KAHNP@SKIDMORE.BITNET (I Agitate Communists) (04/07/88)
I am thinking of upgrading from my evil 6502 based machine (Apple //e).
I heard about the IBMs and programmed on them and I saw somethings I liked.
I told a friend about buying one and he said that I should buy an Atari
because they can emulate IBMs..perfectly. I had only heard bad stories
about atari's and didn't listen to him. Later I used macs alot and
thought about purchasing one of them. The same freind muttered atari
again, and again I scoffed. Then another friend's mother bought an
atari after checking them out in Consumer Reports annaul guide to
computers.
Now I am finally looking at Ataris, but I have some questions
that I hope you can answer:
what is the processor?
What is in the attachment that makes it a mac?
How well does it emulate IBMs?
Does it communicate through the SCSI interface oof the mac?
How upgradable is it?
What is the maximum memory capacity?
Can it use a Paged Memory Managment Unit?
If any of you could answer any of these questions I would be
greatly appreciative.
Peter Kahn
KAHNP@SKIDMORE
thank you very much.rogers@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Bob Rogers) (04/09/88)
In article <8804071811.AA05419@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> KAHNP@SKIDMORE.BITNET (I Agitate Communists) writes: >I am thinking of upgrading from my evil 6502 based machine (Apple //e). Why? I'm serious - there is a _lot_ more software for the //e, and a lot greater variety of software. Yes, it (the //) is slower, and if you want to do hacker-type stuff the ST is superior, but before you dump your Apple make sure your new machine can do everything your present one can. (Software, software, software.) If possible, you may want to keep your //e - there are times I wish I still had my old C64 (in addition to my ST). >What is in the attachment that makes it a mac? "Magic Sac" by Data Pacific. It will NOT run Hypercard, and it's not cheap if you want to be able to use Mac disks. >How well does it emulate IBMs? Fine, but slow - make sure you try before you buy, many people are put off by the slow speed of the PC emulator ("PC Ditto"). >How upgradable is it? You can upgrade the memory, but it's not designed to be upgraded, so we're talking surgery, not plug-in-the-card. Flames follow: A careful reading of the ST news group shows it to be mostly complaints about Atari. Most of us like the hardware - it's cheap and cheerful and reliable. BUT Atari lies to the consumer - if you like promises listen to Atari, otherwise expect to only be able to buy (_ever_) what you can buy today. The Mac and Amiga newsgroups are not nearly as negative as the ST one is, and I think there are valid reasons for the difference. I thought the ST would be a "poor man's Mac"; in truth it is a "rich man's Commodore 64". It is, however, a great low cost C development machine - Mark Williams' compiler has made the machine for me (I'm not too interested in GEM development, but the Mark Williams is great for UNIX-like stuff). I no longer recommend STs to my friends. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Rogers rogers@StPaul.NCR.COM NCR Comten, St. Paul, MN
R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com (04/11/88)
Bob Rogers rogers@StPaul.NCR.COM Writes: ]In article <8804071811.AA05419@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> KAHNP@SKIDMORE.BITNET (I Agitate Communists) writes: ]>I am thinking of upgrading from my evil 6502 based machine (Apple //e). ]Why? I'm serious - there is a _lot_ more software for the //e, and a lot ]greater variety of software. Yes, it (the //) is slower, and if you want to ]do hacker-type stuff the ST is superior, but before you dump your Apple make ]sure your new machine can do everything your present one can. (Software, ]software, software.) If possible, you may want to keep your //e - there are ]times I wish I still had my old C64 (in addition to my ST). This IS a _very_ important point: anytime you upgrade to a new machine make sure you can use all your old software or easilly can convert it for the new machine. I used a Western Digital Pascal MicroEngine since 1980. It only runs UCSD Pascal... I made sure I could get a UCSD Pascal system for the Atari ST _before_ I bought the ST, so I could convert the programs without having to rewrite EVERYTHING!!! R. Tim Coslet R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com
johnm@trsvax.UUCP (04/16/88)
> Now I am finally looking at Ataris, but I have some questions >that I hope you can answer: >what is the processor? The Motorola 68000. The same processor used in the Commodore Amiga and the Apple Macintosh. (Comparable to the speed of an Intel 80286, which means you would have to buy an IBM AT clone to have the same power.) >What is in the attachment that makes it a mac? The attachment that "makes it a mac" is called Magic Sac and it was created by David Small (who sometimes posts here to the net). You have to buy a set of Macintosh ROMs from someone who does Mac upgrades from the old 64K ROMs (the kind you would want) to the newer ones. They will have some available that they can sell you to put in it or you can go to mail order to get some. Because they both use the same hardware and you've got the ROMs with the code for Quickdraw (a misnomer if ever there was one) and other Mac routines its not too hard for the cartridge to handle the rest. >How well does it emulate IBMs? According to my friends, "Excellently!" I cannot judge because I do not have PC Ditto. >Does it communicate through the SCSI interface of the mac? Not to my knowledge. What is it you want to communicate? >How upgradable is it? Be more specific... You can add a variety of memory boards, battery supported clocks, hard disks, video and audio digitizers, and all of the usual stuff. Then there are the more esoteric items like the accelorator board (not yet release) which will increase the speed of ALL programs 45 to 85% or the liquid crystal 3d glasses. >What is the maximum memory capacity? Memory upgrade boards are available that can take a 1040ST (with one meg of ram) to 4.5 meg (if you can afford what memory chips cost nowadays :-). >Can it use a Paged Memory Managment Unit? You mean like swapping memory out to disk? No, there is no micro with that facility that I know of.
