=========================================================================
 
INFO-ATARI16 Digest         Wed, 27 Dec 89       Volume 89 : Issue  865
 
Today's Topics:
                      Another Tos 1.4 incompat.
                  Excerpt of a letter to Dave Small
                FLAMES and SUPPORT IN THE MINUS REALM
                  TOS 1.4 Incompatibilities (2 msgs)
                          Unexpandable megas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 27 Dec 89 19:29:56 GMT
From: brunix!iris.brown.edu!mjv@uunet.uu.net  (Marshall Vale)
Subject: Another Tos 1.4 incompat.
Message-ID: <23735@brunix.UUCP>
 
 After getting TOS 1.4 installed into my Mega2, I tried a rather nifty
game I've borrowed from a friend called Warlock by InfoGrames and
published by ThreeSixty Software.  Well it seems to do some illegal
reading of joystick and button.  The keyboard movement still works so
I guess you could still play it( but its not worth.)
 Oh well, not a bad game but it won't be missed.
 
-- mjv@iris.brown.edu
 
"And, oh! Father Christmas, if you love me at all,
 Bring me a big, red india-rubber ball."
                                   A.A. Milne "Now We are Six"
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 27 Dec 89 19:52:26 GMT
From:
 zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!nic.MR.NET!ns!logajan@tut.cis
 .ohio-state.edu  (John Logajan)
Subject: Excerpt of a letter to Dave Small
Message-ID: <1989Dec27.195226.5401@ns.network.com>
 
Dave,
...
Actually, my public postings -- well I should know better -- but I suppose
I would do them again at the same "level" of intensity.  I mean, I saw you
do something that looked good, and then saw a bunch of people dump on that
and then I saw you back down -- too quickly for my tastes.  I admit a high
level of frustration in seeing progress rolled back -- it is worse
psychologically than never having acheived the progress in the first place.
 
I've been on this net and others with my "individualist" brand of politics,
so I get hate mail practially every other day.  You have to realize that
people tend to overstate their emotions when they write -- that people can
accidently sound cold and heartless in their writing, even when that is not
their intention.  Even those who are intentionally abusive are usually much
more so in the written word than in person or even on the phone.  Interactive
written communication is just not most people's normal mode of interaction,
and so they are unskilled in the most difficult aspect of it -- diplomacy.
 
I certainly fall into that same problem.  So my whole point is that you
should heavily discount the "fire" in our postings, and try to pick out the
ideas (if any) that are sprinkled here and there within and between the
abuse.  Also a word of warning -- any posting that you make that takes a
strong position could be (and probably has been) taken to be more negative
and personal than you ever intended.  Readers aren't practiced in reading
the work of us unskilled writers, either.  It is all a vicious cycle unless
you restrict yourself to blowing sun-beams.
 
I must say however, your postings have been models of diplomacy -- it is just
that I pick into the hidden or unintended consequences (out of habit from my
usual mode of debate) of otherwise innocent looking statements.  There are
just some people that diplomacy is wasted on, and I happen to be one of them.
 
All I am trying to say is that you shouldn't take any of my stuff personally,
even if it is clear that it can be taken no other way.  It is not intended
personally, it is intended as an unmerciful examination of actions and
arguments.  I do not harbor ill will toward you or toward most of the people
I trade insults with -- it just seems to be an inescapable part of having
diverse opinions.  But no one ever gets killed!
 
--
- John M. Logajan @ Network Systems;  7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 -
- logajan@ns.network.com, john@logajan.mn.org, Phn 612-424-4888, Fax 424-2853 -
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 27 Dec 89 10:00:29 GMT
From: mcsun!unido!tub!fauern!tumuc!guug!pcsbst!cochise!roland@uunet.uu.net
Subject: FLAMES and SUPPORT IN THE MINUS REALM
Message-ID: <1179@pcsbst.UUCP>
 
cr1@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Christopher Roth) writes:
>MBERNAR@ERENJ.BITNET (mb) writes:
 
>>fox!portal!cup.portal.com!Bob_BobR_Retelle@apple.com mentioned that the ST
>>comes with ST Basic, Logo and documentation.
>>When I bought my ST in April, it didn't come with Logo or
>>any manual for ST Basic.
 
>I just purchased my 1040 ST , oh, about a year ago, and I can affirm
>that it only came with Atari BASIC.
 
