faces that he DOES have a copy of the ROMs. Pity he didn't also bootleg a copy of the instructions for submitting problem reports to Atari. ============================================ Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt
good@atari.UUCP (Roy Good) (08/30/88)
in article <447@forty2.UUCP>, poole@forty2.UUCP (Simon Poole) says: > In article <3446@druhi.ATT.COM> med@druhi.ATT.COM (Myron Drapal) writes: > [Description of a bug in the beta test version of the new TOS deleted] > Now come on, what do you expect from a version of a OS that is in beta-test? > -> It has bugs! <- > (why would one do a beta-test otherwise?) > What you should do: is to make sure whoever told you, reported the bug > back to Atari with their new SPR system (which incidentlly works very > well, a lot better than a few other companies I know about....). > >>P.S. Has anyone else heard of any new bugs introduced in the BETA ROMS? >> Are there any (real) BETA testers out there who would like to comment? > > As you know beta-testers are NOT allowed to comment on the testing, > while I did not sign a formal agreement, I have no intention of > breaking my promise to keep my mouth shut. > Thank you, Simon, for making two points in your (unsolicited) posting: a) The SPR (System Problem Report) mechanism, part of our PTS (Product Tracking System) database is the vehicle we have put in place for ALL bug reports, enhancements requests etc. for software and hardware. It will be available to all registered developers as part of the Developer Release of TOS 1.4 (and other products). It has been put together with considerable thought, and is a vehicle for mature and professional reports of problems with Atari products. Details will be in the Developer Kit update package. Its primary aim is to provide continuity of problem tracking, and to prevent reports, which have hitherto been verbal, written in various forms or posted on BBS etc (sometimes buried in profanity or similar abuse), from "dropping through the cracks". b) I had requested that Beta sites be asked to sign non-disclosure agreements during Beta test, with other conditions including no rights to copy or distribute unreleased products. Some subsidiaries insisted on these conditions, for which I thank them, others did not. Nonetheless, the spirit of a Beta test must, of necessity, be one of mutual trust between Atari and the test sites. Simon Poole falls into this category. Others who post to this net do not, and are therefore not considered acceptable sites. I fully intend to formalize the procedure for becoming a Beta site, in order to cut down on the amateur (in the sense of not being professional, rather than of being a "lover") attitude of some responses. We have several new products in development, hardware and software, and I have every intention of being more stringent in the conditions for being accepted as a Beta site for these than I was for TOS 1.4. It would be perfect if all registered developers and selected end-users could Beta test all products. Not only is this economically unfeasible because of support and product costs (especially with hardware), but it is also impractical to manage. These considerations, in addition to the need for a mutually beneficial relationship, of necessity limit the number of potential test sites. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roy J. Good Product Development, Atari Corporation Views expressed are my own. Atari may agree or disagree; they have the right. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
med@druhi.ATT.COM (Myron Drapal) (08/31/88)
In article <447@forty2.UUCP>, poole@forty2.UUCP (Simon Poole) writes: > In article <3446@druhi.ATT.COM> med@druhi.ATT.COM (Myron Drapal) writes: > > > [Description of a bug in the beta test version of the new TOS deleted] > > Now come on, what do you expect from a version of a OS that is in beta-test? > -> It has bugs! <- > (why would one do a beta-test otherwise?) > > What you should do: is to make sure whoever told you, reported the bug > back to Atari with their new SPR system (which incidentlly works very > well, a lot better than a few other companies I know about....). But you see, Simon, I don't know any official BETA testers... Read below. > > >P.S. Has anyone else heard of any new bugs introduced in the BETA ROMS? > > Are there any (real) BETA testers out there who would like to comment? > > Any news from the *official* Atari mouthpieces? Inquiring minds > > want/need to know... > > As you know beta-testers are NOT allowed to comment on the testing, > while I did not sign a formal agreement, I have no intention of > breaking my promise to keep my mouth shut. > Well, Simon, since you are the only person I know who sounds like they might just be a beta tester ;-}... Seriously, this bug and another regarding the PC compatible diskette format, rank right up there as bugs which should be found in 5-10 minutes of developer testing (e.g. Allan and Co. should have found these). This indicates two things to me: 1) the level of developer testing was probably done by the compiler ("It compiles, let's ship it..."), and 2) there may be *NO* official beta testers out there (I know of a number of unofficial testers out there, but I fear this is another MEGA ROM fiasco). While I never expected to hear that the BETA ROMs were bug free, I would expect that bugs which were reported months ago have had sufficient time to be tested and fixed (like PC compatible format... Oh, by the way, have any of the testers checked to see if the disk free function works properly yet - the old version reported number of free bytes off by at least 2 clusters). By the way, I didn't intend to imply that you should break your promise... ;-) Myron Drapal AT&T Denver att!druhi!med
dlm@druhi.ATT.COM (Dan Moore) (09/01/88)
