didier@seismo.CSS.GOV@lasso.UUCP (02/05/87)
Well, with the recent announcement of the Mega series, everyone of us is
concerned with what they're going to do with their 520/1040.
Personally, and I am sure a lot of people will share this point of view,
I like my 1040 and would like to keep it, but won't do so if:
1/ there is no ROM upgrade for it
or
2/ its RAM can't be expanded to 4 Megs (with 1 Mbits chips)
Point 1/ has been already discussed extensively on this net. I will simply quit
Atari altogether if they don't release a new set of ROMs for the 520/1040.
I don't mind having to pay for them, either, nor do I mind having to pay for
the so long awaited 'ST Internals' docs. Just release them.
Point 2/ is another story. I must confess Atari took me by surprise by
announcing their Mega ST so quickly, and I hadn't spent too much time worrying
about RAM upgrades for the 1040. But now, I'm ready to bet that 4 Megs will be
standard for professional ST applications in no time at all, and I don't want
to be left out without a piece of the action.
So the question is simple:
CAN A 520/1040 BE UPGRADED TO 4 MEGS OF RAM ??
I know the MMU can handle it, but what about the rest of the system ? (ROMs,
power supply, wiring,...).
I would be thankful if somebody from Atari could provide a straight answer to
this question (Neil, Allan, Landon,...?). I'm sure this is of general interest.
And it'll save me the trouble of stripping down my 1040 to figure it out by
myself !
Thanks.
Didier Giralt LAAS-CNRS
7 av du Colonel Roche
...!seismo!mcvax!inria!lasso!didier 31077 Toulouse Cedex
Franceatwell@utah-cs.UUCP (02/06/87)
Yes, the 520/1040 upgrade to 4 meg is available today if you want to spend the money. Tech-specialities offers a 1 meg upgrade board (solderless) that can be upgraded to 2.5 meg or 4 meg by replacing the 256K chips on it in the 1 meg configuration. Or you can get a 4 meg board now but 1 Mbit chips are quite expensive at the present. tech specialities PO Box 73122 Houston, Texas 77273 (USA) (I have no connection to tech specialities) What about upgrading the current ST's to accept the expansion peripherals that will be available on the Mega's. It seems like there may be a lot of yet to be developed peripherals that we will miss out on unless something is done. (like the Atari Laserprinter, for example) Bart
dyer@atari.UUCP (02/08/87)
> CAN A 520/1040 BE UPGRADED TO 4 MEGS OF RAM ?? > > I know the MMU can handle it, but what about the rest of the system ? > (ROMs, power supply, wiring,...). > > I would be thankful if somebody from Atari could provide a straight > answer to this question (Neil, Allan, Landon,...?). I'm sure this is > of general interest. And it'll save me the trouble of stripping down > my 1040 to figure it out by myself ! Well ... theoretically. We have one in the lab (a prototype 4 megabyte 1040) but for all its logical and inherent beauty, it is really a wire-wrap mess. It will never fit back into the plastic case. Thanks to lots of copper braid (for power and ground distribution) the DRAMs are solid and reliable, but nothing beats a good DRAM layout. Wire-wrap isn't. And naturally, Atari doesn't condone that kind of upgrade. There is a further problem, though. Our old friend GEMDOS insists on zeroing the TPA as part of doing a Pexec(). The original code (also in the current ROMs) is written in C and it is rather slow. On the 1040 this is evidenced when the machine "takes a breath" just before starting an application. A four megabyte machine bloody well holds its breath until it turns blue -- it takes eight to ten seconds to zero the TPA. Needless to say this has been fixed -- it is now blindingly fast -- but you really need new ROMs for anything over a megabyte. The "Mega" STs will have these ROMs. I do not know if they will be made available for other machines. -- -Landon Dyer, Atari Corp. {sun,lll-lcc,imagen}!atari!dyer The views expressed here do not not necessarily reflect those of Atari Corp. Segments are for worms.
