frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) (01/23/91)
Hello.
A while back I purchased an A3000. I'm beginning
to get the feeling that I'm the only A3000 owner who didn't
previously own an A500/1000/2000. Anyway, I'm curious as to
1) are there Rom Kernel Reference manuals available for 2.0
or 2.1 or 2.anything or 2) is there a significant difference
between 1.3 and 2.0 (would I be wasting my money getting
1.3 RKM's)? Thanks for any and all repsonses.
--
Greg Frazier frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU !{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazierskank@iastate.edu (Skank George L) (01/23/91)
In article <1991Jan23.034026.27876@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes: >Hello. > A while back I purchased an A3000. I'm beginning >to get the feeling that I'm the only A3000 owner who didn't >previously own an A500/1000/2000. Anyway, I'm curious as to >1) are there Rom Kernel Reference manuals available for 2.0 >or 2.1 or 2.anything or 2) is there a significant difference >between 1.3 and 2.0 (would I be wasting my money getting >1.3 RKM's)? Thanks for any and all repsonses. I never owned a 1000/500/2000 either before I bought my 3000. ;-) I've been following the machine about five years now though and own copies of some of the 1.3 RKM's. The RMK's for 2.0 are not written yet as 2.0 is not finished yet. The 2.0 operating system is SUBSTANTIALLY upgraded from 1.3 (about 256K larger!), so you would probably be wasting your money with the 1.3 RKM's. Go to your user group and borrow a set of 1.3 RKM's from someone if you want to get your feet wet, the only other way to get information about 2.x internals is to become a certified developer (which costs about $75 I think). --George -- George L. Skank | skank@iastate.edu |Fast cars, fast women, fast computers... Senior, Electrical Engineering |(not necessarily in that order)
ken@cbmvax.commodore.com (Ken Farinsky - CATS) (01/24/91)
In article <1991Jan23.034026.27876@cs.ucla.edu> frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes: >Hello. >1) are there Rom Kernel Reference manuals available for 2.0 >or 2.1 or 2.anything or 2) is there a significant difference >between 1.3 and 2.0 (would I be wasting my money getting >1.3 RKM's)? Thanks for any and all repsonses. >-- >Greg Frazier frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU !{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier The information in the 1.3 RKMs is still valid, but does not include the new 2.0 entry points (if you follow the 1.3 documentation, you will be able to create programs that work under 2.0, but they may not access all the new features). There is no information available on when 2.0 RKMs will be done. -- -- Ken Farinsky - CATS - (215) 431-9421 - Commodore Business Machines uucp: ken@cbmvax.commodore.com or ...{uunet,rutgers}!cbmvax!ken bix: kfarinsky
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (01/24/91)
In article <17987@cbmvax.commodore.com> ken@cbmvax.commodore.com (Ken Farinsky - CATS) writes: >The information in the 1.3 RKMs is still valid, but does not >include the new 2.0 entry points (if you follow the 1.3 documentation, >you will be able to create programs that work under 2.0, but they may >not access all the new features). > >There is no information available on when 2.0 RKMs will be done. I just want to add to ken's statement that I feel that the current 1.3 RKM's (blue) are crucial even if you're doing 2.0 development. I use them often to look up things, and a programmer new to the Amiga must understand the 1.3 system in order to understand 2.0 (which is 1.3 plus a bunch of new stuff). If you want to do 2.0-specific programming, the devcon notes from June 1990 are VERY useful, and perhaps some of the previous volumes. I believe the 2.0 autodocs/includes are available from cats (I'm not certain), I know that the latest SAS releases are based on 2.0 includes. -- Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com BIX: rjesup The compiler runs Like a swift-flowing river I wait in silence. (From "The Zen of Programming") ;-)
bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson) (01/28/91)
In article <10511@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: >In article <17994@cbmvax.commodore.com> jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes: >> I just want to add to ken's statement that I feel that the current >>1.3 RKM's (blue) are crucial even if you're doing 2.0 development. I use them >>often to look up things, and a programmer new to the Amiga must understand >>the 1.3 system in order to understand 2.0 (which is 1.3 plus a bunch of new >>stuff). Indeed! > >True, the 1.3RKM's are written pretty well, but it may come as a major >disappointment to folks creating there own asynchronous DOS functions under >1.3 to discover that 2.0 has a mucho better handle on such things. > >Intuition programmers will be in for an even bigger shock. The way in which >intuition pogramming is done is under considerable (much needed) reconstruction >a simple example: > [ 1.3 & 2.0 example screen opens deleted ... ] > If such differences do not bother you, then buy the 1.3 RKMs. If > you want to know the Amiga operating systems basics, or the exec > you'll want them as well -- but be aware of the differences. I > can't wait to see what the device independent graphics library throws > our way... :) :) The Blue RKMs are, as Randell stated, essential in learning to program the Amiga. Whats more, I suspect that most anyone that is at the level of doing asynchronous DOS functions knows where to get the latest docs (2.0 autodocs). They are available to developers. The fact that the new 2.0 stuff offers some new and better functionality certainly doesn't negate the need for the RKMs. They are *the* source for Amiga programming info. Trying to do this without them would be a mighty chore, indeed. bj >David Navas ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Brian Jackson Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga Inc GEnie: B.J. | | bj@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com or ...