Info-Atari16 Digest         Sun, 29 Sep 91       Volume 91 : Issue 516
 
Today's Topics:
                           ARJ?  K.I.S.S.!
                             ATARI ON TV
                       digitzing video for DTP
                      Is Maple still available?
             lharc 2.01e vs. zoo 2.1: some tests (2 msgs)
                        More Lies From Atari?
    People dumping machines (was.. Atari Mega 2 system.. for sale)
                            Sozobon > 1.2
                   Spectrum spazz on TOS 1.62/STe?
                           ST System 4SALE
                 SUPERCHARGER and ATARI LASER PRINTER
      Zoo with GEM interface (Was: Re: ARJ? K.I.S.S.!) (2 msgs)
 
Welcome to the Info-Atari16 Digest.  The configuration for the automatic
cross-posting to/from Usenet is getting closer, but still getting thrashed
out.  Please send notifications about broken digests or bogus messages
to Info-Atari16-Request@NAUCSE.CSE.NAU.EDU.
 
Please send requests for un/subscription and other administrivia to
Info-Atari16-Request, *NOT* Info-Atari16.  Requests that go to the list
instead of the moderators are likely to be lost or ignored.
 
If you want to unsubscribe, and you're receiving the digest indirectly
from someplace (usually a BITNET host) that redistributes it, please
contact the redistributor, not us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: 29 Sep 91 02:57:34 GMT
From:
 noao!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!thelake!steve@ariz
 ona.edu (Steve Yelvington)
Subject: ARJ?  K.I.S.S.!
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
 
[In article <BAMMI.91Sep27170754@acae127.cadence.com>,
     bammi@acae127.cadence.com (Jwahar R. Bammi) writes ... ]
 
 > In article <A1908217657@thelake.mn.org> steve@thelake.mn.org (Steve
 Yelvington) writes:
 >
 >> Any program with a reasonable structure (i.e., main is used as a top-level
 >> flow-control module) should be easy to GEM-ify by adding
 >>
 >>     if (argc == 0)
 >>     gem();
 >>
 >      arghhh! dont do this. if args are not available, in the gcc
 > startup module, it still creates argv[0] == "", so the min value
 > of argc a program will ever see is 1. this is true for acc startup
 > too. the reason for doing this is that it is required by Posix (in
 > case you were thinking that these guys just made a random decision :-)
 
Urk ... I've really got to quit taking catnaps at the keyboard. I don't
know who sneaked up behind me and typed that. :-)
 
Of course, argc is always > 0, Posix or not. That should read something
like this:
 
#if GEM
        if (argc == 1)
                gem();  /* alternative user interface */
#endif
 
 --
 Steve Yelvington, Marine on St. Croix, Minnesota
 steve@thelake.mn.org (In winter we walk on water)
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 28 Sep 91 13:22:45 GMT
From:
 noao!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!n8emr!blue
 moon!bart@arizona.edu (Bart Jaszcz)
Subject: ATARI ON TV
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
 
dhbutler@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David Butler) writes:
 
> This may be old hat, but if anyone ever watched Friday The 13th., The Series
> (great show), you should have noticed that every computer in it (at least tha
> I ever saw) was an Atari ST! Pretty neat huh? Does anyone know what happened
> this show, it used to be on FOX, and I can't find it anymore, makes me wish I
> had recorded all the episodes...
>
> - David Butler -
>
> "innagaddadaviddababy"
 
 
  Yeah, it was a great show.  I remember the episode about the healing
glove, where a 1040ST was shown pretty well.  The guy who lived on a ship
was working on it even, when the action was taking place on that ship.
 
  I've seen the ST on a couple of other shows, and even on PBS once or
twice.
 
 This is from
     bart@bluemoon.rn.com
     bart@bluemoon.uucp
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 29 Sep 91 09:38:40 GMT
From: kawakami%ocf.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John Kawakami)
Subject: digitzing video for DTP
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
 
NetQuestion...
 
 I would like to digitize video for use in DTP type applications.  How
 should I go about this?
 
  Background and conditions:
 
   I'm using an ST as a Mac via Spectre GCR and as a regular ST.  I am about
   to look into purchasing a camcorder from a friend.  I see this as a prime
   opportunity to start using digitized graphics in my documents.  However,
   I am also in the process of phasing out my ST.
 