in article <1136@atari.UUCP>, good@atari.UUCP (Roy Good) says: > I was going to let this one go by, since a Developer Release (softloaded) > is imminently available - details are being mailed to all registered ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I've been a registered Atari developer since day one. In that time period Atari *HAS NOT* sent me a single letter or package. Back when I was still writting commercial software for the ST I complained several times. No change. Strange way to treat a registered developer. > developers. But then I realized this is just the sort of unthinking posting > that starts off a rumor chain and network explosion. ^^^^^ Myron's comments on bugs are not rumors. I've seen both of the problems he described occur on the Beta ROMs. (No, I don't have a set.) > The mature way to handle this concern would have been to call/email me or > someone at Atari, rather than posting what is clearly rumor and hearsay to > an already sensitive group of readers. But no... it seems it is better to > to launch another missile that can only do damage, either to reputations > or to morale. The closing comment is entirely unnecessary, regarding "fix a > few, create a few..". Why on earth do you think we have have an extended > Beta with the subsidiaries? Why do you think we are making the Developer > Release before committing to ROM? This version fixes some bugs found in > Beta, and also includes even more performance improvement. > > I have tried to keep a conservative tone to my responses, but the lack of > foresight and thought behind this posting got to me. That and a teething > baby [:-)]. > > PLEEEEEEASE: before putting this sort of muckspreading out for public view, > get the FACTS!! > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Roy J. Good > Product Development, Atari Corporation > Views expressed are my own. Atari may agree or disagree; they have the right. > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roy, you don't seem to really understand the problem Myron was trying to point out. The problem isn't the two (three if you count the free space calculation bug he mentioned) bugs that Myron mentioned. The bugs aren't all that major, I'm sure they have very simple, quick fixes. The problem is with Atari's method of developing and testing code. These are the kinds of problems that SHOULD have been found back in unit test (testing by the developer). Didn't Alan have an IBM PC with a 3.5" drive sitting beside him when he wrote the new format code? Or even an ATARI PC? I could accept a problem with the format that only occured with a single version of DOS or if you had a strange number and arraingement of files on the disk. Those are the types of bugs that you should be finding in Beta test code. Not fundamental bugs that indicate that the code was never tested at all. When you say something is in Beta test you are saying that it is almost ready to ship. The only bugs should be small and realatively obscure (eg. program A breaks if it is run with desk accesories B, C and D on a machine with 2.5 meg of RAM). But the primary features of the code (eg. formatting PCDOS compatible disks) should already work. Please listen to what Myron is trying to tell you. One of his jobs is working on development methodologies for large projects. There are lots of differences between developing a small piece of code, like the 192K ST OS ROMs, and a multi-megabyte piece of code. But there are also a lot of similar issues, such as how you should test the code in order to develop a quality product. Dan Moore AT&T Bell Labs Denver dlm@druhi.ATT.COM or ihnp4!druhi!dlm
fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) (09/02/88)
[rumor of bugs] In article <1136@atari.UUCP>, good@atari.UUCP (Roy Good) writes: [explanation about how to maturely handle rumor deleted] > PLEEEEEEASE: before putting this sort of muckspreading out for public view, > get the FACTS!! Now, the unfortunate thing is that the posting contained the rumor and an explanation of why people should not spread rumors. My conclusion can only be that the rumor is true. Oh well ... -- Phil uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl
neil@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Forsyth) (09/02/88)
In article <3479@druhi.ATT.COM> med@druhi.ATT.COM (Myron Drapal) writes: >to be tested and fixed (like PC compatible format... Oh, by the way, have >any of the testers checked to see if the disk free function works properly >yet - the old version reported number of free bytes off by at least >2 clusters). I have been sitting here listening with nothing to say for days then something pops up that I actually know something about! Magic! Atari (Allen|Roy|Ken) said yonks ago that they had found and killed the bug that lost 2 clusters on a disk. But what if you put a the disk in a mchine with old ROMs? It can't read the last two clusters! So, sadly, the bug stays. I would rather every bug was fixed and a ('a' means one :-) patch program to make them as bad as the old ROMs was issued. As time went by soon we'd all have new ROMs and the old software would be surpassed. Then we would just trash the patch. > Myron Drapal > AT&T Denver > att!druhi!med _____________________________________________________________________________ / "I think all right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of \ ! being told that ordinary decent people are fed up in this country with ! ! being sick and tired. I'm certainly not and I'm sick and tired of being ! ! told that I am!" - Monty Python ! ! ! ! Neil Forsyth JANET: neil@uk.ac.hw.cs ! ! Dept. of Computer Science ARPA: neil@cs.hw.ac.uk ! ! Heriot-Watt University UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!neil ! ! Edinburgh ! ! Scotland ! \_____________________________________________________________________________/
t68@nikhefh.hep.nl (Jos Vermaseren) (09/02/88)
All this bickering about bugs in the new ROMs and whether they are trivial to find giving all kinds of speculations about sloppy Atari proceedings sound ridiculous to me: Theorem: Taken by itself any bug is trivial, stupid and careless. Theorem2: Once you know about the bug it is very easy to locate it. This makes the author of the program look stupid. Proof: There are probably exceptions to prove the rule. I think Atari did finally the right thing. They made a new version of the operating system, incorporation lots of remarks and whishes. They give it an infinite amount more testtime than the original version. In addition they have for beta testers some people of whom they know that they are good programmers. Yet there will always be people who are not happy. TOO BAD. Keep up the good work Allan. Jos Vermaseren
good@atari.UUCP (Roy Good) (09/03/88)
Mr. Myron Drapal's comments regarding the Beta test of the new TOS have
ceased to be speculative, and by his own admission derived from hearsay,
and have now become facetious.
