papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (09/30/88)
In article <2001@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> @aplvax.jhuapl.edu:trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) writes: >In article <7226@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >>In article <7239@gryphon.CTS.COM> mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes: >>>...Think about all those A500 owners (much >>>more than there were A1000 owners) who will need to go to the trouble >>>of a ROM change for the upgrade to 1.3. You're fooling yourself if >>>you think its gonna happen overnite. >>>... >> As you know, 1.3 KickStart is functionally identical to 1.2 >>KickStart, with the exception of the autoboot code. 1.3 is primarily a >>WorkBench distribution, so it's as simple as copying a disk, or buying the >>enhancer package. > Bad example. No ROM changes were needed to upgrade from 1.1 to 1.2. > Whereas it was possible to have one person in a group "take orders" > and get a bunch of 1.2 upgrade packages, I doubt that such will be > possible for A500 owners upgrading to 1.3 (assuming that the owner > needs to bring the machine into the store to protect the warranty). Why don't you shut up, if you don't know what you are talking about? There are NO ROM changes required to upgrade from 1.2 to 1.3. You don't need to bring your A5000 (or B2000) to the store to upgrade to 1.3. You will need to bring in your machine to the store, ONLY IF you want to be able to use one of the new autoboot devices (mostly hard disk controllers) that are now hitting the market. Most of these devices have plugs that allow you to turn off autoboot, if you decide that that is what you want. I have been running 1.3 since the first betas and I haven't upgraded to the 1.2.1 ROM (though I got one for free from CBM at DevCon). Every program that I have that was working with 1.2, works just fine with 1.3 (actually much beter with Fast File System). Again, note that to use 1.3 FFS you DO NOT need any ROM upgrade. >> Enlighten me: How does Apple upgrade its Mac OS? > > With callous disregard for its customer base. However, they seem to > be a little better at maintaining backwards compatability. Not so. How many Mac programs still break or misbehave with Multifinder TODAY? Call that backward compatibility. So far I found NO compatibility problems between 1.2 and 1.3 in all the programs I use (mostly development tools). -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) (10/02/88)
On 9/30/88 papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: [Marco flaming Tony who is flaming Leo who was flaming me, got that? ;-] >Why don't you shut up, if you don't know what you are talking about? There >are NO ROM changes required to upgrade from 1.2 to 1.3. You don't need to >bring your A5000 (or B2000) to the store to upgrade to 1.3. Look, it's MY mistake that I mentioned 1.3 needs a ROM change. This stems from lack of information about what version does what. Apparently 1.3 is not the version that is going to introduce major functions that are not compatible with earlier versions. I think this would be called 1.4, instead. That may be the one to be scared of, who knows. As an example, I understand that there is going to be overscan support in 1.4 (or whatever it's gonna eventually be called.) What's going to happen when a program wants an overscan screen using this new function when running on 1.2. It's not going to get it. I'm sorry, but a message like "SuperProgram V1.0 needs 1.4 in order to run - Sorry, you're S.O.L.)" just is not going to cut it with me. I've seen enough of this on the Mac, why must it happen here? People already can create overscan displays. Makes no sense to me. -Mark- UUCP: ...!crash!gryphon!pnet02!mriley BIX: mriley LAT: 34.25 N INET: mriley@pnet02.cts.com PLINK: SONIX LONG: 118.78 W "Hey, I don't _use_ programs, I write them..." ;-)
jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM (J. Dow) (10/02/88)
In article <12465@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >In article <2001@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> @aplvax.jhuapl.edu:trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) writes: >>In article <7226@well.UUCP> ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) writes: >>>In article <7239@gryphon.CTS.COM> mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes: >>>>...Think about all those A500 owners (much >>>>more than there were A1000 owners) who will need to go to the trouble >>>>of a ROM change for the upgrade to 1.3. You're fooling yourself if >>>>you think its gonna happen overnite. >>>>... >>> As you know, 1.3 KickStart is functionally identical to 1.2 >>>KickStart, with the exception of the autoboot code. 1.3 is primarily a >>>WorkBench distribution, so it's as simple as copying a disk, or buying the >>>enhancer package. >> Bad example. No ROM changes were needed to upgrade from 1.1 to 1.2. >> Whereas it was possible to have one person in a group "take orders" >> and get a bunch of 1.2 upgrade packages, I doubt that such will be >> possible for A500 owners upgrading to 1.3 (assuming that the owner >> needs to bring the machine into the store to protect the warranty). > >Why don't you shut up, if you don't know what you are talking about? There >are NO ROM changes required to upgrade from 1.2 to 1.3. You don't need to Er, would you run a little ckeck for me and tell me what SetPatch does to a 1.2 ROM machine? *IFF* it works then the only reason to ugrade the ROM is to get autoboot. If it dies you really DO want to upgrade. 1.3 running with SetPatch is significantly more reliable than 1.2 at its best. >-- Marco Papa 'Doc' >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu > "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -- Sometimes a bird in the hand leaves a sticky deposit. Perhaps it were best it remain there in the bush with the other one. {@_@} jdow@bix (where else?) Sometimes the dragon wins. Sometimes jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM the knight. Does the fair maiden ever {backbone}!gryphon!jdow win? Surely both the knight and dragon stink. Maybe the maiden should suicide? Better yet - she should get an Amiga and quit playing with dragons and knights.