   "Dumping the ST!?!?"  Well, sort of.  Right now, I have a 520ST, 4MB RAM
   (JRI SIMM board), GCR, modem, hard drive (Syquest coming soon), printer,
   and probably a DEKA real soon.  I would like to "upgrade" to a MAC by
   moving all the peripherals to a Mac and using the ST for something else
   (maybe a BBS or something).  The ST would remain a working system, but I
   would probably stop buying things for it.  At this point, I would like to
   stop purchasing ST specific products.  I realize this may not be possible
   with an ST digitizer.
 
     What I would like to do is digitize video, use the graphic in other
     programs or documents, and print the document out.  I would like to
     import the graphic into Mac Word 4.0, Superpaint 2, and HyperCard on
     the Mac; WordFlair II and Calamus on the ST.  I don't care if the
     digitizer does only black and white, as long as I can get a good
     image.  More than 16 gray shades would be nice.  I would like it if it
     did not take up the cartridge slot.  The software MUST work with a mono
     monitor.
 
     What digitizer is best for me, and what additional software would I
     need?
 
John Kawakami                  kawakami@ocf.berkeley.edu
                               ucbvax!ocf.berkeley.edu!kawakami
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 28 Sep 91 21:08:40 GMT
From:
 noao!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!nstn.ns.ca!ac.dal.ca
 !cordes@arizona.edu
Subject: Is Maple still available?
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
 
In article <1991Sep28.164405.23756@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>,
 yegerleh@vivaldi.ecn.purdue.edu (James D Yegerlehner) writes:
> Hello Everyone,
> Once a long time ago someone in Canada posted that he had bought "Maple"
> for his ST at a school bookstore.  I have never seen this program
> advertised for the ST;  does anyone know if it is still available?
> Is it a full GEM implementation?
>
 I don't know, I would suspect commandline.
 
> As I understand it, Maple is a math program like Mathematica that does
> symbolic and numeric manipulations (as against something like Mathcad
> which is entirely numeric).
>
Right. I think Maple 4.2 was the last ST version produced.
 
 
John Cordes
Dept. of Physics
Dalhousie University
Halifax, N.S., Canada  B3H 3J5
email: cordes@ac.dal.ca
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 28 Sep 91 23:03:42 GMT
From:
 noao!ncar!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!aunro!ersys!mforget@arizona.
 edu (Michel Forget)
Subject: lharc 2.01e vs. zoo 2.1: some tests
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
 
rosenkra@convex.com (William Rosenkranz) writes:
 
[a very long meesage which the system reports as too long to follow-up
to.  In it, he states several points which I will paraphrase.]
 
1.  Thomas Quester may have violated the porting agreement designed by
the original author of Lharc by not supplying source code.
 
You really want that code, don't you?  Two points come to mind, though.
The first is to question whether or not he made a new agreement with the
author of Lharc.  He might have, you know.  The second is to wonder
whether or not changing the language is the same as changing the code.
The end result is the same, isn't it?  The porting agreement may have
meant that changes to the -compression- code or the changing of the
-functions- of Lharc must be distributed.  These two points are only
speculation, though.
 
2.  I myself may have been biased in suggesting that your tests were
biased.
 
This is possible, but not likely.  I really don't care much one way or
the other about which is better.  I use Lharc right now because it is the
best available.  If I thought ZOO was better, I wouldn't hesitate to
switch.  Zip also gives about the same compression and the same speed as
Lharc and Zoo.  So far, Lharc has been the most reliable program for the
ST in the compression area.  It also has a lot of really nice features.
 
3.  Lharc may have a problem with time-stamps.
 
This I doubt.  I have been using Lharc for a while now, and I have never
experienced the problem.  I have TOS 1.4, as did the other user who
mentioned he had no problems.  I think it might be your version of TOS.
While I think Lharc should prabably work with the other TOS systems for
completeness, but I won't carp about it.  TOS 1.2 and 1.0 should be fazed
out of use anyway.
 
4.  Assembly code doesn't provide a large speed improvement.
 
This is normal.  C is very close to assembly, so the speed improvement
wouldn't be that big.  On the other hand, it is a great deal faster than
Pascal or Modula-2 or Basic.
 
