🚀 go-pugleaf

--------------- A copy of your rejected mail message follows ---------------

Received: by CANADA01 (Mailer X1.24) id 0338; Wed, 06 Jan 88 17:09:55 EDT
Date:     Wed, 6 Jan 88 11:43:27 PST
Reply-To: Info-Atari16@Score.Stanford.edu
Sender:   INFO-A16@CANADA01
From:     Info-Atari16@Score.Stanford.EDU
Subject:  Info-Atari16 Digest V88 #7
To:       PETCHER@GW.SCRI.FSU.EDU,
          DUBRAVK@FSU

Info-Atari16 Digest   Wednesday, January  6, 1988   Volume 88 : Issue 7

This weeks Editor: Bill Westfield

Today's Topics:

                 How advertising helps already-owners
                           ST Drive Change?
          Re: Reasons for buying a computer (was Colorburst)
               Re: How advertising helps already-owners
            Reasons for buying a computer (was Colorburst)
                        Atari ST motherboards
                          big arrays in MW C
                            eproms burners
                                 Help
                  Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
                  Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...

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

Date: 26 Dec 87 14:13:13 GMT
From: denbeste@bbn.com  (Steven Den Beste)
Subject: How advertising helps already-owners
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

Michael Vederman (uace0@uhnix2.UUCP) asks:

> Okay, how can you change Atari's image?  Does it matter?  Sure,
> more advertisements would be nice, but what benefit do we, the curreniet
> owners of STs derive from that?


The rationale goes as follows:

If the advertising is effective, more ST's will be sold, and the installed base
will get bigger. This will attract more third party software vendors, who will
write more software for the system, which means a better and wider availability
of software for those who already owned the machine when the advertising began.

Clear?

--
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: 27 Dec 87 02:36:03 GMT
From: portal!cup.portal.com!BigDiamond@uunet.uu.net
Subject: ST Drive Change?
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

Does anyone know if you can take out the single-sided drive in the SF354 drive
and slip in a double-sided drive without any problems?

Thanks in advance.............................Hank
                                  (BigDiamond@cup.portal.com)

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

Date: 27 Dec 87 10:45:49 GMT
From: pepper!cmcmanis@sun.com  (Chuck McManis)
Subject: Re: Reasons for buying a computer (was Colorburst)
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

In article <5834@jhunix.UUCP> ins_anmy@jhunix.UUCP (Norman Yarvin) writes:
:>In article <36598@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes a lot
:>of good suggestions about buying a computer.  I can't understand this though:
:>
:>>* Don't buy a computer to learn programming. If you ever want to program
:>>  a computer you own, learn programming *first*. Then you will know when
:>>  the programming environment a computer offers is usable.
:>
:>How is someone going to learn programming without a computer?  Granted,
:>Usenet people must have access to at least one.  But the world at large does
:>not.  Don't tell me you are going to just sit there and read a book; very
:>few have that much willpower.  And even if someone did, would he/she learn
:>anything about which computer to buy?  Very little, probably.

I suggest that if you want to learn programming you take a class at a
community college or through some other program where they provide the
computer. The reason being that the things that make a computer easy
to program, and the programs that make a computer useful may be a
disjoint set. Have you ever programmed on a ZX81? Not much fun. Or
maybe you buy a commodore 64 to learn programming, and then find out
that you really want to program in C and no one makes a C compiler for
it. Maybe COBOL is your idea of fun, that wipes out the Atari and Amiga
right there. But the biggest danger is that you may discover you can't
program, or hate to program and now you have this essentially worthless
computer (remember the condition was that you bought it to learn programming).
I know a lot of people who have bought computers, the ones that took a
programming class were a lot happier. You learn a lot about computers
when you take a programming class. It gives you an edge, I heard about
a guy that bought a computer to program on that had only a line oriented
editor because the salesman had convinced him that editors that supported
editing on a "hard copy" terminal were more powerful than screen editors.


--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.