His article <3446@druhi.ATT.COM> includes:
"the level of developer testing was probably done by the compiler ("It
compiles, let's ship it..."
"there may be *NO* official beta testers out there..."
If Mr. Drapal had taken the time to read my posting <1150@atari.UUCP> of
9/01, he would have seen that we have around 70 "official" Beta sites.
Had he also taken the time to read Allan Pratt's posting <1152@atari.UUCP>,
he would further have seen a detailed explanation behind this one topic
that is so very dear to Mr. Drapal, that of compatibility with IBM-PC
formatted media.
But it seems that Mr. Drapal has not the time to do this (unless the posting
take a long time to reach his site), and prefers to continue his speculative
and demotivating tirades.
In my posting, referred to above, I asked Mr. Drapal to publicly post his
sources for these reports etc. I will assume that he will respond over the
weekend and once and for all reveal these secrets.
I believe that the vast majority of readers of this topic are reasonably
mature people, since they are in the UNIXtm world [:-)], and therefore
can derive from these types of posting the character of the poster. With
that remark, I feel I have no need to state my own feelings.
As an aside, Mr. Drapal is using the resources of AT&T to cause what is
potentially commercial damage to Atari Corporation. Additionally, Atari
is a customer of AT&T. I would be interested to know what AT&T Management
feels about this type of business relationship. Maybe the System Administrator
of this AT&T site would like to obtain a response from the appropriate
divisional management, and also comment on whether AT&T condones this type
of posting through its corporate systems. Since Mr. Drapal does not include
any disclaimer to the contrary in his postings, and since he signs his
postings as "AT&T Bell Laboratories, Denver", I (and any other reader) have
no reason to believe other than that his comments reflect the opinions of
AT&T.
An alternative, parallel, approach which I might suggest is that any reader
who is against this type of posting "email" his/her opinion to Mr. Drapal,
and to any other poster who adopts this approach, in this or any other
news category.
I plan no further postings on this topic, as I believe all has already
been said.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy J. Good
Product Development, Atari Corporation
Views expressed are my own. Atari may agree or disagree; they have the right.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------kline@arizona.edu (Nick Kline) (09/03/88)
In article <3508@druhi.ATT.COM> dlm@druhi.ATT.COM (Dan Moore) writes: > I've been a registered Atari developer since day one. In that >time period Atari *HAS NOT* sent me a single letter or package. Back >when I was still writting commercial software for the ST I complained >several times. No change. Strange way to treat a registered developer. > Wow, So Have I. Atari, I have been trying to contact your representive on Genie, Cindy Clavehorn I think is her name, but she claims she has no record of my developer status! What you say, complaining in public? I have for about two weeks been trying to get her to add me to the developer sig on genie, but she won't do it. I have been waiting about a week to get a message back from her. What do I have to do? I AM a registered developer. By the way, my name on genie is n.kline. Please respond Atari. Nick Kline
news@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu (news) (09/04/88)
Expires: References: <1155@atari.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: rob@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) Followup-To: Distribution: comp Organization: Ohio State Univ, College of Engineering Keywords: buggs, ethical_behaviour, appearances From: rob@kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) Path: kaa.eng.ohio-state.edu!rob In the last couple of weeks, this newsgroup has seen various people comment about the ``calm'' approach Atari representatives have to (perceived or real) flames. It would seem though, that this is the calmth of a steamroller or some similar ``impressive'' device. Casu quo: there is a person, Mr. Drapal, who has posted what he clearly believed to be some bugs in the new beta-test ROMs. Atari's response so far has been to spew out large amounts of lawyer-speak giving the impression (which may or may not be correct, that's what impressions are all about) that they aren't at all interested in dealing with the facts (or possibly lack thereof) Mr. Drapal is bringing up, but instead want to silence him as fast as possible, and, as indicated in the posting this posting refers to, in the worst possible way. This behaviour on the part of the Atari representatives has already prompted one reader to post that he cannot help but believe that where two parties are creating so much smoke, there's got to be a fire. I do not want to make or imply a statement of condonement or condemnation of Mr. Drapal's methods and style of communication; I can envision scenarios in which he would be perfectly justified doing what he is doing, and I can see circumstances under which his actions would be very unethical. Since I do not know the background, I will not make judgements. However, ethical or not, Mr. Drapal's communications allege bugs in both the beta-ROMs and in Atari's development methods. Further, at least one reader of this newsgroup seems to be of the opinion that Mr. Drapal knows enough about these things to be worth listening to. Yet, Atari representatives seem unwilling to do much more than publish statements synonimous to ``Of course this is all unfounded.'' I find this very disturbing. I know it is very difficult to remain calm when someone is shouting in your face (and I won't claim to always, or even most of the time, be able to do that), but when you are the company mouthpiece (no slur intended, quite the contrary) you have to try and do that, or your customers will get restless. It may be that all the problems Mr. Drapal mentions and insinuates are figments of his imagination, or irrelevant for other reasons, but we (your customers) do not and cannot know that. Please take our peace of mind into account when you compose your future postings. Thank you very much. Rob Carriere The above are my opinions and feelings on the matter discussed, they should not in any way be attributed to or associated with, The Ohio State University, its College of Engineering or the Department of Electrical Engineering.
