🚀 go-pugleaf

Your mail is being returned to you.
Reason for return is:
%MAIL-E-NOSUCHUSR, no such user VY7379 at node VAXA
Returned mail follows:
------------------------------
Received: From CANADA01(MAILER) by BINGVAXA with Jnet id 3443
          for VY7379@BINGVAXA; Wed,  6 Jan 88 08:14 EST
Received: by CANADA01 (Mailer X1.24) id 3440; Wed, 06 Jan 88 08:09:32 EDT
Date:         Tue, 5 Jan 88 13:34:53 PST
Reply-To:     Info-Atari16@Score.Stanford.edu
Sender:       INFO-ATARI16 Discussion <INFO-A16@CANADA01>
From:         Info-Atari16 Digest <Info-Atari16@Score.Stanford.EDU>
Subject:      Info-Atari16 Digest V88 #4
To:           TODD KRISSEL <VY7379@BINGVAXA>

Info-Atari16 Digest   Tuesday, January  5, 1988   Volume 88 : Issue 4

This weeks Editor: Bill Westfield

Today's Topics:

                      Re: BMS controller package
                      A defense of Multi-tasking
                  A different view on multitasking.
                  Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
                      Re: BMS controller package
                  Re: Degas Elite PostScript Driver
                      Re: Great Demo from Rex...
                  Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
                  Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
                       Re: Microsoft Write ...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 87 18:12:57 GMT
From: sgi!daisy!turner@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (D'arc Angel)
Subject: Re: BMS controller package
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

From article <945@ssc.UUCP>, by fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes):
>
> I have tme BMS controller.  It works fine (once we found the bugs but
> that was almost a year ago).  The only question I have about it is does
> it actually cost less.  You need to buy the interface and controller
> ($250, I think), then get a drive, box and power supply.
> No problems putting it together but when you are done you probably
> could have bought a Supra or Atari drive.
> --
> Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155  (206)FOR-UNIX
>     uw-beaver!tikal!ssc!fyl or uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fyl


agreeded, I alway felt the advantages of the BMS solution were:

1. It came with a battery backed-up real time clock

2. It supports two hard disks on the same controller

3. If and when i wanted to upgrade to a larger disk, i just unplugged
the old one and plugged the new one in

as to cost, be creative, most cities support at least one good used
electronic surplus/salvage store

--
Laissez les bons temps rouler                     -  Queen Ida
...{decwrl|ucbvax}!imagen!atari!daisy!turner (James M. Turner)
Daisy Systems, 700 E. Middlefield Rd, P.O. Box 7006,
Mountain View CA 94039-7006.                          (415)960-0123

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 87 16:12:13 GMT
From: denbeste@bbn.com  (Steven Den Beste)
Subject: A defense of Multi-tasking
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

The original poster of this subject asked if there was a place where
multi-tasking was "essential". Many people responded with ways to use
multi-tasking, and the original poster always responded with one of two
answers:

    1. There are other ways to do that that don't involve multi-tasking.
       Multi-tasking therefore isn't essential for that task.
    2. Only sophisticated users would want to do that. (He called them "Power
       users.)

[Well, actually, there was a third answer used a couple of times:
    3. Why are you being so abusive in a publicly posted article? Why didn't
       you mail it to me so I could ignore it?
But that's not relevant to the subject...]

Let's get one thing straight. Multi-tasking is not "essential".

Neither are high-level languages. You can do anything in assembly language you
can do in C or BASIC, but it is less convenient. (MUCH less convenient.)

Nor are icons. People survived for years with text-only computer interfaces.

[For that matter, assemblers aren't "essential" either - you can key in machine
language directly in hex. And if you really want to get down to it, the
computer itself isn't "essential".]

I'm not suggesting that multi-tasking is as important as high level languages.
That's not the point. I _am_ saying that requiring a feature to be "essential"
to be included is a ridiculous criterion. The proper criteria are "useful"
and "convenient".

On the Mac, there are many programs which can run simultaneously. To do this,
however, they must be written in a very special way and the operating system
must be specifically informed of each.