jmc@ptsfa.UUCP (02/09/87)
In article <555@atari.UUCP> dyer@atari.UUCP (Landon Dyer) writes: >Needless to say this has been fixed -- it is now blindingly fast >-- but you really need new ROMs for anything over a megabyte. >The "Mega" STs will have these ROMs. I do not know if they will >be made available for other machines. I hate to say this but people from Atari have been ranting as to how THERE ARE NO NEW ROMS and BE PATIENT. <<NOW>> we find out that this was (to put it mildly) totally untrue. The only question is whether or not Atari will decide to care about current owners of the ST. "Let me make one thing perfectly clear": and I hope I'm not the only one that says this: I'd love to buy new stuff from Atari such as the laser printer BUT I need to have "a warm, fuzzy feeling" that Atari will not treat us like dirt once we buy something - this means supporting and upgrading existing owners of your hardware. I'm also posting this to the net in the hopes that others will mail you directly, filling up your mailbox, and changing what appears to me gross insensitivity to existing owners. The timing of ROM upgrades is one thing - the 'maybe we won't upgrade existing owners' is something different. You do want existing ST owners to buy more hardware don't you (sarcastic :-). -- voice= 415 823-2441 uucp={ihnp4,dual,qantel}!ptsfa!jmc
jafischer@watrose.UUCP (02/10/87)
In article <2086@ptsfa.UUCP> jmc@ptsfa.UUCP (Jerry Carlin) writes: >I hate to say this but people from Atari have been ranting as to how >THERE ARE NO NEW ROMS and BE PATIENT. <<NOW>> we find out that this >was (to put it mildly) totally untrue. I dunno, that wasn't the impression I ever got. Mind you, Atari has been a little fuzzy about ROMS, but I don't think they really said THERE ARE NO NEW ROMS. More like, "The new ROMS that will come with the blitter will not likely have a new, debugged GEMDOS." Or, "look, we didn't write GEMDOS and it will take us some time to fix" (mind you, they've certainly had a good, long time...). But as far as "whether or not these new ROMS will be available for current ST owners" (referring to the message from the guy at Atari) -- well, if you were simply talking about the new ROMS with the blitter code in them, you d*** well BETTER make them available to us as promised. The only thing I can conclude from that statement is that the blitter itself might not be made available to current ST owners as an upgrade. Please tell us this isn't true. Or we shall all be decidedly upset. -- - Jonathan Fischer (jafischer@watrose) or: watmath!watrose!jafischer or: jafischer%watrose@waterloo.csnet or: jafischer%watrose@waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
apratt@atari.UUCP (02/10/87)
In article <4271@utah-cs.UUCP>, atwell@utah-cs.UUCP (Bart L. Atwell) writes: > What about upgrading the current ST's to accept the expansion peripherals > that will be available on the Mega's. It seems like there may be a lot > of yet to be developed peripherals that we will miss out on unless something > is done. (like the Atari Laserprinter, for example) > > Bart The Atari laser printer will not be an expansion card which goes into the Mega case. It will be a device which plugs into the DMA port at the back of all ST products. You will be able to use both a hard disk and a laser printer because either (A) one or the other will have a DMA IN and a DMA OUT port (like MIDI) or (B) there will be a two-headed DMA cable for this purpose. Currently on the whiteboard is a floating-point board which IS an expansion card, but that's the only thing I know of, and I think you might be able to piggyback the chip to an existing ST without too much trouble. /----------------------------------------------\ | Opinions expressed above do not necessarily | -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. | reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. | ...lll-lcc!atari!apratt \----------------------------------------------/
magore@watdcsu.UUCP (02/11/87)
In article <8455@watrose.UUCP> jafischer@watrose.UUCP (Jonathan Fischer) writes: [munch...] > I dunno, that wasn't the impression I ever got. Mind you, Atari >has been a little fuzzy about ROMS, but I don't think they really said >THERE ARE NO NEW ROMS. More like, "The new ROMS that will come with the >blitter will not likely have a new, debugged GEMDOS." Or, "look, we didn't >write GEMDOS and it will take us some time to fix" (mind you, they've certainly >had a good, long time...). [munch...] When you are talking about code that size and in ROM things surely can take along time. Murphy would surely have it that after making X-million new ROM's someone would find a bug that the testing did not show up [ after all the testing can be just as complex as the code and _it_ can have bugs that hide bugs.... ]. If I were those making a choice on a release for new ROM's I wouldn't be getting much sleep. Whatever, hopefully most of the major routines will keep the feature of ram jump vectors so they can be patched later if need be... As for expanding to 4 Meg as has been mentioned this has already been done by a few firms... Best Regards, # Mike Gore # Institute for Computer Research. ( watmath!mgvax!root - at home ) # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
chapman@fornax.UUCP (02/13/87)