rex@otto.lvsun.com (Rex Jolliff) (09/05/88)
In article <561@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu> (news) writes: [ a whole lotta talk about Mr. Drapal making a ''harmless'' statement about a bug in the new beta roms, and how atari has ''spewed out large amounts of lawyer-speak'' to try and ''silence him as fast as possible, and in the worst possible way'' ] > >I do not want to make or imply a statement of condonement or >condemnation of Mr. Drapal's methods and style of communication; I can >envision scenarios in which he would be perfectly justified doing what >he is doing, and I can see circumstances under which his actions would >be very unethical. After heading what Atari and Simon Poole had to say, I don't see any way in which Mr. Drapal could be justified doing what he is doing. Either he has an illeagal copy of the ROMs (or the disk based version), or he breached his contract (or at least his promise) with Atari about not talking publicly about bugs in the beta roms. Either way that was not at all ethical. >Since I do not know the background, I will not >make judgements. well it's a little late for that. I'd say that you're first eight or ten sentences sounded pretty judgemental to me. >However, ethical or not, Mr. Drapal's communications >allege bugs in both the beta-ROMs and in Atari's development methods. You're absolutely right, and it was none of Mr. Drapal's business to do so. As others have said, one of the main purposes of the beta test is to determine what bugs have not been found at implementation time. I believe that Atari is perfectly justified in keeping their PRE-RELEASE bugs to themselves if they want to, especially when their current reputation in that respect is not at it's best. Whether Mr. Drapal stole the beta roms, or simply broke his promise with Atari doesn't matter. What does matter is that Mr. Drapal deliberately damaged Atari's reputation, however tarnished it might already be, and you seem to be in support of that. >... Yet, Atari representatives seem unwilling to do much >more than publish statements synonimous to ``Of course this is all >unfounded.'' I find this very disturbing. Atari representatives responded by stating that the bugs Mr. Drapal talked about will be fixed in the release version (in other words, the new roms will read IBM disks). >I know it is very difficult to remain calm when someone is shouting in >your face (and I won't claim to always, or even most of the time, be >able to do that), but when you are the company mouthpiece (no slur >intended, quite the contrary) you have to try and do that, or your >customers will get restless. ... I think that Atari's response to Mr. Drapal's nonsense was written in a sufficently calm style. >Rob Carriere >The above are my opinions and feelings on the matter discussed, they >should not in any way be attributed to or associated with, The Ohio >State University, its College of Engineering or the Department of >Electrical Engineering. -- Rex Jolliff (rex@otto.UUCP, {utah-gr, psivax, ihnp4, rutgers}!otto!rex) The Sun Newspaper - |Disclaimer: The opinions and comments in Nevada's Largest Daily Morning | this article are my own and in no way Newspaper | reflect the opinions of my employers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What happened to our superior space program?
lharris@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Leonard Harris) (09/05/88)
In article <1155@atari.UUCP> good@atari.UUCP (Roy Good) writes: >Mr. Myron Drapal's comments regarding the Beta test of the new TOS have ... (much deleted) ... >In my posting, referred to above, I asked Mr. Drapal to publicly post his >sources for these reports etc. I will assume that he will respond over the >weekend and once and for all reveal these secrets. Why should he ? Obtaining a single copy for personal evaluation of roms to a machine he owns is not illegal, and if it is - why not press charges? > >I believe that the vast majority of readers of this topic are reasonably >mature people, since they are in the UNIXtm world [:-)], and therefore >can derive from these types of posting the character of the poster. With >that remark, I feel I have no need to state my own feelings. What is this supposed to mean ? > >As an aside, Mr. Drapal is using the resources of AT&T to cause what is >potentially commercial damage to Atari Corporation. Additionally, Atari >is a customer of AT&T. I would be interested to know what AT&T Management >feels about this type of business relationship. Maybe the System Administrator >of this AT&T site would like to obtain a response from the appropriate >divisional management, and also comment on whether AT&T condones this type >of posting through its corporate systems. Since Mr. Drapal does not include >any disclaimer to the contrary in his postings, and since he signs his >postings as "AT&T Bell Laboratories, Denver", I (and any other reader) have >no reason to believe other than that his comments reflect the opinions of >AT&T. > Now - this is what prompted me to reply. This is hitting below the belt. If Atari is going to use their "corporate weight" (hah!) to censor the net then I move that Atari be banned from the net. This is a non-commercial service to provide INFORMATION. If company A says company B's product is bad and has proof of it, readers of the net should know. If you try to imply that AT&T is trying to badmouth Atari and that will hurt sales just because an Atari user who happens to be an employee of AT&T found some bugs in your code then you are a very stupid and ignorant person. Again - is this the public image Atari wants to project? (Please don't contact UofT - yes they buy your machines and some develop code for it. I doubt they will care if my opinions hurt your feelings. I pay cash for my account.) >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Roy J. Good >Product Development, Atari Corporation > >Views expressed are my own. Atari may agree or disagree; they have the right. As public spokesman for Atari, I hope they do agree with your views !!! >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO DISCLAIMER ! Leonard Harris Satisfied with Atari products Disatisfied with Atari hiring decisions