ps2i+@andrew.cmu.edu (Paul Leonard Sonier) (04/16/88)
In article <654@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM>, rogers@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: >In article <8804071811.AA05419@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> KAHNP@SKIDMORE.BITNET (I Agitate >Communists) writes: >>I am thinking of upgrading from my evil 6502 based machine (Apple //e). >Why? I'm serious - there is a _lot_ more software for the //e, and a lot >greater variety of software. Yes, it (the //) is slower, and if you want to >do hacker-type stuff the ST is superior, but before you dump your Apple make >sure your new machine can do everything your present one can. (Software, >software, software.) If possible, you may want to keep your //e - there are >times I wish I still had my old C64 (in addition to my ST). Well, this may sound irrelevent (that's because it is), but I know there's a program out for the Mac called ][ in a Mac, which emulates an apple ][ on your Macintosh. It seems to run on a Mac II, so it should run on Magic Sac. It does seem to run almost all the software out, and is a really neato keen package. Now imagine this: an ST running Mac emulation (faster and with a larger screen) running ][ software!!! :-) Now, anybody out there know of any software emulators for the ][ that are VERY compatible????? (hee hee) Tasteful Forever, Paul Sonier
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (04/19/88)
In article <226500010@trsvax> johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes: >>How upgradable is it? >Be more specific... > >You can add a variety of memory boards, battery supported clocks, hard disks, >video and audio digitizers, and all of the usual stuff. Then there are the >more esoteric items like the accelorator board (not yet release) which will >increase the speed of ALL programs 45 to 85% or the liquid crystal 3d glasses. John, you could stand to be a bit more specific yourself. The 520 and 1040 ST series can be upgraded through hardware kludges much like the early Macs could be upgraded, neither have slots. The Mega doesn't have slots either but does have an expansion connector similar to that of the Amiga 1000 and Amiga 500. Second, be very VERY careful about making claims like "increase the speed of ALL programs 45 to 85%" because you know not what you speak. Even if you replace the CPU with a 68020 running at 16Mhz with 32 bit RAM you may not see your programs get much faster, why? Because the speed of a program is determined by the *system* speed, and not just the CPU clock. You will be lucky if your programs speed up 5 to 50%. If you want real fast programs redesign the *system*. >>Can it use a Paged Memory Managment Unit? >You mean like swapping memory out to disk? No, there is no micro with that >facility that I know of. Another two points, one I don't think he meant "can it swap" I believe he meant can it use a PMMU? And the answer is no, the Atart ST series cannot use a PMMU. Both the Mac II and any 80386 system can use a PMMU and in the case of the '386 have one built in. If one is looking for a paged MMU then one would be better off looking at 32 bit machines. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (04/20/88)
In article <226500010@trsvax> johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes: > >> Now I am finally looking at Ataris, but I have some questions >>that I hope you can answer: >>what is the processor? >The Motorola 68000. The same processor used in the Commodore Amiga and the >Apple Macintosh. (Comparable to the speed of an Intel 80286, which means >you would have to buy an IBM AT clone to have the same power.) The ST has more raw CPU horsepower than an 8MHZ 80286, if you ask me. But a 12Mhz 80286 AT clone has some advantages over the ST too (see below). >>How well does it emulate IBMs? >According to my friends, "Excellently!" I cannot judge because I do not have >PC Ditto. But remember that it's pretty slow becuase you're emulating a hardware with software running on a 8Mhz 68000 CPU. I think it's something like 50%-80% the speed of an old 4.77 Mhz IBM PC (which nobody uses anymore), and whole lot slower than an 8Mhz 8088. >>Can it use a Paged Memory Managment Unit? >You mean like swapping memory out to disk? No, there is no micro with that >facility that I know of. No micro you know of? How about those IBM AT clones you mentioned above? One big advantage the AT clones have over the ST hardware is that they have hardware memory management, and the ST doesn't. There are quite a few 80286 AT-type systems out there running SCO Xenix or Microport System V AT which both implement paged memory. I hate the 80286 architecture; the 68000 is much cleaner in my opinion; but there definatly *are* micros out there that have a MMU, and the AT-type is one. Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with any computer manufacturer. I develop software for all of them, so I don't care which one you buy. -- David Beckemeyer | "Yuh gotta treat people jes' like yuh Beckemeyer Development Tools | do mules. Don't try to drive 'em. Jes' 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | leave the gate open a mite an' let 'em UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david | bust in!"