This is certainly an approach, and it seems to work for the Mac owners.
There are certain special cases on the ST, I am sure, where more than one thing
can happen at the same time (like a print spooler, for instance) - again it is
done specially.

On a general purpose multi-tasker, ANY two programs can run simultaneously,
unless one of them is being a particularly bad citizen. Though this isn't
"essential", isn't that more convenient?



Which brings us to the second argument: Even if multi-tasking is indeed useful
and convenient, it still won't be used by the great unwashed (called typical
users in the original posting). Only "power users" would use it.

I don't quite understand why that means a feature should be omitted. Is it
being suggested that a feature should only be included in a product if EVERY
OWNER of that product will use it?

More importantly, it assumes that the users won't mature and become more
sophisticated. Though a user may not use a feature when the product is first
purchased, many times the user will grow into it as time progresses. "Power
users" all began as unsophisticated users.

However, they won't mature if the machine they are on won't let them. I used to
know quite a few owners of TRS Model I's, who were wizard Basic programmers,
but were so restricted otherwise by the machine, that they might now never
grow out of it, even if now given a better system.

In many ways, it is desirable that a machine provide some advanced features
that the new user won't immediately use, so as to provide room for maturation
and learning...

...providing it is done so that the user isn't forced to use this feature
before ready.


Which leads me to the last point: The original poster stated, but never
justified, a belief that providing multi-tasking was not merely useless but
actually undesirable. I don't see it.

If:
   1. Multi-tasking doesn't add to the purchase price of the product
   2. It isn't intrusive on people who don't understand or need it right now
   3. It is available for those who do understand it, or those who grow into
      it

Then
   I state that it is an unmixed asset and should be in the product. I would
be very interested in hearing why, given these three assumptions,
multi-tasking should be omitted from a product.

   If you change any of the assumptions, then you are arguing against a
strawman. All three of them are true for multi-tasking on the Amiga.

   If you say "There are other ways" that is irrelevant. The point is not to
show alternatives, but to actually demonstrate that multi-tasking is a negative
thing in its own right.


If you cannot demonstrate that it is an actual danger, then it is merely
useless for most (but not all!) users. But since, by the assumptions, it
doesn't impede those users who don't use it, then its ability to attract "power
users" makes it an asset. (It attracted me - it is the main reason I bought the
Amiga.) (By the way, by so doing it represents an indirect asset for those
unsophisticated users, because the "power users" are cranking out public domain
software which the unsophisticated users can get for free. 120 880K Fish-disks
at last count.)


We therefore have three classes of users for the multi-tasking machine:

1. Those who don't understand and won't use multi-tasking, but are not impeded
by it.  [If you think they are impeded, then we are out of the realm of the
theory and into fact. I state as a fact that it does not impede rank amateurs
on the Amiga.]

2. Those who don't understand it to begin with, but grow into it.

3. Those who understand it and use it from the very beginning.


Group 1 isn't bothered by its presence. Group 2 and Group 3 benefit by it. How
can it be a bad thing?


--------------------------------
Which brings us finally to the issue of the motive of the original poster.
Let's try some syllogisms, shall we?

1. The Atari ST is an ideal computer
   2. The Atari ST doesn't have multi-tasking
ERGO Ideal computers don't require multi-tasking.





1. If several machines offer multi-tasking, people will grow to expect it.
   2. If people grow to expect it, they will refuse to buy machines not having
      it.
ERGO If several machines offer multi-tasking, the public will refuse to
     buy machines not having it.

1. If several machines offer multi-tasking, the public will refuse to
     buy machines not having multi-tasking.
   2. The Atari ST doesn't have multi-tasking.
ERGO If several machines offer multi-tasking, Atari ST sales will suffer.

1. Anything which causes Atari ST sales to suffer is dangerous.
   2. If several machines offer multi-tasking, Atari ST sales will suffer.
ERGO It is dangerous for other machines to offer multi-tasking.