dclemans@mntgfx.mentor.com (Dave Clemans) (09/06/88)
If everybody calmed down and stopped letting emotions get in the way things would go a lot smoother. For example if you've paid attention to the series of postings before this one, that of the three "bugs" reported by Myron, two have apparently already been fixed, and the other (pc-compatible formatting) is not a bug in the ST system, but instead is a problem with the PC-compatible Myron used (presumably it had MS-DOS 1.x BIOS rom's). By the way, I have read the MS-DOS 2.x technical reference manual, and it does explicitly state that as of version 2.0 drivers should stop depending on media bytes and should instead look at the bpb; thus I agree with Allan Pratt's analysis. Also, if you've had problems getting registered developer mailings, I would write a letter to Cindy (not a phone call) make sure that the necessary non-disclosure forms were properly signed and sent in make sure that you've responded to any previous requests from Atari for status information (things don't always go wrong; I have gotten all Atari developer mailings without having to goto any special effort). dgc
rob@raksha.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere) (09/06/88)
In article <679@otto.lvsun.com> rex@otto.lvsun.com (Rex Jolliff) writes: > [ he's discussing my previous posting ] >After heading what Atari and Simon Poole had to say, I don't see any way >in which Mr. Drapal could be justified doing what he is doing. Either he >has an illeagal copy of the ROMs (or the disk based version), or he >breached his contract (or at least his promise) with Atari about not >talking publicly about bugs in the beta roms. Either way that was not at >all ethical. > OK., I'll give you a scenario (and *again* I'm not claiming that this or anything similar actually happened). What if Mr. Drapal *had* tried the official channels and found them unresponsive? Judging by some of the comments of registered developers, that's not unthinkable. I don't know what the law says in such cases, but I wouldn't have any ethical problems. >>Since I do not know the background, I will not >>make judgements. >well it's a little late for that. I'd say that you're first eight or ten >sentences sounded pretty judgemental to me. > They may have, but they weren't intended to. At least they were not intended to convey anything beyond my feeling disturbed at the way Atari chose to *appear* to look. The whole purpose of the posting was pretty much summed up by the summary line: don't fasten your shoelaces while walking among your neighbours watermelons. > [piece deleted, see above for response ] >>... Yet, Atari representatives seem unwilling to do much >>more than publish statements synonimous to ``Of course this is all >>unfounded.'' I find this very disturbing. > >Atari representatives responded by stating that the bugs Mr. Drapal talked >about will be fixed in the release version (in other words, the new roms >will read IBM disks). > That unfortunately is *not* what they said (or I'd have been quite happy). They said the new ROMs will be able to talk to PC-DOS 3.x, *may* be able to talk to PC-DOS 2.x (apparently that wasn't even worth fishing up a manual, according to Atari's response, -- I assume then -- let alone worth testing), and will certainly *not* be able to talk to PC-DOS 1.x. I can sure live with the last clause, but the first two do not compatibility make, at least not in my book. In case you are confused by the multitude of postings, please check back and see that the issue was not so much being able to read and write, but being able to format, and Atari wasn't guaranteeing anything beyond being able to format so that a true-blue PC running 3.x could use it. >>I know it is very difficult to remain calm when someone is shouting in >>your face (and I won't claim to always, or even most of the time, be >>able to do that), but when you are the company mouthpiece (no slur >>intended, quite the contrary) you have to try and do that, or your >>customers will get restless. ... > >I think that Atari's response to Mr. Drapal's nonsense was written in a >sufficently calm style. > Read the first paragraph of my original posting. > [ my signature deleted, identical to the one I sign this posting with ] >Rex Jolliff (rex@otto.UUCP, {utah-gr, psivax, ihnp4, rutgers}!otto!rex) >The Sun Newspaper - |Disclaimer: The opinions and comments in >Nevada's Largest Daily Morning | this article are my own and in no way >Newspaper | reflect the opinions of my employers. >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >What happened to our superior space program? Rob Carriere The above are my opinions and feelings on the matter discussed, they should not in any way be attributed to or associated with, The Ohio State University, its College of Engineering or the Department of Electrical Engineering.