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

Date: 27 Dec 87 07:40:47 GMT
From: lakesys!rich@csd1.milw.wisc.edu  (Rich Dankert)
Subject: Re: How advertising helps already-owners
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

In article <5600@cc5.bbn.COM> denbeste@bbn.COM (Steven Den Beste) writes:
>
>The rationale goes as follows:
>
>If the advertising is effective, more ST's will be sold, and the installed base
>will get bigger. This will attract more third party software vendors, who will
>write more software for the system, which means a better and wider availability
>of software for those who already owned the machine when the advertising began.
>
>Clear?
>
>--
>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.

    I can see your rational to a point, though I believe that your over
looking one main point.

    Atari is looking to get away from the GAME MACHINE image. I think
that this is an excellent idea. BUT,Right now, I hear more people talking to
other's to look at the machine and they refuse to look past the Game Machine
Image that is still attached to the name.

    Increasing the user base is a great idea, but remember that most that
do check out the system, are pretty new to computer's for the most part.They
really don't know whats out there for third party software, and when they
do, they see alot of games made for the machine. They also see alot of
owner's talking about the neat games that they have, but when it comes to
what application software is available, well thats where were short. Sure
games are fun, and show off the power of the machine, but all this power has to
be put to better use!

    What I am getting at is third party software parties like
Word Perfect Corp., Monogram, and other's to get their software over to the
ST and do it right! I'm not really all that choked up about the third party
software houses that simply port their stuff over, and it runs like it would
on a PC. I would like to see software that really flys, and takes full
advantage of the machine. To date their are but a handfull of such programs
and for the most part these companies have not seen fit to back up their
product with the supprt that is really needed. Word Perfect has been the
real exception.

    Lets face it. Atari owner's *know what the machine is capable of, and
with this knowledge, the demand the software to work correctly, and if it
does not, the CO. should make a revision. This is not the case for the most
part. Sure there are alot of packages out there that do perform quite well,
but still don't make full use of the power that is available. Two markets
that suffer quite a bit are the Business and Educational areas. These have
been been improving, but were a long way off to where we should be, and where
Atari would like it to be (my opinion of course).

    I for one, like the idea of Atari buying Federated, and the work
being done with the Abaq box. Excellent ways to increase performence, but
it still has to be sold to the general public. Business in particular.

    Ways for getting the point across.

        I would start getting more software out that would 'DO THE JOB'
and have my name placed on it (Atari name). Of course the software would have
to work to perfection as advertised. Who else better than Atari to make a
software product that does the job? They designed the machine, and know it
better than anyone else. The software that they have produced, has been
outstanding, and proves that fact. (Lets not get into Atari Basic though!)
along with the machine, offer software that would help intice the MS-DOS
brainwashed people to see the Atari as a viable alternative.

    Case in point.

    We bought DAK easy accounting from DAK for our business. The program
was written in basic, then compiled. Thats not the real problem. The program
was really un-supported. The bugs were not fixed, and when the CO. had to
face the fact, they come up with deciding not to support the product, and
then comming out with version two, state that there is no market for
business software for the machine, thus not making the version two
available for the ST. Then you get the software emulator, and version two, and
the program runs so slow, that for all intence and purposes, is really not
usable. Especially when you seen version one (buggy as it is) run as fast
as it did, would make anyone cry. If Atari produced this product, the
purchaser's would know that the product would be supported, and any bugs
(if any) would be corrected.

    I stand in the wings that Atari should produce some productivity
software for the machine. What they have produced is great, but what is
really missing is the business and educational software to act as a magnet
to draw more to the power of this fabulous machine.

-rich

UUCP: {Ihnp4,uwvax}!uwmcsd1!lakesys!rich
Discalimer: The words,ideas,and expressions are my own, and not nessasarily
always correct, but they are mine, and can be yours too, if you want them!