> In article <4271@utah-cs.UUCP>, atwell@utah-cs.UUCP (Bart L. Atwell) writes: > > What about upgrading the current ST's to accept the expansion peripherals > > that will be available on the Mega's. It seems like there may be a lot > > of yet to be developed peripherals that we will miss out on unless something > > is done. (like the Atari Laserprinter, for example) > > > > Bart > > The Atari laser printer will not be an expansion card which goes into > the Mega case. It will be a device which plugs into the DMA port at > the back of all ST products. You will be able to use both a hard disk > and a laser printer because either (A) one or the other will have a DMA > IN and a DMA OUT port (like MIDI) or (B) there will be a two-headed > DMA cable for this purpose. > > > /----------------------------------------------\ > | Opinions expressed above do not necessarily | -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. > | reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. | ...lll-lcc!atari!apratt > \----------------------------------------------/ Has a decision been made as to whether the laser engine and the interface to the dma port will be bundled or sold separately, i.e. will those of us who already have canon based laser printers be able to disconnect whatever controller is already in the printer and buy just the atari interface to hook up betweeen the printer and dma port? john chapman
leo@sunybcs.UUCP (02/23/87)
In article <2086@ptsfa.UUCP> jmc@ptsfa.UUCP (Jerry Carlin) writes: >In article <555@atari.UUCP> dyer@atari.UUCP (Landon Dyer) writes: >>Needless to say this has been fixed -- it is now blindingly fast >>-- but you really need new ROMs for anything over a megabyte. >>The "Mega" STs will have these ROMs. I do not know if they will >>be made available for other machines. > >I hate to say this but people from Atari have been ranting as to how >THERE ARE NO NEW ROMS and BE PATIENT. <<NOW>> we find out that this >was (to put it mildly) totally untrue. The only question is whether >or not Atari will decide to care about current owners of the ST. > >"Let me make one thing perfectly clear": and I hope I'm not the only >one that says this: I'd love to buy new stuff from Atari such as the >laser printer BUT I need to have "a warm, fuzzy feeling" that Atari >will not treat us like dirt once we buy something - this means supporting >and upgrading existing owners of your hardware. > >You do want existing ST owners to buy more hardware don't you (sarcastic :-). How insufficient an expression of this sentiment this article is! I am about to tell my boss that a) I was foolish to trust Atari and the reputation of Jack Tramiel b) that the money we have invested in ST's has been thrown uselessly away and c) that if we are going to be able to do the job at hand we'll need to switch to IBM compatables. I think that parts b and c are striclty my own doing, as it was indeed foolish to try to use such a new machine for business puposes. Live and learn. However, I also think that Atari has orphaned a pretty good machine that could have performed the task infinately better than an IBM type. Orphaned it much too soon, far before it needed to be... From what I've seen, Atari may even be discouraging people from putting out new products. This is PURE speculation, but it's hard to believe that I can call around one month and have five companies put me in touch with enthusiastic ST hackers who are ready to put a network product into beta testing, and a month later the same people are reluctant to talk, don't have any plans to release anything real soon, aren't really doing any kind of business things with the ST. Smacks of manufacturer intervention. So what gives? I am switching to a machine class that is accepted, has existing third party (not to mention first part) support, and will be around in the business market for a long time to come regardless of its use of five year old technology. (I say "I am switching", but I'm sure it'll be my employer. I would probably fire someone who made such a costly mistake, and can expect nothing less from my employer, who I respect as a sharp operator..) I will not buy another Atari product for anywhere but home. Screw 'em, they allowed me to screw myself. I will no longer put such faith into any general manager's past performance, either... It's obvious that some people have a first responsibility to other than their customers... -- ----- Leo E. Wilson 364 West Delavan Avenue Buffalo, NY 14213 (716)883-7573(leo@buffalo.csnet)...!sunybcs[!npdp1]!leo
gordan@maccs.UUCP (Gordan Palameta) (02/26/87)