towns@atari.UUCP (John Townsend) (09/06/88)
> Wow, So Have I. > > Atari, I have been trying to contact your representive > on Genie, Cindy Clavehorn I think is her name, but she claims she has > no record of my developer status! > > What you say, complaining in public? I have for about > two weeks been trying to get her to add me to the developer sig on genie, > but she won't do it. I have been waiting about a week to get a message > back from her. What do I have to do? I AM a registered developer. > By the way, my name on genie is n.kline. > > Please respond Atari. > > Nick Kline Nick, I will check with Cindy and find out what the story is. I will either leave you email or leave you mail on GEnie. John Townsend Atari Corp, Technical Support
apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) (09/07/88)
Leonard Harris writes (roughly) that Mr. Drapal is justified in using the net for his complaints about this UNRELEASED Atari product, because he MIGHT not have gotten a reaction to communicating with us directly. To summarize Dave Clemens, I have been right all along: > ... of the three "bugs" > reported by Myron, two have apparently already been fixed, and the > other is not a bug in the ST system [... because of DOS 1.x or clone]. What better response do you want than "it's already been fixed" and "it's a problem with your clone / OS level, not the Atari OS?" What Mr. Harris has temporarily ignored is that the "product" that Mr. Drapal is complaining about isn't a product at all: it is a test copy of the new OS. If we shipped that as a for-real, costs-money product, he would be justified in commenting on it publicly. However, since it is not, he is not justified. Perhaps, as Mr. Harris says, if he had gotten no response when talking with Atari directly, he could have complained about *that* to the net. But he didn't try. Look at the history of this whole thing: Atari ships TOS ROMs to subsidiaries, for testing and translation. Mr. Drapal discovers (personally or indirectly) some problems. Mr. Drapal goes on the net and bashes Atari. Atari replies that the things he is complaining about have been fixed, and asks him not to post problems with this UNRELEASED product to the net. Mr. Drapal continues flaming Atari on the net. Atari replies, again, that we have already addressed the things he mentions, and again asks him to stop posting about this. Mr. Drapal continues... ...and so on. Am I being unfair? Look at the signal/noise ratio of Mr. Drapal's postings as compared with Atari's. Look at what he says and how he says it, and compare with Atari. Look at the fact that he has been WRONG on virtually every point he's made. Then judge. ============================================ Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt
dlm@druhi.ATT.COM (Dan Moore) (09/07/88)
in article <1947@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk>, neil@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Forsyth) says: > In article <3479@druhi.ATT.COM> med@druhi.ATT.COM (Myron Drapal) writes: >>to be tested and fixed (like PC compatible format... Oh, by the way, have >>any of the testers checked to see if the disk free function works properly >>yet - the old version reported number of free bytes off by at least >>2 clusters). > I have been sitting here listening with nothing to say for days then something > pops up that I actually know something about! Magic! > > Atari (Allen|Roy|Ken) said yonks ago that they had found and killed the bug > that lost 2 clusters on a disk. But what if you put a the disk in a mchine with > old ROMs? It can't read the last two clusters! So, sadly, the bug stays. Are you sure that the old ROMs can't read the last two clusters on the disk? The one time I did some testing on this (about 2 years ago) I found the ST could always read every cluster on an PC/DOS formatted disk, including the last two clusters. I spent a fair amount of time working on this since I was writting a PC/DOS style CHKDSK program. I wanted to make sure that the two missing clusters were really missing and not an artifact of my program. I spent a lot of time formatting disks on both my PC and my ST and comparing them. My conclusion was that GemDos was quite happy to read a disk using the last two clusters. It also could delete files that used those clusters. It just couldn't write to them and also didn't include them in the disk free space calculation. This means you should be able to fix the free-space bug in GemDos without breaking STs with the old ROMs. The old machines could still read the files written by the newer ROMs, just like they can read files on a PC/DOS disk. Dan Moore AT&T Bell Labs Denver dlm@druhi.ATT.COM
good@atari.UUCP (Roy Good) (09/07/88)
I had said I wouldn't post any further on the TOS 1.4 issue, but some valid points have been made in the latest postings that I feel warrant it. I know I won't cover everything that is in people's heads, but here goes.. First, I *sincerely* want to thank Myron Drapal for his most recent posting (as a follow up to Allan Pratt's response). But we are interested in discovering the source and vintage of the TOS 1.4 which he had access to! [:-)] It was commented by more than one person that comp.sys.atari.st has for some time been the forum for bug reporting/follow-up. With TOS 1.4 Beta, we carefully set up a Product Tracking System, explained in previous postings, with an associated System Problem Report 'electronic' form, and requested, in the accompanying release notes, that all problems be reported in this manner. The aim is to centralize and formalize bug reporting, so that obscure (and not so obscure) problems are filed in a database and don't drop through the cracks. Thus worldwide posting of this problem (PC/ST media compatibility) and others went against the directions of the Release Notes (as did the apparent proliferation of the Beta copies). As an aside, have you ever noticed how companies with which IBM do business keep their lips really sealed when asked about their relationship to Big Blue. Now IBM has a LOT more clout than Atari, but the principle is the same - a mutual trust and a desire not to taint a product before it has had a chance to be tested and corrected prior to release. (OK maybe the mutual trust isn't always there, but I bet a written contract/nondisclosure agreement IS! [:-)] ). Had the original posting been, instead, a direct email to me, or to Allan Pratt, it would, like others, have received a direct response. One poster asked for the Product Tracking System to be made available to all. This is indeed an aim, but it is an evolutionary product. We first sent it to subsidiaries, to get their impressions and to see how it could be improved for communication, reporting etc. Now it is going to registered developers. After a shakedown with, and feedback from, them, we should be in a position to make it generally available as a vehicle for posting bug reports and requests for enhancement. Re: the tenor of my direct posting. I stand by what I said regarding potential damage, and use of the airwaves. Some folks at AT&T/Denver are concerned that AT&T might cut off 'news' using this as an excuse. I hope not, at least not for technical categories (all companies must look at costs - they have a responsibility to shareholders - and so some reduction may be essential). The 'news' system is an incredible vehicle for the dissemination of views and opinions, but it is one which is very easily abused, both in content and volume. And it must be remembered that, at the end of it all, it is your CUSTOMERS who pay for it eventually, since it a cost of doing business as far as the company (employer) is concerned. Thus access to it through corporate channels must be viewed as a privilege. I have been accused of threatening legal action. I certainly don't believe this is the case, but I do believe that propagating a discussion of this ilk, on unreleased product, is detrimental to Atari's position, since it leaves an impression of the product before it is even released. The primary aim of the Beta release to subsidiaries and to developers selected by the subsidiary, apart from wider test exposure, was to avoid some of the unexpected problems which occurred when the Mega ROMs came out, by giving key developers advance notice and a chance to test and correct problematic code. The current "Developer Release" takes that one step further. I have received several 'emails' of support, some of criticism, and some of "enough!!!". I feel that points have been made on both sides, although really there is just one "side" beneath it all, with the goal of providing an acceptable product. And I trust that the points are well taken by all who read them. ** AN IMPORTANT BIT RE: REGISTERED DEVELOPERS ** It seems that more than one or two posters, Mr. Drapal included, are frustrated that they have ante'd up their $300 (or more) and not heard of anything since (tho' others say they get regular info). I'd like to suggest that those who feel they have been orphaned send me email directly (ie not to the net) in the following format: Subject: Orphaned Developer [text] Name, Address, State, ZIP, phone, approximate date of subscription if appropriate: original address, if you have moved last item/package you recall receiving I will collate all responses upto, say, the end of next Monday (12th), and forward them to Cindy Claveran. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roy J. Good Product Development, Atari Corporation Views expressed are my own. Atari may agree or disagree; they have the right. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas_E_Zerucha@cup.portal.com (09/07/88)
I have just checked out exactly what MY PC wanted in the way of bytes to recognize an IBM disk, and as far as I know, Byte 0 has to be 0xEB, and byte 2 has to be 0x90 in the boot sector (from an 11/28/85 formatted disk on the ST). That's it. (The EB is a short jump to the real boot code, byte 1 would be the displacement; the 90 I have no idea about). You can try changing these with a sector editor. If your PC doesn't recognize this, then perhaps it is time you changed your BIOS. (Perhaps real release copies of both PC and ST software might help things - an article in the current "Computer Shopper" indicates problems with software from Sham Shui Po). (I am also not absolutely sure that *both* of the above bytes are necessary, it seemed to accept the disk after reporting an error with only 90H there, but that wasn't consistent).
) (09/07/88)
>I'm afraid that the only offense that I'm guilty of is telling the truth >in a public forum. For that, I plead guilty. > > Myron Drapal > AT&T Denver > att!druhi!med I find this hard to believe for one simple reason, and it can be summed up in the following question: Are YOU an OFFICIAL beta tester of the new ROMS? You have admitted yourself that you are not. Therefor you have illegally gained access to said ROMS, and then begin publicly shouting about things you found wrong with ROMS you were not supposed to be using/looking at. Atari's main purpose has not been to just hush you up, it has in fact been to say you should not be reporting bugs 1) over comp.sys.atari.st and 2) at all as you should not have the ROMS. Atari has never said that they were unaware of the bugs you have mentioned, the Beta-testers may have already recieved notice of the bug once it was reported THROUGH PROPER CHANNELS. Why didn't you just mail the report to Atari? Why did you have to post it here? Did you have any other reason than some subtle Atari Bashing? If so, I would love to know why. I would assume (oh oh ass/u/me) that the person that actually has the Beta-test ROMS has already reported what you have found thru the SPR system included with the Beta-test kit, so why did you have to post it here as well? Or do you in fact own a pirated copy of the ROMS? I for one would like to thank Allan & Co. for the new era of support we have begun to see from Atari, and the flow of information we have been seeing lately. To me it seems to be an indication of good things to come. Bob King king@akov11.dec.com Hey, I certainly don't dictate policy for DEC, so these opinions are mine alone. Flame away, I expect no better.
