🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <29836@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, stephen@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Steve Whitney) writes:
> In article <881@per2.UUCP> dag@per2.UUCP (Daniel A. Glasser) writes:
>> [extract from my posting omitted]
> <stepping up onto my soapbox now...>
> 
> First of all, the ST is a personal computer.  The "Cookie Jar" is relatively
> new to that arena.

Actually, the DEC Professional series machines were also classified as
"personal computer".  Also, I never said that personal computers used
up-to-date technology.  It is just that said technology was introduced
before, and was in common use by, 1982.  Since this technology was available
before the ST and TOS were on the drawing boards, I might expect product
designers to have seen it as a possibility when they were specifying the
functionality for the ST operating system.  The people at fault here
are mostly the DRI designers and programmers who had their heads stuck
firmly in the sand of the CP/M world and had too little time to even do
CP/M right for the ST platform.

> Secondly, how do you know it's 1982 technology if you
> don't know how it's implemented or even the extent of what it does.  I do,
> by the way but I have been asked not to disclose it until it's made public
> by Atari and I intend to honor that request.  [comment deleted]
> It's quite well done, believe me.

See the above about the age of the technology.  I have a fairly good
background in these things and have seen at least two systems where you
not only get a list of what options and versions you've got installed
on your system and the modes they may be in, but also pointers to routines
that allow a program to hook itself onto the device with inclusive or
exclusive access, etc.  I won't go into detail here.  The IBM-PC BIOS
has had a very limited version of this feature since its introduction.

> The REAL reason I replied to your posting is that it's offensive.  If you ever
> expect to see more upgrades to TOS, you shjouldn't be discouraging those whose
> sweat and enthusiasm it will take to make it happen.  _SOME_ of us appreciate
> the things Atari's doing of late (like TOS 1.4, HDX 3.x, cookie jar) and we'd
> like to continue to see improvements.
> 
> If you want to scare Ken B. and others off the net, continue to offend them 
> this way.  Remember, they have constraints to work within, not the least of
> which is compatibility.  The three enchancements I mentioned above are fine 
> examples of how Atari (read Atari's engineers) has provided enhancements
> which increase the value of older machines without being incompatible with
> old software.
> <off the soapbox and back to comp.sys.atari.st>

Well, I'm not privy to the cookie jar info at this time, but I believe
that Allan Pratt can vouch for my credentials in the area of ST development.
I've been developing software for the ST since 1985, and although Atari
has lost track of my Registered Developer status over the years, I was
a registered developer.  In my previous position with the Mark Williams
Company, I assisted and encouraged ST developers and end-users alike,
helping them to program in the ST environment both through the development
of the (IMHO) most complete and easy-to-port-from-other-systems-to C language
programming system available (including a major hand in the documentation),
but in long hours of phone support and hand-holding.  I also used to
talk with the Atari people via. telephone on a fairly regular basis.

I've spoken in the past with various software people at Atari about
changes and fixes to TOS which would maintain a high level of compatibility
with previous versions but offer new and extended functionality to newer
applications.  I have always encouraged the development and improvement
of the ST environment, and will continue to do so even now that I'm not
actively developing commercial software for the ST.

My comments to the network were to prod a bit more information out of
the overworked and overloaded Ken B. and Allan P. and to let them know
I'm still around.  I don't believe that my comments will either discourage
or even overly annoy those folks.  I know what kind of constraints they
are working under, and I understand why the evolution of TOS has been so
slow, but the fact that I know these things inside and out does not
prevent me from having an opinion and expressing it.

Please don't take what I say in my rare critical postings as a damning
of what the programmers and engineers at Atari are doing.  Most people who
have been on the net for more than a year know that I generally post
constructive, positive and helpful information.  I've been rather quiet
for the last year, but that's because I have limited network access
and not very much time to spend reading or posting messages.

This reply is being made to the newsgroup because your flame at me
was made to the newsgroup and I don't want people putting me in a
class with the Atari-bashing denizens of this group.

Please direct all flames in response to me via mail.
-- 
 _____________________________________________________________________________
    Daniel A. Glasser                           One of those things that goes
    uwvax!per2!dag                              "BUMP!!!(ouch)" in the night. 
 ---Persoft, Inc.---------465 Science Drive-------Madison, WI 53711-----------