u13@nikhefh.hep.nl (Rene van 't Veen) (04/21/88)
[ Lots of stuff 'bout 286 and 68000 raw CPU-power deleted] > >But remember that it's pretty slow becuase you're emulating a hardware with >software running on a 8Mhz 68000 CPU. I think it's something like 50%-80% >the speed of an old 4.77 Mhz IBM PC (which nobody uses anymore), and whole >lot slower than an 8Mhz 8088. Actually 0.33 "standard" IBM-PC (Benchmark Norton-SI) -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- R. van 't Veen .. mcvax!nikhefh!u13. All opinions are my own. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
govett@avsd.UUCP (David Govett) (04/21/88)
> >>>How well does it emulate IBMs? >>According to my friends, "Excellently!" I cannot judge because I do not have >>PC Ditto. > > > But remember that it's pretty slow becuase you're emulating a hardware with > software running on a 8Mhz 68000 CPU. I think it's something like 50%-80% > the speed of an old 4.77 Mhz IBM PC (which nobody uses anymore), and whole > lot slower than an 8Mhz 8088. We tested pc ditto here, and it has a Norton of index of .3, which means .3 x 4.77 MHz. Still, it's fast enough for most tasks and completely compatible so far.
dragon@olivej.olivetti.com (Give me a quarter or I'll touch you) (04/22/88)
> We tested pc ditto here, and it has a Norton of index of .3, which > means .3 x 4.77 MHz. Still, it's fast enough for most tasks and > completely compatible so far. Argh! Norton's SI does *NOT* reflect an accurate performance comparison. It also depends on which version of SI you use. For instance, using SI Ver. 3.0, if you take an otherwise stock IBM PC/XT, replace the 8088 with an NEC V20, and run SI, the reading you will get is around 1.8. This wildly exaggerates the 10%-20% speedup one gets with an NEC V20. In actual benchmarks (PC Magazine's) pc-ditto was slow in some instances yet faster in others. For this reason, I feel that pc-ditto runs at about 50%-75% the speed of a vanilla IBM PC/XT. --Dean ---- Dean Brunette {ucbvax,etc.}!hplabs!oliveb!olivej!dragon {ucbvax,etc.}!oliveb!olivej!{dragon-oatc,lobster}!dean Olivetti Advanced Technology Center _____ _____ __|__ _____ 20300 Stevens Creek Blvd. | | _____| | | Cupertino, CA 95014 |_____| |_____| |__ |_____ 'Dancing, screaming, itching, squealing, fevered feeling hot Hot HOT!'
ljdickey@water.waterloo.edu (Lee Dickey) (04/22/88)
In article <226500010@trsvax> johnm@trsvax.UUCP writes: > [ ... lots deleted ... ] >>Does it communicate through the SCSI interface of the mac? >Not to my knowledge. What is it you want to communicate? Well, not directly. But there are several companies that sell converter boards that go for about $100 to $140 each. >>Can it use a Paged Memory Managment Unit? >You mean like swapping memory out to disk? No, there is no micro with that >facility that I know of. I think I need to ask what a "Paged Memory Management Unit" is. There are micro software implementations that provide virtual memory to the user by swapping from the disk. I think I agree that there is no such implementation for the ST! -- L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo. ljdickey@waterloo.edu ljdickey@WATDCS.UWaterloo.ca ljdickey@water.BITNET ljdickey@water.UUCP or ...!uunet!water!ljdickey
Thomas_E_Zerucha@cup.portal.com (04/24/88)
David Beckemeyer writes: >The AT Clones ... 286 ... Have memory management... Except if the point is to use MSDos Software, you can't use the protected mode, since it does things which make many (most?) MSDos programs incompatible. The 386 has a 'virtual real memory mode' (no, that is not a contradiction, it emulates an 8086 address space in paged memory, so you can still play segment overlap games (theoretically)), and there may be one or more products out that take advantage of this, but I don't know how "protected" it would be. And there are PC Emulators (100% software) running on fast 68020 unix systems. PC Ditto is slow (for a PC), but if it can be ported to the '030 box and run under unix, it might be something. But to get back to the point of the MMU, if you change operating systems, you probabaly can add one to the ST, since if the point is to run a different OS, you almost need the extra hardware. So it would probabaly be better to buy a UNIX designed box in the first place (and with a 680x0 instead of a 286 unless you like segments).
tim@ism780c.UUCP (T.W."Tim" Smith, Knowledgian) (04/26/88)
In article <4738@cup.portal.com> Thomas_E_Zerucha@cup.portal.com writes:
< The 386 has a 'virtual real memory mode' (no, that is not a contradiction,
< it emulates an 8086 address space in paged memory, so you can still play
< segment overlap games (theoretically)), and there may be one or more products
< out that take advantage of this, but I don't know how "protected" it would
< be.