I hope I have managed to address some of your major points.
 
 
<<  ----------------------------------  >>
<<  ersys!mforget@nro.cs.athabascau.ca  >>
<<     mforget@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca     >>
<<            Michel Forget             >>
<<     "He's dead, Jim..." - Bones      >>
<<  ----------------------------------  >>
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 29 Sep 91 03:50:43 GMT
From: noao!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!convex!rosenkra@arizona.edu (William Rosenkranz)
Subject: lharc 2.01e vs. zoo 2.1: some tests
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
 
In article <V9a192w164w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> mforget@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
 (Michel Forget) writes:
>rosenkra@convex.com (William Rosenkranz) writes:
>You really want that code, don't you?  Two points come to mind, though.
 
note: whenever i mention "unix", substitue VMS or CMS or anything else.
i just happen to use unix. others may use something else (non-TOS).
 
yes, i _really_ want the source to ANY archiver i use. just to make sure
that 10 years from now, when i have a non-atari system, i can always get at
my 100's of MB of files (by a recompile of the program on the new system).
is that _so_ tough for you to swallow? i have a HUGE investment in data,
don't you? and do you think the 8mhz 68k will live forever? i would not even
bet that half the computer companies in business today (eg atari) will be in
5 years. who knows? why take a chance when such a trivial solution exists.
unix lharc will NOT extract lh5 archives. unless you have one that does.
if so PLEASE POST IT!!!!!!! from what i understand, lh5 is only implemented
in assembler even on the PC since it was so slow there. a really stupid
thing to do, IMHO since it makes it non-portable. if anything, it should
have been both (c and asm).
 
>The first is to question whether or not he made a new agreement with the
>author of Lharc.  He might have, you know.  The second is to wonder
 
ok, i will contact yoshi myself and find this out. what do you want me
to do: have yoshi _force_ the source to be released? i am asking
politely.
 
>whether or not changing the language is the same as changing the code.
 
changing the code is changing the code. edit 1 line and i figure that
is a change. it is not the same as before. here we have _huge_ sections
of the code changed. there is no doubt that the code _has_ changed.
 
>the other about which is better.  I use Lharc right now because it is the
>best available.  If I thought ZOO was better, I wouldn't hesitate to
 
good for you. use lharc all u want. what i am arguing about is a "standard"
for posts and files uploaded to public archives on the net. what you do at
home or wherever is none of my (or anyone elses) business. and i don't care
what happens on BBS's either. only atari.archive and panarthea (or whatever
the comp.{binaries,sources}.atari.st archive calls itself these days).
everything else is of no concern to me, tho it might be to others.
 
>switch.  Zip also gives about the same compression and the same speed as
>Lharc and Zoo.  So far, Lharc has been the most reliable program for the
 
hardly. lharc on the ST is unreliable. read my post more carefully.
 
>3.  Lharc may have a problem with time-stamps.
>
>This I doubt.  I have been using Lharc for a while now, and I have never
>experienced the problem.  I have TOS 1.4, as did the other user who
 
READ MY POST. i showed you the problem, unless you think i am lying to
you. it does not work on my system, the biggest ST atari makes (mega 4
with 80 MB of atari harddisks). zoo does. i preseted unedited results of
directory listings after extraction. the date was wrong. lharc has a bug
making it useless for people needing it to be accurate. PERIOD.
that list of people includes any programmer who uses make, RCS, or similar
tools.
 
>mentioned he had no problems.  I think it might be your version of TOS.
 
so what. it should work on ALL TOS versions. otherwise it is hardly
universal, or _reliable_ as you claim. it is not as i _showed_.
 
>While I think Lharc should prabably work with the other TOS systems for
>completeness, but I won't carp about it.  TOS 1.2 and 1.0 should be fazed
>out of use anyway.
 
there are LOTS of people with TOS < 1.4. many people who write s/w for
a living MUST maintain test systems just to make sure their software runs
on all revs. your solution is to change the operating system to suit a
buggy program. hardly what i would call rational. if i had the source
(there he goes again :-) i could fix it and you would not here a peep
out of me!
 