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

Date: 27 Dec 87 03:18:54 GMT
From: aplcen!jhunix!ins_anmy@mimsy.umd.edu  (Norman Yarvin)
Subject: Reasons for buying a computer (was Colorburst)
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

In article <36598@sun.uucp> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes a lot
of good suggestions about buying a computer.  I can't understand this though:

>* Don't buy a computer to learn programming. If you ever want to program
>  a computer you own, learn programming *first*. Then you will know when
>  the programming environment a computer offers is usable.

How is someone going to learn programming without a computer?  Granted,
Usenet people must have access to at least one.  But the world at large does
not.  Don't tell me you are going to just sit there and read a book; very
few have that much willpower.  And even if someone did, would he/she learn
anything about which computer to buy?  Very little, probably.

                Norman Yarvin
(seismo!umcp-cs : ihnp4!whuxcc : allegra!hopkins) !jhunix!ins_anmy

 "I can't really represent the size of the sun,
  but this should give you a good idea."

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

Date: 27 Dec 87 02:15:08 GMT
From: oliveb!olivej!dragon@ames.arpa  (Give me a quarter or I'll touch you)
Subject: Atari ST motherboards
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu


Does anyone know if the deal where one sends in their Atari 520ST to Atari
and gets a new one back is still good?  I remember the price as being
around $95 or so.  What are the catches to this?  Can it be done through a
dealer or only through Atari?  Thanks for any information!

--Dean


----
 Dean Brunette               {ucbvax,etc.}!hplabs!oliveb!olivej!dragon
                          {ucbvax,etc.}!hplabs!oliveb!dragon-oatc!dean

Olivetti Advanced Technology Center     _____   _____   __:__   _____
20300 Stevens Creek Blvd.              :     :  _____:    :    :

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

Date: 26 Dec 87 04:24:08 GMT
From: dayton!ems!nis!stag!trb@rutgers.edu  ( Todd Burkey )
Subject: big arrays in MW C
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

Hi,
  Does anyone know if MWC will safely handle large arrays now? I know
that I had problems in the early versions with HDSCAN's arrays in that
I had to keep the total amount of data in a particular array less than
32K bytes. Now when I compile tests (i.e. a char[10000][12]), I get a
message like:
  strict: size of array overflows size_t
which doesn't make sense, since size_t is a long if I remember correctly.
Somewhat confusing (and frustrating now that my manual is out of phase with
the newer version of the compiler that I got recently.)

What I really want to do is fold my Unix version of HDSCAN back into the
ST version, and preferably with MW C. If it looks like it will be too much
of a mess, I will probably wait for the new version of Megamax, since that
sounds somewhat promising as well.  (Yes, the Unix version is done...I
am mailing the source code to comp.sources.misc next week. Supports both
BSD and SYSV flavors of Unix).

  -Thanks,
   Todd Burkey
   trb@stag.UUCP

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

Date: 27 Dec 87 19:50:10 GMT
From: kap%psueclb.BITNET@psuvm.bitnet
Subject: eproms burners
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

hi

  I hate to interupt this fasinating discussion on multi-tasking but
I need to find an eprom burner to use with the ST. I thought hippo
made one but I can't find any information. Does anyone have or used one
with the ST, any comments.

                                thanks
                                jim, on a friends account

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

Date: 28 Dec 87 03:56:52 GMT
From: pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!dle@cad.Berkeley.EDU  (Duy Le)
Subject: Help
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

Hi, I want to create a folder with autocopy but don't know how.  Would
someone please tell me how to?  Thanks


Duy

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

Date: 27 Dec 87 14:56:19 GMT
From: ucsdhub!jack!crash!pnet01!haitex@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Wade Bickel)
Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

        I still have not heard one counter argument against the value
      that multi-tasking has as a tool for the programmer to use to
      write better programs.  Perhaps the user does not see this as
      multi-tasking, but benfits from it none the less.  After all,
      this is a powerful tool and we programmers can use it to make
      what would otherwise be a difficult task an easy one.  This
      this translates to less expensive or more feature full programs.