On many ( most? ) implementations of Unix for the 386, there are products
available that use this mode ( called 'virtual 86 mode' ) to provide for
the execution of msdos programs under Unix.
When in virtual 86 mode, the 386 computes addresses in the same way an
8086 would ( (segment number << 4 ) + offset ), but instead of this being
a physical address, as it would be on an 8086, it is sent to the paging
unit for address translation.
A process running in this mode is as "protected" as any other process
running in protected mode.
Combine this with a Unix that implements the dos filesystem under the
System V3 file system switch, and you have a quite reasonable union of
dos and Unix ( why you would want to slime your Unix with dos is
another matter...)
--
Tim Smith tim@ism780c.isc.com
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the
kind of person I'm preaching to" -- J.R. "Bob" DobbsThomas_E_Zerucha@cup.portal.com (05/01/88)
The problem I was getting at with "virtual" MS-DOS emulators, even in a UNIX
environment is how do you use the "virtual" MS-DOS devices? Can I delete
your files (MS-DOS doesn't allow for protection) - can I read them? What
about things like screen writes? There is a BIG difference between PC
compatibility and MS-DOS compatibility, a and many PC programs are PC
specific (or would be slower or have other problems). PC Ditto is useful
mainly because it is 98% PC compatible - I can boot games directly. Can
I stick Flight Simulator into the '386 UNIX box and have it run properly?
My main point is that having a multitasking system with all it's
protection is one thing - as soon as you try emulating a nonprotected,
nonmultitasking environment you must trade off compatibility for other
features. It can be done - just not that simply, and not without tradeoffs.cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (05/05/88)
In article <4738@cup.portal.com> Thomas_E_Zerucha@cup.portal.com writes: >The 386 has a 'virtual real memory mode' (no, that is not a contradiction, >it emulates an 8086 address space in paged memory, so you can still play >segment overlap games (theoretically)), and there may be one or more products >out that take advantage of this, but I don't know how "protected" it would >be. The Virtual 8086 Mode of the '386 allows programs to run as though they were running native on an 8086. The 1 meg address space of the 8086 can be mapped thru the '386 MMU to any space in memory (and paged in and out) and the I/O calls are trapped so that the supervising OS (a so called Hypervisor) can take the appropriate action. Entire sections of memory such as the video display ram area, can be protected to cause traps so that writing directly to the bits can be emulated. Strangely enough because it takes longer to emulate video after the trap than it does to emulate the BIOS call, programs that *don't* write directly to the video ram run faster than those that do. (Sort of poetic justice I guess). Sun uses this mode on the Sun 386i workstation to run DOS programs under UNIX. On a completely different note, at the Amiga developers conference Commodore showed a Transputer board that could be plugged into the 2000. This was only a 'technology' demonstration and I don't think they could make it into a product in less than a 18 months maybe longer. They also gave out copies of the 1.3 OS in ROM so that developers could upgrade their machines. All in all and interesting time.. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer) (05/05/88)
In article <4978@cup.portal.com> Thomas_E_Zerucha@cup.portal.com writes: >The problem I was getting at with "virtual" MS-DOS emulators, even in a UNIX >environment is how do you use the "virtual" MS-DOS devices? Can I delete >your files (MS-DOS doesn't allow for protection) - can I read them? What >about things like screen writes? There is a BIG difference between PC >compatibility and MS-DOS compatibility, a and many PC programs are PC >specific (or would be slower or have other problems). PC Ditto is useful >mainly because it is 98% PC compatible - I can boot games directly. Can >I stick Flight Simulator into the '386 UNIX box and have it run properly? The '386 UNIX DOS products actually provide a "virtual machine" environment, where each user that wants to use DOS gets his own virtual PC running DOS. I think the file layout is just a plain DOS partition; I don't know exactly how multiple file accesses at the DOS level are handled. And yes, you CAN run FS or other programs that write directly to screen memory and such becuase the devices are "emulated". -- David Beckemeyer | "To understand ranch lingo all yuh Beckemeyer Development Tools | have to do is to know in advance what 478 Santa Clara Ave, Oakland, CA 94610 | the other feller means an' then pay UUCP: ...!ihnp4!hoptoad!bdt!david | no attention to what he says"