In article <2425@sunybcs.UUCP> leo@gort.UUCP (Leo Wilson) writes: > >I am about to tell my boss that a) I was foolish to trust Atari and the >reputation of Jack Tramiel b) that the money we have invested in ST's has >been thrown uselessly away and c) that if we are going to be able to do the >job at hand we'll need to switch to IBM compatables. > >I will not buy another Atari product for anywhere but home. Screw 'em, they >allowed me to screw myself. I will no longer put such faith into any general >manager's past performance, either... It's obvious that some people have a >first responsibility to other than their customers... > Come on folks, let's not get carried away. Please make an effort to keep comments addressed to Atari civil and constructive; the latest round of nasty attacks certainly won't accomplish anything, except make the folks at Atari turn a deaf ear (notice we haven't heard much from Allan Pratt, Landon Dyer, or Neil Harris lately, and I don't think Alex Leavens has posted at all). A recent post (sorry I forget the author) tried to put things in perspective, please go back and reread it. I too consider myself a satisfied customer. The ST is still an excellent value for the money. Probably some of the recent dissatisfaction is caused by the perception that Atari is standing still while other computer manufacturers are not (Amiga has dropped in price and has a new version of the OS, PC clones keep getting cheaper). But let's wait a while yet before passing judgement. Since Atari hasn't been saying much lately on Usenet, I'll mention some information I have heard that I believe to be true: the new ROMs required by the blitter chip will contain both existing (software) blit code (for compatibility) and new hardware blit code. In order to achieve this, the AES code in ROM is being hand-optimized to reduce its size and make room (presumably the file selector underscore bug will get fixed along the way). Therefore blitter upgrades with the new ROMs ought to be possible for existing STs. Also, there is an ongoing effort to rewrite GEMDOS, with some parts in assembler, to fix a number of problems. When and in what form such efforts might come to fruition is anyone's guess (hopefully at least some of it in the new ROMs that will come with the blitter chip). Disclaimer: don't stake your life on the above, I probably don't know what I'm talking about... It's up to us to encourage Atari, to point out that in the long term (and maybe not so long term) they cannot afford to stand still or be perceived as standing still. Although the complaints voiced here may not represent the concerns of Joe Average potential computer buyer, a growing discontent among the type of user that the posters in this newsgroup represent could have a disproportionate negative influence. However, shouting won't accomplish anything... -- ------------------------------------ UUCP: ... !seismo!mnetor!lsuc!maccs!gordan (note ..dAn or mail may bounce) BITNET: GP@TANDEM ^ <---' Gordan Palameta
grunau_b@husc4.UUCP (02/28/87)
In article <448@maccs.UUCP> gordan@maccs.UUCP (Gordan Palameta) writes: >In article <2425@sunybcs.UUCP> leo@gort.UUCP (Leo Wilson) writes: ... [he quotes a particularly virulent recent article] ... >Come on folks, let's not get carried away. Please make an effort to keep >comments addressed to Atari civil and constructive; the latest round of >nasty attacks certainly won't accomplish anything, except make the folks >at Atari turn a deaf ear (notice we haven't heard much from Allan Pratt, >Landon Dyer, or Neil Harris lately, and I don't think Alex Leavens has >posted at all). ... >Probably some of the recent dissatisfaction is caused by the perception that >Atari is standing still while other computer manufacturers are not (Amiga >has dropped in price and has a new version of the OS, PC clones keep getting >cheaper). But let's wait a while yet before passing judgement. ... >It's up to us to encourage Atari, to point out that in the long term (and >maybe not so long term) they cannot afford to stand still or be perceived >as standing still. Although the complaints voiced here may not represent >the concerns of Joe Average potential computer buyer, a growing discontent >among the type of user that the posters in this newsgroup represent could >have a disproportionate negative influence. > >However, shouting won't accomplish anything... >-- I'm sorry, but I disagree. I think there are times when shouting is the ONLY thing that will accomplish something. I also, and this is why I consider it important enough to respond to your article, think that you have not caught onto the actual thread of the discus- sion, here. I don't think people are really angry because Atari is not doing a good enough job of competing against Commodore/Amiga (or Apple, or whoever). You can't really blame anybody for being out-produced by someone else! Rather, the reason people are shouting, and in my opinion SHOULD be shouting, is certain attitudes that we have been getting from the people at Atari -- the kinds of attitudes summed up by Mr. Tramiel's remarks concerning Ferrari's. It is not even so much that anybody expects a wonderful upgrade policy that will cost next to nothing. I think we all realized the closed-box STs were of limited upgradability, just as for instance the closed Macs will never be upgradable to either of the two new Macs. It is more just the attitude of arrogance -- in particular, the "feigned naivete" represented by Tramiel's remark: "oh, I'm _surprised_ you would expect something like an upgrade". Right. No, I think Atari is handling their PR very poorly at the moment, and indeed the recent silence of Neil Harris et al. is just a part of it (compare the constant involvement of Commodore technical help in comp.sys.amiga). If they do not do some damage control SOON, they are going to lose a lot of very valuable recommendations from past customers. JJMG grunau@husc4.UUCP or --- !seismo----- \ --- !rutgers----- !husc6!husc4!grunau / --- !decvax!ihnp4 or BITNET hostname is "harvsc4"; ARPA address is grunau@husc4.harvard.edu.