        I have never said that multi-tasking was "essential".  However,
      it is a VERY powerfull and usefull tool for both the software
      developer and the user alike.  And you need not use it if it is
      too much for you.

        As far as this OS/9 buisness goes, if it were being distributed
      free then it might mean something, but from what's been said it
      will be held by only a small fraction of the ST users due to its
      price.  Thus programmers will not be able to consider the bulk of
      the ST market when depending on OS/9, and will not be likely to
      do so.  So much easier when its included with the basic system!


                                                Thanks, Happy New Year,


                                                                Wade.


UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex
ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil
INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM

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

Date: 28 Dec 87 07:40:26 GMT
From: mtune!codas!killer!elg@rutgers.edu  (Eric Green)
Subject: Re: Multi-tasking? A nightmare...
To: info-atari16@score.stanford.edu

in article <3256@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>, davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile)
 says:
> People want computers (when they want them at all) to DO SOMETHING for
> them.  In the majority of cases with the Atari ST and the Amiga, that
> "something" has been:
>
>     writing stuff
>     filing stuff
>     retrieving stuff that's been filed
>     playing games
>     programming all of the above
>
> Most of those who read these forums fall under the "programming" category.
> Of course, for programmers, multitasking can be a delight.  For the person
> who is writing a term paper on the microcomputer, why bother?  If you have
> access to two programs (ala Multifinder or perhaps through a "desk
> accessory" [IBM PCs have desk accessories too, folks]) you already have
> as much power as you're ever liable to need in most environments.

Let's face it, even a Timex Sinclair with 16K of RAM can do all of the above
(just a bit slow and limited). A boat-anchor CP/M system can also do all of
the above, and would be cheaper (nowadays) besides. But I sure the hell
don't like to use one after I've used BSD4.2 & other OS's that take advantage
of multitasking.

For example, take the term paper. I'm using an 8-bit single-tasking system
right now. I set it to printing. Then I go away for 20 minutes while my NX-10
bangs away in near letter quality mode (more "near" than "letter", but that's
the breaks!). That irritates me. Greatly. There's a couple of things I could
do here: Use my RAM-disk and jam a software interrupt-driven spooler on my
LST: device (multitasking!), go out and buy a 512K print spooler (multitasking
again, although in this case with a dedicated processor), or any other number
of things. All of which are multitasking. All of which are a kludge, and would
be unnecessary if real multitasking was available.

I remember my first computer. 5K of RAM, 16K of ROM, I was in hawg heaven, a
computer all my own, to hack in 6502 assembly language on. I lusted for 16K,
because with 16K, you can do anything, right? 64K? forget it, 64K was for rich
folks with $2,000 to buy the latest CP/M boat-anchor (so-called because of its
size and weight, in this case :-). Disk drives? Why would anybody want disk
drives? I can load and save just fine with my cassette recorder!

Then I moved up to a 64K machine with a disk drive. Wow. Big time now. I'll
never take that 5K machine out of the closet again (even tho I expanded it to
16K). After all, it's just an obsolete toy now, right?  and 64K... I can do
ANYTHING! Wow, what power.  Why would I want one of them fancy dandy 68000
machines, 'specially when they all cost $5,000 for 256K of RAM, and I can do
everything they can, on my li'l min-anchor? I mean, I can process words, I can
write programs, I can play games... they do all that, right?


There's 2 points I wish to make:
    1) Some features added to the computer make it more productive and easier
to use (compare cassette deck to floppy drive to hard drive!).
    2) Most of us are notoriously short on foresight, like I was when I
thought that 64K and a floppy drive was the epitomy of computing (after all, I
can do everything you can, right? I can process words, play games, etc.?).

 While you may not see the use of multitasking, I bet you're as foresighted
now as I was 10 years ago when I thought that 16K of RAM was big-time for a
microcomputer.

--
Eric Lee Green  elg@usl.CSNET        Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191
{cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg            Lafayette, LA 70509
"There's someone in my head, but it's not me...." -PF

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

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