neil@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Forsyth) (09/08/88)
In article <3525@druhi.ATT.COM> dlm@druhi.ATT.COM (Dan Moore) writes: >in article <1947@brahma.cs.hw.ac.uk>, neil@cs.hw.ac.uk (Neil Forsyth) says: >> In article <3479@druhi.ATT.COM> med@druhi.ATT.COM (Myron Drapal) writes: >>>to be tested and fixed (like PC compatible format... Oh, by the way, have >>>any of the testers checked to see if the disk free function works properly >>>yet - the old version reported number of free bytes off by at least >>>2 clusters). >> I have been sitting here listening with nothing to say for days then something >> pops up that I actually know something about! Magic! >> >> Atari (Allen|Roy|Ken) said yonks ago that they had found and killed the bug >> that lost 2 clusters on a disk. But what if you put a the disk in a mchine with >> old ROMs? It can't read the last two clusters! So, sadly, the bug stays. > > > Are you sure that the old ROMs can't read the last two clusters >on the disk? ... (article trimmed) .. >formatting disks on both my PC and my ST and comparing them. My >conclusion was that GemDos was quite happy to read a disk using the last >two clusters. It also could delete files that used those clusters. It >just couldn't write to them and also didn't include them in the disk >free space calculation. OK TOS 1.0x can read the 2 clusters but I would say that not being able to write to the clusters was a good enough reason not to fix the bug. ie. "Hey I just changed one word in this file I'm editing but I can't save it back to disk! What's happening" - "Oh your still using the old ROMs. Sorry" (usually followed by "my ROMs better than yours, it's got ..." :-) I still think that all bugs should be fixed and backward compatible patch be ditributed. Maybe it's too late for 1.4 but what about 1.5 > > Dan Moore > AT&T Bell Labs > Denver > dlm@druhi.ATT.COM _____________________________________________________________________________ / DISCLAIMER: Unless stated otherwise, the above comments are entirely my own \ ! ! ! "I think all right thinking people in this country are sick and tired of ! ! being told that ordinary decent people are fed up in this country with ! ! being sick and tired. I'm certainly not and I'm sick and tired of being ! ! told that I am!" - Monty Python ! ! ! ! Neil Forsyth JANET: neil@uk.ac.hw.cs ! ! Dept. of Computer Science ARPA: neil@cs.hw.ac.uk ! ! Heriot-Watt University UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!neil ! ! Edinburgh ! ! Scotland ! \_____________________________________________________________________________/
kline@arizona.edu (Nick Kline) (09/09/88)
In article <1156@atari.UUCP> you write: >> Atari, I have been trying to contact your representive >> on Genie, Cindy Clavehorn I think is her name, but she claims she has >> no record of my developer status! > >Nick, I will check with Cindy and find out what the story is. I will >either leave you email or leave you mail on GEnie. > >John Townsend >Atari Corp, Technical Support Thanks, John, But, I just got a message from Cindy on Genie, saying she had given me developer access. She also said that she had been out of town. I assume that the person who was filling in for her didn't quite know about all of the developers. Sorry I got upset, but I had no idea that she was out of town. Some one sent me messages with her name on them saying they had no record of me. I wouldn't have gotten upset if I had known that she was gone. Nick
apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) (09/09/88)
In article <3525@druhi.ATT.COM> dlm@druhi.ATT.COM (Dan Moore) writes: > Are you sure that the old ROMs can't read the last two clusters > on the disk? I didn't say that. I said we couldn't fix the bug for compatibility reasons. You are exactly right: the old ROMs can read the last two clusters, just fine; they can even write to them if a file is already allocated there and you are overwriting that part of the file. What they can't do is extend a file into that part of the disk, and they always report that space as used when you use the Dfree call. Imagine the following setup: A company produces an application on new ROMs, and the application plus its support files EXACTLY FILLS a new-ROM disk. By chance, the DESKTOP.INF file which the company provides on that disk is in the very last cluster of the disk. (Remember, that's the last cluster of a NEW ROM disk.) The poor, hapless user with old ROMs dutifully copies this master disk to a working disk, then changes his palette using the control panel and chooses "save desktop." What happens? The desktop does an Fcreate, which deletes the old DESKTOP.INF file. The Fcreate succeeds, but the Fwrite doesn't, because there's no space on the disk! (As far as the old ROMs are concerned, there is actually -1K used!) Poor user. This scenario isn't really stretching too far, and there are lots of variations on the theme. It creates a situation which we are willing to pay 2K per floppy to avoid. 2K is, after all, only 0.55% of a single-sided disk, 0.27% of a double-sided disk, and infintessimal on a hard disk. Yes, it was a bug in the original GEMDOS, and yes, we know how to fix it, but it would be problematical to do so. ============================================ Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (09/13/88)
In article <6915@megaron.arizona.edu> kline@arizona.edu (Nick Kline) writes: >In article <3508@druhi.ATT.COM> dlm@druhi.ATT.COM (Dan Moore) writes: > >> I've been a registered Atari developer since day one. In that >>time period Atari *HAS NOT* sent me a single letter or package. Back >>when I was still writting commercial software for the ST I complained >>several times. No change. Strange way to treat a registered developer. >> > >Wow, So Have I. > > What you say, complaining in public? I have for about >two weeks been trying to get her to add me to the developer sig on genie, >but she won't do it. I have been waiting about a week to get a message >back from her. What do I have to do? I AM a registered developer. >By the way, my name on genie is n.kline. I think these are representative of the problem. Atari says don't complain in public or we'll sue you, yet when you attempt to employ the "official" methods , you get no results. While I certainly believe that it is inappropriate (and usually illegal) to "advertise" bugs in Beta releases, I also understand the frustrations of those that have felt compelled to "go forward" with thir views. As an exmple, I recently received the developers newsletter from Atari. It has a form regarding Fall Comdex that says it must be returned to Atari by Sept 1 to be considered; it is postmarked Sept 1 and I received it on Sept 7! It's still a good sign that they sent the newletter out. It is not unique to Atari either, I'm an official beta tester for Microport and I have been struggling with numerous bugs in the Beta release. I'm tearing my hair out because Microport hasn't done anything about it and I can't post the problems to get help either. Microport has so many problems their users are considereing legal action against them for "bad faith". I wonder if we might be able to build such a case against Atari? -- David Beckemeyer | Beckemeyer Development Tools | "Reckon the Ball's plumb open now, 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | and it's `swing partner'!" UUCP: {rutgers,sun}!hoptoad!bdt!david |