>4.  Assembly code doesn't provide a large speed improvement.
>
>This is normal.  C is very close to assembly, so the speed improvement
 
i was responding to another who insisted that lharc was written in asm
for speed which i demonstrated is not inherently needed, unless of course
you are actually striving for anit-portability :-).
 
>I hope I have managed to address some of your major points.
 
yes, however i think i still win the argument :-).
 
and i really fail to see WHY the test itself was biased. _i_ might be,
but how is the _test_ biased? i tried for equal footings by eliminating
a potentially huge bias with hard disk (i _could_ have done the lharc
test in a nearly full, highly fragmented partition on a slower disk
and the zoo in a high speed empty partition, saying that "i ran both
on a hard disk"). what actually was biased in the results? that i
happened to pick a test which CRASHED MY MACHINE? that i happened to
pick a test THAT PRODUCED INCORRECT TIMESTAMPS? that i happened to pick
tests THAT SHOW ZOO IS AS FAST AND AS EFFICIENT? if you read the same
thing in a trade rag, you would thing it was unbiased, i suspect. maybe
i should have submitted the article anonymously :-). i tried to be
EXTREMELY detailed in my reporting. i do benchmarking for a living.
maybe less IS more.
 
when you accuse the test of being biased, be specific. name calling ("oh,
rosenkranz posted that, he is biased"), tho i _did_ invite it, is useless...
 
-bill
rosenkra@convex.com
 
--
Bill Rosenkranz            |UUCP: {uunet,texsun}!convex!rosenkra
Convex Computer Corp.      |ARPA: rosenkra@convex.com
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 29 Sep 91 02:00:19 GMT
From:
 noao!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.p
 itt.edu!gatech!prism!gt1448b@arizona.edu (David P. Forrai)
Subject: More Lies From Atari?
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
 
In article <9511@cactus.org> covert@cactus.org (Richard Covert) writes:
 
.. stuff deleted ...
>Atari sells many products overseas that can not pass the USA FCC
>inspection here. I wonder why that is so? Are radiation emissions
>tests more restrictive here in the USA then in Europe? why does
>atari have some many recurring problems passing FCC tests?
 
FCC testing IS a real problem.  My father in-law is getting into the
business of testing computers for the FCC.  Why?  Because there are only
4 other businesses who do so.  He said that when the FCC approves his
company (the hard part), he will instantly have $15,000 in his pocket.
 
>--
>Richard E. Covert                 covert@cactus.org
>CACTUS                  ..!cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!covert
--
David P. Forrai
uucp:     ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt1448b
Internet: gt1448b@prism.gatech.edu
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 28 Sep 91 19:03:40 GMT
From: crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!redmond@pt.cs.cmu.edu (Redmond English)
Subject: People dumping machines (was.. Atari Mega 2 system.. for sale)
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
 
In article <1991Sep27.143553.27920@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 dhbutler@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David Butler) writes:
 
>One thing I have noticed about the computer world is that there are a lot of
>real bone-heads in it, like as in thick skulls. Atari and Amiga users are the
>WORST of the lot.Get off your high-horses guys, you are arguing over a hunk of
>frigging silicone and some wires! That's right, go home, look at your ST, and
          ~~~~~~~~
>think about what it really is, a lump of PLASTIC and METAL, and that is all,it
>has no importance. GET A LIFE! All computers are good a different things, and
>that is all there is to it! I like them all, I use them all (although the
>consulting lab I work at during the day recently got rid of the Amigas, rats)
 
[..stuff deleted]
 
Fascinating!  My ST uses SILICON !  No silicone in sight !  Silicones are a
class of compounds with the formula (R2SiO)n where R is any  hydrocarbon
group.  Silicones are used as water-repellents, laquers, lubricants, resins,
artificial breast augmentation etc.  but they ain't semiconductors!
 
Anyway, this aside I believe David has missed the point.  I think the original
poster was saying that you can get Mac compatability at less cost than buying
a Mac - no comment about what was *better*, just *cheaper*.
 
Something else I find curious - David seems to believe that arguing about
arguing about computers is inherently better than merely arguing about
computers.  I think it is even more futile!
 
David also says that different computers are good for different things.  Does
anybody know what Intel architecture machines are good for (other than running
DOS software, which is rather a circular argument) ?  I mean in a computing
senses - "As a doorstop" is not quite the type of answer I'm looking for.
 