{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!bj | | "Kill a small animal, drink a lite beer." | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) (01/28/91)
In article <18161@cbmvax.commodore.com> bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson) writes: >The Blue RKMs are, as Randell stated, essential in learning to program >the Amiga. Whats more, I suspect that most anyone that is at the level >of doing asynchronous DOS functions knows where to get the latest docs >(2.0 autodocs). They are available to developers. Would it scare you to know that I learned asynch I/O without RKM's? :) I became a developer more by "accident" than anything else. Ah, those were the days... :) Perhaps I've mistated or mislead my audience. The RKMs *ARE* essential (well, it's a whole lot easier with 'em) and most of what you'll learn will translate across to 2.0 very well indeed. There are some significant "Zen" differences between 2.0 and 1.3 that you should be aware of, however. I/O and intuition differences come to mind most immediately, though there are others. Personally I'd use the 1.3RKM + 2.0 include dumps approach, and then become a developer... I ran into a book with 2.0DOS stuff explained -- but I didn't look at it, nor did I buy it. Does anyone else have any knowledge? Unfortunately the book store I saw it in was in Marketplace Mall in Roc. NY, about 2500 miles from my current location :( >The fact that the new 2.0 stuff offers some new and better >functionality certainly doesn't negate the need for the RKMs. Right, except that 2.0 embodies more than just functionality increase, there are whole new classes of approaches to some problems -- 1.3 *is* a good stepping stone, but anyone looking for that object-oriented system that BYTE describes is going to faint the first time they use intuition :) >They are >*the* source for Amiga programming info. Trying to do this without >them would be a mighty chore, indeed. Tell us about it... :| [A hint -- the old DOS Bantam Book had about 16 pages devoted to DOS functions. My AutoDoc printout for 2.0's DOS is about 200 pages heavy...] David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu "Excuse my ignorance, but I've been run over by my train of thought." -me [Senior EECS major, programmer for GeoWorks, author of JazzBench] (and Calvin)
bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson) (01/29/91)
In article <10522@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU writes: >Would it scare you to know that I learned asynch I/O without RKM's? :) >I became a developer more by "accident" than anything else. Ah, those were >the days... :) "Scare" isn't really the right word. "Impress", maybe :) > >Perhaps I've mistated or mislead my audience. The RKMs *ARE* essential (well, >it's a whole lot easier with 'em) and most of what you'll learn will translate >across to 2.0 very well indeed. > >There are some significant "Zen" differences between 2.0 and 1.3 that you >should be aware of, however. I/O and intuition differences come to mind most >immediately, though there are others. The old ways still work fine, actually. The new (2.0) ways are better and easier, of course. I think the point that Randell and I are trying to make is that regardless of the fact that there is a new OS coming, the vast majority of valid Amiga programmer "know-how" is still to be found in the existing RKMs. I was just afraid that your message could give the impression that the RKMs had been made obsolete in some way by the impending release of 2.0 and that's not the case at all. >Right, except that 2.0 embodies more than just functionality increase, >there are whole new classes of approaches to some problems -- 1.3 *is* >a good stepping stone, but anyone looking for that object-oriented system >that BYTE describes is going to faint the first time they use intuition :) The BYTE article is about the Operating System (Exec) and it specifically rules out Intuition as part of it's scope. I suspect that Peter is headed in that general direction with Intuition (you'd have to ask him). >David Navas bj ----------------------------------------------------------------------- | Brian Jackson Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga Inc. GEnie: B.J. | | bj@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com or ...{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!bj | | "Seek simplicity, and distrust it." | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
withers@nitmoi.enet.dec.com (George A. Withers) (01/30/91)
While we are on the subject of RKM's let me ask a simple question.