Could these be the real reasons behind the original posting? Or maybe just a
deliberate attempt to stir up trouble?
--
Steven C. Den Beste,   Bolt Beranek & Newman, Cambridge MA
denbeste@bbn.com(ARPA/CSNET/UUCP)    harvard!bbn.com!denbeste(UUCP)
        I don't think BBN cares what I think about this stuff.
        And that's probably just as well.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 87  17:25:29 EST
From: SARGON%UMass.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu
Subject: A different view on multitasking.
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

In light of the humorous (if not entirely short sighted) notes on the
usefulness of multitasking to the "average" microcomputer user I thought
Id toss in some historically relevant views..

  1.  A microcomputer user will never need anything more than a few
      cassette tapes to hold his work.

  2.  A microcomputer user will never need anything but a TV set to display
      information from a computer.

  3.  A microcomputer user will never need even as much as 64K of memory.

  4.  A microcomputer user will never need a language other than interpretive
      BASIC to perform any task.

Last time I heard the Atari 1040ST came with an 800K floppy disk drive,
requires a monitor (as Atari didnt put the modulator in there), comes
stock with 1MB of RAM and doesnt come stock with BASIC.  Does this make
the designers at Atari morons for putting in such useless junk?  I think
not.

Finally, your "average" user of a modern microcomputer (this gets rid of
the Apple II and C64 crowds) is more likely to be in a business or higher
education setting than in the kitchen as a $x000 recipie file.  Both of
these areas are demanding the ability to share and distribute information.
This means networks.  Networks need software drivers that requires a
certain degree of multitasking.  Im sure Atari the self proclaimed
"vertically integrated" computer maker will be (or hopefully IS) working
on both multitasking and networking.  The 286/386 and the 030 all have
memory management hardware whether you use it or not.  Why not use it?
-Steve
ccccccccccc
Stephen Halpin               Sargon@UMass.BITNET
PO Box 241
Amherst, MA  01004-0241

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 87 18:44:00 GMT
From: cbmvax!schein@rutgers.edu  (Dan Schein CATS)
Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

  I usually dont reply to these net wars because there is never a winner and
 they only surface again in 6-8 months, but.....

In article <444@Lindy.STANFORD.EDU> kevin@Lindy.Stanford.EDU (Kevin Burnett)
 writes:
>In article <2673@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton)
 writes:
>>Speak for yourself, you nit. You have no idea what *I* do, or what *I*
>>need.
>I don't believe he said anything about how YOU use your computer.
>And, you're asking for this comment, ASSHOLE.

Soap Box mode ON ***

  Comments like these are not needed. If you can not hold a discussion / debate
 in a more mature adult manner, then please do it in e-mail. I am really getting
 tired of adding more and more subjects to my kill file. Im sure that hidden in
 each of these flame throwing messages is a valid point, but in the way these
 point(s) are presented, its sure hard to find them. Im not asking you to stop
 this "my dad can beat up your dad" battle (Heck sometimes even I need a good
 laugh), just use a little more thought into what others think when they read
 your message and how your message reflects on comp.sys.amiga.

Soap Box mode OFF ***
--
   Dan Schein         uucp: {ihnp4|allegra|burdvax|rutgers}!cbmvax!schein
   Commodore AMIGA            Bix: dschein         Plink: Dan*CATS
   1200 Wilson Drive            phone: (215) 431-9100       ext. 9542
   West Chester PA 19380
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   All spelling mistakes are a result of my efforts to avoid education  :-)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
        I help Commodore by supporting the AMIGA. Commodore supports
         me by allowing me to form my own suggestions and comments.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 87 15:39:06 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!water!ljdickey@rutgers.edu  (Lee Dickey)
Subject: Re: BMS controller package
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

In article <945@ssc.UUCP> fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes:
]
] I have the BMS controller.  It works fine (once we found the bugs but
] that was almost a year ago).  ...


What were the bugs?
If I were to buy such a board, I would probably *never* find the bugs.