tech@usceast.UUCP (03/01/87)
In article <1315@husc6.UUCP> grunau_b@husc4.UUCP (Justin J. M. Grunau) writes: >>In article <2425@sunybcs.UUCP> leo@gort.UUCP (Leo Wilson) writes: >... [he quotes a particularly virulent recent article] ... >>Come on folks, let's not get carried away. Please make an effort to keep >>However, shouting won't accomplish anything... >Rather, the reason people are shouting, and in my opinion SHOULD be shouting, >is certain attitudes that we have been getting from the people at Atari -- the >kinds of attitudes summed up by Mr. Tramiel's remarks concerning Ferrari's. > >Right. No, I think Atari is handling their PR very poorly at the moment, and >indeed the recent silence of Neil Harris et al. is just a part of it (compare >the constant involvement of Commodore technical help in comp.sys.amiga). If >they do not do some damage control SOON, they are going to lose a lot of very >valuable recommendations from past customers. > The MAILER made me do this.... While I kind of agree with the sentiments stated above. I.E. Being positive in a bad situation and yelling if that doesn't work. Perhaps we are mad at the wrong people. The situation seems to be that ATARI went looking for an operating system for the ST a while back. They needed one of course and anyone who has programed more that a day has to know just how difficult it is to write a GOOD operating system. So who has a GOOD windowing operating system for ANY hardware? Well let's see... SUN, APOLLO, ATT, APPLE (insert your favorite here). The point is there aren't any GOOD AVAILABLE systems. Well of course, DRI had an engineer that was working on a MS-DOS clone and they have GEM. At this point I have to say that personally... I am MAD AS HELL AT DIGITAL RESEARCH!!! Every problem I have seen with the ST can be traced directly back to good ol' DRI and their buggy operating system. Why did they bother with non preemptive multi tasking? Where was their head when they built the memory allocator? Don't they know how to say 'Hard DISK' 40 folders?!? You mean someone might want to have more than 40 folders? They must have had a bunch of virgins working for them. Can you believe it? They didn't even understand priority levels as evedenced by the fact that they move the SYSTEM stack with some of the GEMDOS calls. The upshot of all of this seems to me to be that DRI sold ATARI a bill of goods and now won't stand behind it. I can't help but feel for the Atari folks, this situation, in my opinion at least, is not really their doing. For example, the 40 folder limit wasn't apparent to ATARI until AFTER they released the hard disk. I have watched this new group since the beginning and believe this to be accurate. When they noticed there was a problem, they were pretty up front about it. It is to their credit that they didn't hide it. It is a pretty good bet that whatever ATARI paid DRI for GEMDOG, they didn't get their money's worth. And the problem is compounded since DRI and ATARI don't seem to work together on this one. The problem is GEMDOS is now a standard, the WORST thing that could happen is to have a second release that has different bugs in it. Other than the operating system, what's to support? Two and Four meg upgrades are readily available. It reminds me of the old Hot Rod addage 'Speed costs Money...How much Speed do you want?'. They have just introduced several new machienes, these we all know to be mostly cosmetic in nature and are certainly something we can duplicate when the memory prices drop. You want a 68020 you say? No problem, except that the STUPID DRI OPERATING SYSTEM won't let you install it. The supervisor stack frames are different you know. Personally, I think that ATARI is doing a pretty good job even if the bosses son is a bit of a twit. He certainly should think before he speaks to reporters. I tend to think that the current success of ATARI has gone to his head a little bit. But why blame his actions on Neil and the rest of the folks at ATARI? They didn't have anything to do with it except to have to waste time dealing with this rather flip remark, which is sure to be a waste of there time. By the way Neil, if you are reading this, I sure hope that you guys will remember us when you get around to designing you 32-bit system. I would very much rather give you guys $1500.00 or so for a box that will work with my Supra drive on the DMA port than have to sell my system and do the dreaded market search for a 32-bit system. So here is my vote for a box that can use the ST as a fast terminal instead or possibly in addition to the 1024 squared system I am sure you guys are desinging. You might also consider posting a list of known bugs and work arounds periodically. Also, judging from the number of books that are becoming available on GemDos, it might be best to get yours on the market pretty soon or you will miss the window. Well...Feel free to flame if this doesn't suit you. I have thick skin and can take a joke. What SHALL we talk about? This situation was best summed up in a conversation I had with David Beckmeyer. I asked him why memory seemed to be fragmented so badly when I was using the MTC-Shell. His reply...The problem is maintaining compatibality with the BUGS in the DRI operating system.... Bill Wood (!usceast!tech)