I got a free copy of the Version 1.2 RKM's (white covers). How much
difference is there between these and the Version 1.3 RKM's?
---------------------------------------------------------------
George Withers, Jr. | "There is no life I know to compare
Digital Equipment Corp., 1925 Andover St.| with pure imagination. Living
Tewksbury, MA 01876 AT&T: 508.858.2173 | there you'll be free .. if you
Addr: withers@nitmoi.enet.dec.com | truly wish to be." - W. Wonka
---------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: "Don't look at me! I didn't do it!" (Krusty the Clown)peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) (01/30/91)
In article <19565@shlump.nac.dec.com> withers@nitmoi.enet.dec.com (George A. Withers) writes: > > >While we are on the subject of RKM's let me ask a simple question. >I got a free copy of the Version 1.2 RKM's (white covers). How much >difference is there between these and the Version 1.3 RKM's? There are no 1.2 RKMs. The white covers with the colored stripe are 1.1 RKMs. If they have no colored stripe, they're 1.0 RKMs. There was technical material for 1.2 in the 1.2 Enhancer booklet. The 1.3 RKMs are considerably more advanced. A number of very important functions were added in 1.2 (eg. Intuition gadget list functions) and your code will improve if it uses these. As well, the 1.3 RKMs have example code that is far clearer and more correct. There are also a lot of details on things like how to do legal mutually exclusive gadgets under 1.3. > George Withers, Jr. | "There is no life I know to compare Peter -- Peter Cherna, Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga, Inc. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!peter peter@cbmvax.commodore.com My opinions do not necessarily represent the opinions of my employer. "Oh, PIN-compatible! I thought you wanted me to make it IN-compatible!"
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (01/31/91)
withers@nitmoi.enet.dec.com (George A. Withers) writes: > > >While we are on the subject of RKM's let me ask a simple question. >I got a free copy of the Version 1.2 RKM's (white covers). How much >difference is there between these and the Version 1.3 RKM's? Umm.. they never made a 1.2 RKM. it went from 1.1 to 1.2 without any intervening. There are many differences between 1.1 and 1.3 but they still hold many of the same spiritual guidelines. > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > George Withers, Jr. | "There is no life I know to compare > Digital Equipment Corp., 1925 Andover St.| with pure imagination. Living > Tewksbury, MA 01876 AT&T: 508.858.2173 | there you'll be free .. if you > Addr: withers@nitmoi.enet.dec.com | truly wish to be." - W. Wonka > --------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCLAIMER: "Don't look at me! I didn't do it!" (Krusty the Clown) UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org
danb20@pro-graphics.cts.com (Dan Bachmann, SubOp) (02/02/91)
In-Reply-To: message from chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org
Yes, they did make 1.2 RKM's. In fact michaelf@pro-graphics.cts.com is
selling the 1.2 RKM set (probably to the best offer).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ProLine: danb20@pro-graphics ***************************
UUCP: ...crash!pro-graphics!danb20 * Dan Bachmann *
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics!danb20@nosc.mil * Raritan Valley College *
Internet: danb20@pro-graphics.cts.com ***************************
P-Link: DanB20 <-- I only read PLink once a mo. use Internet
U.S.Mail: 509 StonyBrook Drive, Bridgewater, NJ 08807xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (02/06/91)
peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) writes: > withers@nitmoi.enet.dec.com (George A. Withers) writes: >> While we are on the subject of RKM's let me ask a simple question. And let me add my voice to a chorus of pleas. > The 1.3 RKMs are considerably more advanced. If necessary, before 2.0 RKMs are written, BUY your way out of you Bantam obligation, but please give us competent AmigaOS programmers documentation this time around. The stuff in the AmigaDOS 1/2 manual brings a whole new terror to the term "obscure". Having said which, I want to put in yet another plug for .advocacy, which, you will notice, is where followups to this article are going. When a programming question descends into a long, boring exchange of spleen like the current one between Peter Cherna and Mike Meyer, take it to email, if at all possible, to .advocacy if you insist on washing dingy linen in public, but please get it out of the technical groups. There is still far too much traffic in .programming, and it seems to have become the defacto replacement c.s.a, which if the trend continues, will make it as useless as c.s.a had become. This is a consensual anarchy, where the only rules are good manners; it only works well if _everybody_ helps. /// It's Amiga /// for me: why Kent, the man from xanth. \\\/// settle for <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> \XX/ anything less? -- Convener, COMPLETED comp.sys.amiga grand reorganization. Official grump of c.s.a.*.