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (10/02/88)
In article <7441@gryphon.CTS.COM> jdow@gryphon.CTS.COM (J. Dow) writes: I (Marco Papa) wrote: >>Why don't you shut up, if you don't know what you are talking about? There >>are NO ROM changes required to upgrade from 1.2 to 1.3. You don't need to > >Er, would you run a little ckeck for me and tell me what SetPatch does to a >1.2 ROM machine? *IFF* it works then the only reason to ugrade the ROM is to >get autoboot. If it dies you really DO want to upgrade. 1.3 running with >SetPatch is significantly more reliable than 1.2 at its best. Sorry, but SetPatch is not a ROM upgrade, it is a software upgrade (call if RAM upgrade). You don't need 1.3 ROMs to run SetPatch. I have 1.2 ROMs and have been running SetPatch since it was available (actually since it was called SetAlert). I haven't seen the SetPatch code, so I don't know if it is dependent on 1.3 software or not. The initial setAlert released on the nets (the one that fixed the recoverable guru on B2000s) did work just fine on 1.2 software. Anybody from CA wants to comment? I concur with the comment that 1.3 software (which includeds SetPatch) is much more reliable than the 1.2 software, so it is worth the expense fro the "1.3 Enhancer". T make it clear again, to run SetPatch you don't need 1.3 ROMS. To run FFS you don't need 1.3 ROMs. To use an autoboot device, you NEED 1.3 ROMs. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
tope@enea.se (Tommy Petersson) (10/03/88)
In article <12506@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes:
.lots deleted
:T make it clear again, to run SetPatch you don't need 1.3 ROMS. To run
:FFS you don't need 1.3 ROMs. To use an autoboot device, you NEED 1.3 ROMs.
Do You have to have 1.3 ROM's to be able to auto-boot from the
recoverable RAM-disk in 1.3 ?jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (10/04/88)
In article <7431@gryphon.CTS.COM> mriley@pnet02.cts.com (Mark Riley) writes:
)
)Look, it's MY mistake that I mentioned 1.3 needs a ROM change. This
)stems from lack of information about what version does what. Apparently
)1.3 is not the version that is going to introduce major functions
)that are not compatible with earlier versions. I think this would
)be called 1.4, instead. That may be the one to be scared of, who
)knows.
V1.4 has major enhancements in kickstart/rom. Don't be scared, we're
your friends.
)As an example, I understand that there is going to be overscan support
)in 1.4 (or whatever it's gonna eventually be called.) What's going to
)happen when a program wants an overscan screen using this new function
)when running on 1.2.
Good example.
)It's not going to get it. I'm sorry, but a
)message like "SuperProgram V1.0 needs 1.4 in order to run - Sorry,
)you're S.O.L.)" just is not going to cut it with me.
No need. It can say "this program needs V1.4 to do overscan." People
in tune with the overscan issue know that what V1.4 will really bring
to the party in overscan includes:
1) Access to user-preferred overscan dimensions.
2) Mouse ranging over entire overscanned screen without performing
illegal poking of internal data structures.
The program can use interim solutions if it finds V1.4 unavailable.
Typically, a new feature is simple enough to use that the only minimal
code is required to conditionally take advantage of the new feature.
One does this by opening the V1.2 library, then checking its version to
see if it is in fact V1.4. You can set a global for later testing or
even even modify some indirect function vectors to adapt to the
current release.
A good example in V1.2 is auto-activating string gadgets. Numerous programs
would activate the gadgets for you if V1.2 was around, and note in the
manual that you'd have to click in them if you hadn't upgraded. I like
this: it makes the customer aware of advantages in upgrading.