turner@imagen.UUCP (03/04/87)
in article <2337@usceast.UUCP>, tech@usceast.UUCP (Bill Wood) says: +--------------------------------------------------------- + + In article <1315@husc6.UUCP> grunau_b@husc4.UUCP (Justin J. M. Grunau) writes: +++In article <2425@sunybcs.UUCP> leo@gort.UUCP (Leo Wilson) writes: ++... [he quotes a particularly virulent recent article] ... + Well of course, DRI had an engineer that was working on a MS-DOS + clone and they have GEM. At this point I have to say that personally... + I am MAD AS HELL AT DIGITAL RESEARCH!!! Every problem I have seen with + the ST can be traced directly back to good ol' DRI and their buggy + operating system. Why did they bother with non preemptive multi tasking? + Where was their head when they built the memory allocator? Don't they + know how to say 'Hard DISK' 40 folders?!? You mean someone might want to + have more than 40 folders? They must have had a bunch of virgins working + for them. Can you believe it? They didn't even understand priority + levels as evedenced by the fact that they move the SYSTEM stack with + some of the GEMDOS calls. + Bill Wood (!usceast!tech) +--------------------------------------------------------- bless you for stating the truth, after atari got the code from DRI they spent many hours rewriting the code just to get it to 'work' as well as it does today. DRI is one of the more brain-damaged OS companies that i know of. It's true that TOS was put together by DRI in a hurry but that is still no excuse for the poor design work underlying it. Almost all (if not all) of the problems that we have with TOS are directly tracable back to them, I too am in favor of burying TOS and trying again with the EST (MINIX, SVR2 ??? anything but TOS) -- --------------- C'est la vie, C'est la guerre, C'est la pomme de terre Mail: Imagen Corp. 2650 San Tomas Expressway Santa Clara, CA 95052-8101 UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!imagen!turner AT&T: (408) 986-9400
neil@atari.UUCP (03/04/87)
In article <2337@usceast.UUCP>, tech@usceast.UUCP (Bill Wood) writes: > While I kind of agree with the sentiments stated above. I.E. Being > positive in a bad situation and yelling if that doesn't work. Perhaps we > are mad at the wrong people. > > I am MAD AS HELL AT DIGITAL RESEARCH!!! While I cannot, in my official capacity here, cast aspersions on Digital Research, there are certainly those who echo Bill Wood's sentiments. The bottom line is, GEM was there when we needed it. The alternative, Windows, would have probably taken an extra year, a year we could not afford. We've been working hard at going through the code and making it work as best we can, especially in the case of problems (like the 40 folder limit) that turn up as we go along. All in all, a most interesting set of observations, Bill. > By the way Neil, if you are reading this, I sure hope that you > guys will remember us when you get around to designing you 32-bit > system. I would very much rather give you guys $1500.00 or so for a box > that will work with my Supra drive on the DMA port than have to sell my > system and do the dreaded market search for a 32-bit system. So here is > my vote for a box that can use the ST as a fast terminal instead or > possibly in addition to the 1024 squared system I am sure you guys are > designing. As a matter of fact, the system you describe is almost exactly what we're working on. In the works is a 68020-based system which has none of its own I/O except for a pair of DMA ports. It will plug into the back of a current ST computer and act as a high-powered number cruncher. The 68881 and Motorola MMU will also be part of the hardware, with UNIX system V or some close relation being the software part. The ST acts as a "genius terminal". -- --->Neil Harris @ Atari...{hoptoad, lll-lcc, pyramid, imagen, sun}!atari!neil BIX: neilharris / CIS: 70007,1135 / Delphi: NEILHARRIS / GENIE: NHARRIS WELL: neil / Atari Corp. BBS 408-745-5308 / Usually the OFFICIAL Atari opinion
leavens@atari.UUCP (03/05/87)
>I hope the 32 bit box will plug in the back of my ST...