                                Red/.
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 28 Sep 91 22:40:44 GMT
From:
 noao!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!aunro!ersys!mforget@arizona.edu
 (Michel Forget)
Subject: Sozobon > 1.2
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
 
agostino@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Agostino Deligia) writes:
 
>
>
> Hi,
>
>       Anyone on the net know when the next version ( > 1.2 ) of Sozobon will
> be released?  Someone mentioned a couple of weeks ago that it was going to be
> released in a couple of weeks :~) but nothing has shown up in
> comp.binaries.atari.st or atari.archive.umich.edu.
>
> Thanx for any info,
> ad
>
> --
> Agostino Deligia
> agostino@concour.cs.concordia.ca
> It was the best of .sigs, it was the worst of .sigs...
 
 
The person who mentioned it was Steve Yelvington.  The place where he
receives his E-Mail is *VERY* hard to reach.  Every message I send takes
about five days for him to receive it.  First it gets bounced back with
the message "host unknown" and then he usually gets it a few days later.
The few times we have been able to get mail to each other, he mentioned
that the author (Ian Lepore (sp?)) decided that he was going to make a
few more modifications to it since he was going to release a new version
anyway.  A version (that has a few problems) is available from MAST for
$4 US.  I sent away for it, but haven't gotten a reply yet.  I'm not sure
if it will take 4-6 weeks like a mail-order service or if they handle the
packages within three days (like magazine).  This Monday, the letter will
have been in their hands for 14 days.  I sent it Special Delivery (3 days
guaranteed) so I know that it should have arrived two weeks ago counting
from this coming Monday.
 
Anyway, I hope this helps to answer your question.  The version from MAST
is 1.6xx.
 
 
<<  ----------------------------------  >>
<<  ersys!mforget@nro.cs.athabascau.ca  >>
<<     mforget@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca     >>
<<            Michel Forget             >>
<<     "He's dead, Jim..." - Bones      >>
<<  ----------------------------------  >>
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 29 Sep 91 05:07:03 GMT
From:
 noao!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!usc!chaph.usc.edu!aludra.usc.edu!rjung@arizona.edu
 (Robert Jung)
Subject: Spectrum spazz on TOS 1.62/STe?
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
 
Hi. I just recently got myself a 520STe with TOS 1.62 installed. I notice,
though, that whenever I try to load in Spectrum 512 pictures, they get columns
of black or white pixels running at random (and not aesthetically pleasing)
places along the image.
 
I imagine that this is due to some inconsistency with the Spectrum picture
display routine and TOS 1.62/the 4096 STe palette. Does anyone know of a patch
or solution for this problem that I can use? Any information would be
appreciated.
 
                                                --R.J.
                                                B-)
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    # ## #              Send replies to rjung@usc.edu
    # ## #
   ## ## ##             I wrote this. If you've got a comment, give
####  ##  ####          it to me and let's cut out the middleman.
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 28 Sep 91 15:06:24 GMT
From: dg!chan@uunet.uu.net (Allen Chan)
Subject: ST System 4SALE
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
 
Hardware: 1 meg memory, color monitor, dual sided
floppy drive, 30 meg harddrive, MIDI, etc.
 
Langauges: Pascal, Modula-2, LISP, 68K macro assembler.
 
Tools: Unix, multitasking package, communications package,
VT100 emulator.
 
Applications:  Word processor with real time spell checker,
1-2-3 like spreadsheet with write 90, database, CAD program.
 
Books & Manuals:  68K programmer's books, TOS BIOS book, system
manuals, applications manuals.
 