)I've seen enough of this on the Mac, why must it happen here?
Because upgrading system code is sort of universal.
)People already can create overscan displays. Makes no sense to me.
There are advantages gained in the overscan support for V1.4.
Interim hacks collide with each other, and they might blow the f*ck up on
V1.4, since they creatively poke all sorts of data clearly marked private.
(I hope we don't read that people poking system-private data is ANOTHER
reason we should never upgrade the OS!)
Now overscan is SUPPORTED. If you program it in accordance with V1.4,
you can count on it working in V1.5, and beyond.
Maybe you are prepared to look six months down the road, maybe you
have to do so, but clearly it's stupid for us. Just extend the time
frames: two years from now, everyone will be writing programs for V1.4,
no problem.
In the meantime, you can easily write programs which SELECTIVELY take
advantage of new features in V1.4, and make the big leap to requiring it
at such a time as your market research indicates that it is wise.
Your philosophy would have lead us to not having auto-activating string
gadgets at all, wouldn't it?
As you have often pointed out in other public forums, there are special
requirements to doing system software. I claim one of them is appreciating
long-range benefits of progress.
)-Mark-
jimm
--
Jim Mackraz, I and I Computing
amiga!jimm BIX:jmackraz
Opinions are my own. Comments regarding the Amiga operating system, and
all others, are not to be taken as Commodore official policy.bhh@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Barry Hales) (10/05/88)
In article <12506@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >T make it clear again, to run SetPatch you don't need 1.3 ROMS. To run >FFS you don't need 1.3 ROMs. To use an autoboot device, you NEED 1.3 ROMs. > >-- Marco Papa 'Doc' There is only one point I am confused on. Do you need the 1.3 ROMS to boot a FFS Workbench disk? Or is this considered an autoboot device. I am getting a hard disk, so I will want the ability to boot from it. To do that I understand I need the 1.3 ROMS. But will I need the ROMS to boot a FFS disk in DF0:? Sorry if this is a repeat, but I have never heard this question answered on the net. Many thanks! Barry Hales -- ============================================================================ Barry Hales | Disclaimer: Its my fault, so don't blame bhh@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu | the University..... ============================================================================
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (10/05/88)
In article <2218@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu| bhh@ncsuvx.ncsu.ed (Barry Hales) writes: |In article <12506@oberon.USC.EDU| papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: ||T make it clear again, to run SetPatch you don't need 1.3 ROMS. To run ||FFS you don't need 1.3 ROMs. To use an autoboot device, you NEED 1.3 ROMs. | |There is only one point I am confused on. Do you need the 1.3 ROMS to boot |a FFS Workbench disk? Or is this considered an autoboot device. I am |getting a hard disk, so I will want the ability to boot from it. To do that |I understand I need the 1.3 ROMS. But will I need the ROMS to boot a FFS |disk in DF0:? Sorry if this is a repeat, but I have never heard this |question answered on the net. FFS has nothing to do with autoboot. FFS is not supported on floppy disks. The first partition of your hard disk (dh0:) cannot be FFS. Given that, I think you can't boot a FFS floppy disk (but why not give it a try?). -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (10/06/88)
For the nth time, and a litany that will be repeated many, many times :
1.3 Does not support FFS on floppy disks, nor does it support
FFS on the *partition* that is autobooted.
That is why many autobooting hard disks will have a small OFS partition
that boots automatically, and this mounts and transfers assignments to
an FFS partition. So there you have it, the 1.3 ROMS don't buy you that
much. A note to game writers who go right to the metal, the entry points
into the routines in the ROMS *have* changed position, so if you jump
into the ROM at some point, or read a value from it, you program will
*NOT* run under 1.3. The game "Crazy Cars" does this and it is incredibly
ill-concieved on their part. So the moral of the story is, even if you
don't give a damn about the OS, at least use it long enough to tell you
where the entry points you need are and then ignore it.
I see 1.3 as more of a statement by Commodore that they *Will* change the
ROMs than I do as an improvement to Kickstart. Now 1.3 Workbench is a
definite improvement, and one that I look forward to being available.