Yep, that's how it's going to be. The ST is going to be a superfast,
smart terminal to the 68020 box.
--alex @ Atari
BIX: alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS ATariCorp: 408-745-2006braner@batcomputer.UUCP (03/05/87)
[] Like Bill Wood, I would also like to see a cheap add-on box that will give the ST 68020/68881 power (ala Mac II...). (Perhaps an add-on card for the MegaST is a more reasonable expectation.) For my purposes (scientific computing: simulations, statistics) I need SPEED, including fast floating point. But I have no strong need for multi-tasking nor for super hi-res graphics. I have been waiting YEARS for a good, basic, affordable PERSONAL number crunching machine based on the 680XX family. The Mac II comes closer, but is soooo overpriced. Here is your window of opportunity, Atari! - Moshe Braner
cabbie@chinet.UUCP (Richard Andrews) (03/06/87)
In article <579@atari.UUCP> neil@atari.UUCP (Neil Harris) writes: >In article <2337@usceast.UUCP>, tech@usceast.UUCP (Bill Wood) writes: >> I am MAD AS HELL AT DIGITAL RESEARCH!!! >While I cannot, in my official capacity here, cast aspersions on Digital >Research, there are certainly those who echo Bill Wood's sentiments. The >bottom line is, GEM was there when we needed it. The alternative, Windows, >would have probably taken an extra year, a year we could not afford. I tend to agree that DRI GEM is not what it is all seems to be, at least it is a semi workable OS albeit brain-damaged. >We've been working hard at going through the code and making it work as best >we can, especially in the case of problems (like the 40 folder limit) that >turn up as we go along. I for one can see the effort put forth by the staff at Atari to fix the bugs in the current OS. >All in all, a most interesting set of observations, Bill. > >> By the way Neil, if you are reading this, I sure hope that you >> guys will remember us when you get around to designing you 32-bit >> system. I would very much rather give you guys $1500.00 or so for a box (remainder of paragraph deleted) >As a matter of fact, the system you describe is almost exactly what we're >working on. In the works is a 68020-based system which has none of its own >I/O except for a pair of DMA ports. It will plug into the back of a current >ST computer and act as a high-powered number cruncher. The 68881 and >Motorola MMU will also be part of the hardware, with UNIX system V or some >close relation being the software part. The ST acts as a "genius terminal". That is the very thing that I am looking for Neil. I have seen a lot of veteran users around chicago 'throwing away' the GEM interface at almost every occasion and reverting to a UNIX like environment. The guys (and gals) seem to be using Micro-c-shell or similar for most work. The generic users are still using GEM but the hobby programmers are using a Command line interface. One comment on UNIX system V or "some close relation". Make it TRUE Unix system 5.X! And throw away the MSDOS compatability for file structure, diskette usage, etc. True it might be a nightmare to write a manual for the new user describing the system, but this new sytem that you describe is not for the new user anyway. I had some serious second thoughts about the ST series and the future, but with what you are telling us I will hang in there. I personally want a system that has UNIX system 5.X, capabilities for 2-6 serial ports and can support any size or number of drives. Of course the system will come with all 'c' tools for programming and some type of 'vi' editor. Now for the good part. Sell the critter for $1200-$2200! If all of these requirements are met let me know what the final cost is with shipping and I will transfer the funds now! If you are taking orders put me down for one (maybe two). -- --->Neil Harris @ Atari...{hoptoad, lll-lcc, pyramid, imagen, sun}!atari!neil -- ******************************************************************************* Any opinions expressed above are my own. Rich Andrews They can be yours too. Please send $19.95 to.....ihnp4!chinet!cabbie *******************************************************************************