Ok, when I bought my 520 ST+ in November 1985, it came bundled with
 - RAM TOS  ( free ROM TOS was promised, but never delivered )
 - Logo
 - Basic
 - GEM-Write
 - GEM-Draw
The last two item where incomplete but usable prereleases which
never got finished, so we got 1st-Word and Degas as a replacement ( the
buying contract only specified 'some text- and some graphic-package' ).
 
I am astonished by Allan's
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 27 Dec 89 16:29:34 GMT
From: att!dptg!lzaz!hcj@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (HC Johnson)
Subject: TOS 1.4 Incompatibilities
Message-ID: <898@lzaz.ATT.COM>
 
In article <8912261631.AA04656@SAIC.COM>, steveg@SAIC.COM (Stephen Harold
 Goldstein) writes:
> Add Mark Williams' CSD (source level debugger) to the list of
> software incompatible with TOS 1.4.  It comes up with something like
> "TOS version dated 04061989 unknown" and terminates.
>
I think you mean DB not CSD.  (At least my CSD does not do this).
 
MWC db plays with tos data that was 'private' in tos 1.0.
Afterward, tos 1.1 and on have a formal table of pointers to this info.
 
Some one at MWC got carried away and coded it roughly as:
        if(tos1.0) ?
                there is no table , rough it;
        ?
        else if(tos 1.1)
                goto ok;
        else if(tos 1.2)
                goto ok;
        else
                goto h..l;
 
Use a binary editer to look for the date string of the releases and patch
the latest one to what tos1.4 uses [hint: change offset 0x1a0d from 22 to 6;
change offset 0x1a0e from 87 to 89].  Then db will work. Sort of.
 
It corrupts the system clock, and the console and memory are screwed
until you  reboot.
 
 
Isn't nice when the OFFICIAL developer software is not compatible with 1.4,
AND MWC claims that it is.
 
Howard C. Johnson
ATT Bell Labs
att!lzaz!hcj
hcj@lzaz.att.com
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 27 Dec 89 21:48:18 GMT
From: cs.yale.edu!fischer-michael@CS.YALE.EDU  (Michael Fischer)
Subject: TOS 1.4 Incompatibilities
Message-ID: <9646@cs.yale.edu>
 
In article <8912261631.AA04656@SAIC.COM> steveg@SAIC.COM (Stephen Harold
 Goldstein) writes:
>Add Mark Williams' CSD (source level debugger) to the list of
>software incompatible with TOS 1.4.  It comes up with something like
>"TOS version dated 04061989 unknown" and terminates.
 
My copy of CSD works just fine under TOS 1.4.  It came with my version
3.0 update quite awhile ago.  The version of csd.prg as returned by
the MWC "version" utility is
        e:\src\csd\csd\1988\4\11\14\51
 
I did have the problem you describe, not with CSD but with DB, the
machine-level debugger.  I fixed it by patching the executable to
accept TOS 1.4, and it seems to work fine.  I don't know why it was
checking the TOS version in the first place.  Maybe they were just
being conservative about new versions of TOS for which the code had
not been tested.
==================================================
| Michael Fischer                                |
|    Arpanet:    <fischer-michael@cs.yale.edu>   |
|    Bitnet:     <fischer-michael@yalecs.bitnet> |
|    UUCP:       <fischer-michael@yale.UUCP>     |
==================================================
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 27 Dec 89 18:41:48 GMT
From: shlump.nac.dec.com!norge.enet.dec.com!chad@decwrl.dec.com  (Chad Leigh
 "Leave It!")
Subject: Unexpandable megas
Message-ID: <7126@shlump.nac.dec.com>
 
Regarding board changes.  It is probably quite common for manufacturers
to change the physical board
designs in products.
 
I know (have seen with my own two eyes) that there were at least two
totally different versions (in terms of
layout of chips etc) of 520/1040STf(m) motherboards -- and I've heard of
at least one more version.  The
two boards were totally different - RAM and ROM location, CPU location, etc.
 
I doubt Atari changed the Mega 2 layout to purposely cripple it.  That
makes no sense at all.  The Mega 2
layout was probably changed to fix something, to make use of different
but functionally same parts, or to
decrease manufacturing costs.
 
Chad
DEC has no opinions
---------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------
 
End of INFO-ATARI16 Digest V89 Issue #865
*****************************************