--
 L. J. Dickey, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Waterloo.
 ljdickey@watmath.UUCP        UUCP: ...!uunet!watmath!ljdickey
 ljdickey%water@waterloo.edu    ljdickey@watdcs.BITNET
 ljdickey%water%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 87 20:51:50 GMT
From: uw-entropy!dataio!pilchuck!ssc!fyl@june.cs.washington.edu  (Phil Hughes)
Subject: Re: Degas Elite PostScript Driver
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

In article <8712231156.AA07312@lasso.laas.fr>, ralph@lasso.UUCP (Ralph P. Sobek)
 writes:
> Does there exist a program which converts Degas Elite format files to
> PostScript?  Thanks a whole bunch!

Well, the bad way is to use Publishing Partner.  It works unless
PP screws it up (which does happen).  I have used this method (it is
how I got the graphics into our new UNIX products catalog) but would
like to have a cleaner way.

--
Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155  (206)FOR-UNIX
    uw-beaver!tikal!ssc!fyl or uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fyl

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 87 04:19:35 GMT
From: dalcs!garfield!john13@uunet.uu.net  (John Russell)
Subject: Re: Great Demo from Rex...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

In article <5825@jhunix.UUCP> ins_bjjb@jhunix.UUCP (Jared J Brennan) writes:
>   The program did the same thing on my machine (except vertically).  Play
...
>   You can probably attribute this to hardware dependencies.  The monitor

The game Goldrunner (European) has a 50/60 hz option. At the European frequency
the screen jumps like you describe so it may be continent dependency :-).

John
--
"...and intuition, in a case such as this, is of crucial importance."
            -- William Gibson, _Count_Zero_

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 87 15:42:12 GMT
From: mcrware!jejones@uunet.uu.net  (James Jones)
Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

In article <323@lakesys.UUCP>, mark@lakesys.UUCP (Mark Storin) writes:
> If all he ever needs is simple word processing or file keeping then he can
> find those in the simplest of computers (8-bit machines like Apples and
> Atari's)...

I agree with Mr. Storin's main point fully, and moreover think that Joe
Average will, unless he's very careful, actually *learn* something about
what his computer can do and take advantage of multitasking eventually,
but--I think that a visit to a friend or neighbor with a CoCo 3 running
OS-9 will show that one can have multitasking on an 8-bit machine.  (Much
less a visit to a place with a dozen folks hacking merrily away on a
Gimix 6809-based computer.)

        James Jones

------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 87 21:08:51 GMT
From: mcrware!droid@uunet.uu.net  (Andy Nicholson)
Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

> Of course, you can get OS-9 (and IDRIS) for the Atari ST.  So there.  You
> can multi-task to your hearts content, regardless of the machine.  BUT I
> still insist that, for the non "power user" there's no need for it.
>
> -- Dave Meile

    I normally avoid religious wars, but this is too much.  Just who are
these mythical "non-power-users" that don't need multi-tasking.  Everyone
is trying to convince you that they don't exist.  I'll tell you what.
You show joe user what muti-tasking can do and then tell him that he is
too unsophisticated to use it.  Then duck.  Manufacturers who underestimate
buyers go out of business.  If "joe user" couldn't use multi-tasking, we
would not have kludgo simulations (TSR's, desk accessories, etc.).  As one
of my co-workers posted, it is only a matter of education.  Joe user expects
magic from a computer.  As soon as he realizes a computer can't do two things
at once, like he can, he'll be unhappy.  He wants multi-tasking.

    And I'm not picking a bone for the Amiga over the Atari. Note my employer.
We only support one of those two machines.  And its not the Amiga.

Sorry, no cute signature file.
Andy Nicholson
"Opinions expressed here were placed by Christmas elves trying to get me into
trouble."

Merry X-MAS!

------------------------------

Date: 25 Dec 87 04:05:14 GMT
From: lakesys!martin@csd1.milw.wisc.edu  (Martin Wiedmeyer)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Write ...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

    Neil, what's the Mfg's Suggested Retail Price (list price) for MS
Write?
    Thanks,
     Marty
--
|    Martin Wiedmeyer - Lake Systems, Milwaukee, WI                        |
|       UUCP: {ihnp4,uwvax}!uwmcsd1!lakesys!martin                            |
|       Disclaimer: "I take the heat for my own (mis)statements!"             |

------------------------------

End of Info-Atari16 Digest
**************************
-------