neil@atari.UUCP (Neil Harris) (03/06/87)
In article <334@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, braner@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (braner) writes: > Like Bill Wood, I would also like to see a cheap add-on box that will > give the ST 68020/68881 power (ala Mac II...). We are working on just that, an external add-on box for any ST computer, containing the 68020, 68881, Motorola MMU (I must have a mental block on the part number), and probably running UNIX. No scheduled price or availability yet. By the way, I noticed lots of Cornellians on the net here. Hoping that you folks will turn out for the upcoming Atari Fair in Buffalo. Atari has lots of roots Far Above Cayuga's Waters, in the persons of our VP Marketing and yours truly. -- --->Neil Harris @ Atari...{hoptoad, lll-lcc, pyramid, imagen, sun}!atari!neil BIX: neilharris / CIS: 70007,1135 / Delphi: NEILHARRIS / GENIE: NHARRIS WELL: neil / Atari Corp. BBS 408-745-5308 / Usually the OFFICIAL Atari opinion
leavens@atari.UUCP (Alex Leavens) (03/06/87)
> Like Bill Wood, I would also like to see a cheap add-on box that will > give the ST 68020/68881 power (ala Mac II...). Those are almost exactly the specs for our upcoming 68020 box which will plug into the back of the DMA port on existing ST's, and use the ST as a superfast smart terminal. (The 68020 box looks like sometime in 88). --alex @ Atari BIX: alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS AtariCorp: 408-745-2006
leavens@atari.UUCP (Alex Leavens) (03/09/87)
in article <1138@chinet.UUCP>, cabbie@chinet.UUCP (Richard Andrews) says: > > I personally want a system that has UNIX system 5.X, capabilities for > 2-6 serial ports and can support any size or number of drives. Of > course the system will come with all 'c' tools for programming and some > type of 'vi' editor. Now for the good part. Sell the critter for > $1200-$2200! At this point it's still too early to tell exaactly what will come with the box. Rest assured, though, that we will do our best to get you the system you want at a price you like... Remember: Power Without The Price! <grin> --alex @ Atari BIX: alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS AtariCorp: 408-745-2006
K538915@CZHRZU1A.BITNET.UUCP (03/11/87)
[Alex Leavens claims it will take a week to change the US Roms to
the different european ones]
Alex you are joking, aren't you? (Last time the german ROM's had nearly
half a year delay)
Simon
K538915@CZHRZU1A.BITNETdyer@atari.UUCP (03/11/87)
> [Alex Leavens claims it will take a week to change the US Roms to > the different european ones] > Alex you are joking, aren't you? (Last time the german ROM's had nearly > half a year delay) It takes Mike Schmal, ROM Guru (AKA the Human Make), a single day to make ALL sets of ROMs. But there is an initial delay for doing language translations. (For instance, a set of Swahili ROMs would probably take a couple months, since no one here speaks it well, and the people who *do* speak it well don't necessarily have ST experience). Another problem was that the text for the German ROMs is significantly larger than the text for the US ROMs. The 11/20 release of the US ROMs had exactly 14 bytes left for expansion, so some code had to be crunched to make German TOS fit. -- -Landon Dyer, Atari Corp. {sun,lll-lcc,imagen}!atari!dyer The views expressed here do not not necessarily reflect those of Atari Corp. Segments are for worms.
leavens@atari.UUCP (03/11/87)
> [Alex Leavens claims it will take a week to change the US Roms to > the different european ones] > Alex you are joking, aren't you? (Last time the german ROM's had nearly > half a year delay) Well, I dunno, since I wasn't here at the time. But I spoke with the guy who does the translations, and he said that it takes roughly 48 hours to crank out the foreign language versions of the ROMS once the domestic version is finalized. There may be some manufacturing delay, or some other kind of holdup, but it isn't in the actual translation... --alex @ Atari BIX:alexl. GEnie: ALEXLEAVENS AtariCorp: 408-745-2006 "How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all."