Fun Stuff:  Music program, copy protection breaker, two
draw programs, too many games to mention.
 
works perfectly.  Sell whole system or parts.
$950/bo for whole system. call Allen w 508-870-9875, h 508-820-7236
 
------------------------------
 
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 91 14:53:12 ADT
From: Alyre CHIASSON <CHIASSA@UDEM.mvs.unb.ca>
Subject: SUPERCHARGER and ATARI LASER PRINTER
To: N <info-atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu>
 
Is there any kind of support for the Atari Laser printer that
comes with Supercharger?
CHIASSAL@UDEM
.
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 28 Sep 91 19:32:26 GMT
From:
 noao!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-sta
 te.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!bjsjr@arizona.edu (Bill Shroka)
Subject: Zoo with GEM interface (Was: Re: ARJ? K.I.S.S.!)
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
 
In article <1991Sep27.154722.11915@convex.com> rosenkra@convex.com (William
 Rosenkranz) writes:
>
>tho i trust bill shroka and the atari guys to "do the right thing", i
>still prefer rainer's suggestion for a separate GEM shell for archivers.
>with virtually any other sort of program, be my guest (not that i am
>some sort of programming cop) and load it up with GEM functionality.
>this is actually a good idea IMHO.
 
Since I am not a very big fan of GEM, you can be sure that I will think
this matter over very thoroughly.  I won't add any internal GEM interface
just to be trendy, but there is a large demand for one (on GEnie).  Perhaps
when Rainer's Arcgshell is updated, or when Steve Yelvington completes (if
it's not already completed) ZOOSHELL, this demand will subside.
 
>i just get shivers down my spine when i think about proposals to muck
>around with archivers. i can easily see someone else picking the code
>up and introducing incompatibilities in it, even inadvertantly. and
>i think this paranoia of mine is at least somewhat justified since we
>have a track record for doing this (lharc). if atari would maintain
>the only "official" GEM version of zoo, this, too, would be acceptable.
>
>before screwing around with zoo, i would URGE you to contact zoo's owner
>and check with him on this issue. i believe the copyright restrictions
>in zoo should be looked at as well. any changes to zoo that make it
>incompatible require you to stop calling it zoo. at a minimum, you should
>bounce back these changes to rahul dhesi so he can incorporate them in
>the next "official" zoo release, properly #ifdef'ed for atari...
 
When R. Dhesi contacted me about incorporating my version of Zoo into the
"mainstream" version he seemed very open-minded.  Simply stated, he sends
me the new version of the source, I make it work on the Atari and send it
back to him.  He then releases the source on one of the sources newsgroups.
As long as any GEM code lives within atari.c, I don't forsee any problems
but I would definately check with Rahul first.
 
>flame away...
>
>-bill
>rosenkra@convex.com
>
>--
>Bill Rosenkranz            |UUCP: {uunet,texsun}!convex!rosenkra
>Convex Computer Corp.      |ARPA: rosenkra@convex.com
 
 
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Shroka
bjsjr@NCoast.ORG
uunet!usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu!ncoast!bjsjr
 
------------------------------
 
Date: 28 Sep 91 19:43:45 GMT
From:
 noao!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs
 .ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!bjsjr@arizona.edu (Bill Shroka)
Subject: Zoo with GEM interface (Was: Re: ARJ? K.I.S.S.!)
To: Info-Atari16@naucse.cse.nau.edu
 
In article <90475@bu.edu> harryk@bucsf.bu.edu (Harry Karayiannis) writes:
[stuff deleted]
>
>  Speaking of Zoo, I had some problems with it last night. Being sick of the
>zillions variations of lharc I decided to unpack all my .lzh files and zoo them
>with zoo ver 2.1. (since the compression is about the same, and zoo is
>guaranteed to work on all platforms) But altough the first couple of times it
>was doing fine, suddenly it stoped working properly: I was trying to create a
>new archive-file containing the files of a directory andf zoo2.1 gave me 3
>bombs. I used the command:  zoo21 ah// x.zoo dir (actually I was experimenting
>with the command line). The thing is that zoo21 bombed me every time I tried to
>commpress files maintining the full path-names......while zoo2.01 was doing
>that without problem  (but the compression was significantly lower).
>
>  Anyway, I think I read in this newsgroup that the version of zoo 2.1 stored
>on atari.archive (I got my copy from there) has some problems..
>Do I remember correctly? If yes,. could someone please tell me where can find
>a "clean" copy of zoo ver 2.1?
 
You should be able to find it on atari.archive in the comp.binaries.atari.st
directory.  If that's the version you're already using, then contact me via
E-mail and we'll see if we can find out what's wrong.
 
 
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Shroka
bjsjr@NCoast.ORG
uunet!usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu!ncoast!bjsjr
 
------------------------------
 
End of Info-Atari16 Digest
******************************