--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.dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (10/06/88)
Marco Papa 'Doc' writes: >>FFS you don't need 1.3 ROMs. To use an autoboot device, you NEED 1.3 ROMs. >> Barry Hales writes: >There is only one point I am confused on. Do you need the 1.3 ROMS to boot >a FFS Workbench disk? Or is this considered an autoboot device. I am >getting a hard disk, so I will want the ability to boot from it. To do that >I understand I need the 1.3 ROMS. But will I need the ROMS to boot a FFS >disk in DF0:? Sorry if this is a repeat, but I have never heard this >question answered on the net. The changes to the 1.3 ROMS only add autoboot support. Since the FastFileSystem is not in rom, the system only has access to the old filesystem, and thus even though autoboot was added in 1.3 you still need to boot from the old filesystem. The FastFileSystem will be placed in ROM for 1.4 But this is not a problem.. simply make the very first partition on the hard disk (like, maybe 3 or 4 cyls) under the old filesystem, and but the other N partitions under the FastFileSystem. I myself boot from floppy under the OldFileSystem (i.e. normal boot) and it mounts all my HD partitions under the FastFileSystem. I don't mind so much booting from floppy because I just leave it in 100% of the time... I haven't used my floppies for much after I got my HD. Needless to say, you cannot cold-boot under the FFS with 1.3 for floppies either. Frankly, *nobody* should use the FFS for floppies until it's supported officially (i.e., they use that nice 16 byte tag field for a checksum). Currently, using the FFS on floppies is dangerous because disk errors that would have otherwised been caught might be missed due to the lack of a checksum in data blocks. And while some high school hackers amoung us might not care all that much, it isn't a smart thing to do in general. -Matt
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (10/08/88)
In article <3973@enea.se> tope@enea.se (Tommy Petersson) writes: >In article <12506@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >.lots deleted >:T make it clear again, to run SetPatch you don't need 1.3 ROMS. To run >:FFS you don't need 1.3 ROMs. To use an autoboot device, you NEED 1.3 ROMs. > >Do You have to have 1.3 ROM's to be able to auto-boot from the >recoverable RAM-disk in 1.3 ? Yes and no :-) If you have an A2000 or A500, yes you need 1.3 ROMS to reboot from the recoverable RAM disk. If you have an A1000 you can use the Kickstart disk that will come with the "1.3 Enhancer" and autoboot from the RAM disk (after a crash, for example). -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
mlelstv@faui44.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Michael van Elst ) (10/10/88)
In article <2218@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> bhh@ncsuvx.ncsu.ed (Barry Hales) writes: >There is only one point I am confused on. Do you need the 1.3 ROMS to boot >a FFS Workbench disk? Or is this considered an autoboot device. I am >getting a hard disk, so I will want the ability to boot from it. To do that >I understand I need the 1.3 ROMS. But will I need the ROMS to boot a FFS >disk in DF0:? Sorry if this is a repeat, but I have never heard this >question answered on the net. That are two different things. Autobooting is a matter of Kickstart. FFS is a matter of FastFileSystem-Handler on the Workbench-disk. So: YOU CANNOT BOOT FROM AN FFS DISK. You have to load the handler before. Besides that, FFS cannot work with floppies. It does not know what to do, if you swap disks. Commodore people say that both points will be supported in Kickstart 1.4. Then the FFS-Handler is in your kickstart, so you can use the autoboot with FFS. Then the FFS-Handler knows about diskchanges, so it can be used with floppies. Then the FFS-Handler is (somehow) unified with old DOS, so you may change disks with different file systems. Michael van Elst E-mail: UUCP: ...uunet!unido!fauern!faui44!mlelstv
mlelstv@faui44.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Michael van Elst ) (10/10/88)
In article <8810052225.AA04169@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: >... Frankly, *nobody* should use the FFS for floppies until >it's supported officially (i.e., they use that nice 16 byte tag field for >a checksum). Currently, using the FFS on floppies is dangerous because >disk errors that would have otherwised been caught might be missed due to the >lack of a checksum in data blocks. This is not completly true. Disks have checksums for their data blocks besides the DOS-checksums. This errorchecking is not very well but it is there, and I did not find any error on my disks that was not caught be this (low-level) checksum. For a complete (but very brief) description of the disk format, you may consult the RKM:Exec. I agree with you that FFS should not be used for floppies. Just because it is rather complicated. BTW, I have tried FFS on disks. There is speedup (50 percent average) in directory scanning and no speedup in data transfer (actually 2-3 percent). The filesystem is NOT a bottleneck on floppies because of the smaller date transfer rate. (about 20 kbytes/sec on trackdisk reads) And if you have 880k on your disk you won't insist on 10 percent larger capacity. Michael van Elst E-mail: UUCP: ...uunet!unido!fauern!faui44!mlelstv