================================================================================ (C) 1990 by Atari Corporation, GEnie, and the Atari Roundtables. May be reprinted only with this notice intact. The Atari Roundtables on GEnie are *official* information services of Atari Corporation. To sign up for GEnie service, call (with modem) 800-638-8369. Upon connection type HHH (RETURN after that). Wait for the U#= prompt. Type XJM11877,GEnie and hit RETURN. The system will prompt you for your information. ================================================================================ ************ Topic 22 Sat Jun 03, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 10:23 EDT Sub: Processor Accelerator by CMI Creative Microsystems Incorporated has announced a 16Mz accelerator board for the Atari ST computer line with a new twist...a socket for a BLiTTER chip! 204 message(s) total. ************ ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 1 Sat Jun 03, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 10:41 EDT The July issue of STart magazine opens up with a full page ad from Creative Microsystems Incorporated announcing a 16Mz accelerator board for Atari ST computers. With the availability (or announcements) of 3 or 4 other boards, what makes this one unique? It has a socket for a blitter chip so non-Mega ST users with the TOS 1.2 or TOS 1.4 ROMs can add a blitter to their 520ST or 1040ST! Since Sam Tramiel recently announced that blitter upgrades will not be available for 520ST/1040ST systems, the Processor Accelerator may be one nice way to speed up your ST's 68000 processing _AND_ add blitter power as well. I called them up and found out they are shooting for July 1 availability, but that date could possibly slide a bit in either direction. The pricing hasn't been firmly established, but they want to keep it under $300 (probably somewhere between $250 - $300). Creative Microsystems Incorporated already has accelerator boards out for the Commodore Amiga, so they are not newcomers to this kind of product. CMI sounded eager to get a GEnie account and to come online to talk about and support their product here in the Atari ST Round Table. Hopefully, we'll be seeing them online within the next several weeks. If anyone is interested in more information, the STart ad lists their phone and address: Creative Microsystems Incorporated 19552 SW 90th Court Tualatin, Oregon 97062 (503) 691-2552 ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 2 Sat Jun 03, 1989 M.CATER [M.CATER] at 20:03 PDT Is there a version specifically for the Mega series? I noticed in the ad you mentioned in START that TOS 1.2 is mentioned as working with the accelerator, but not 1.4. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 3 Sat Jun 03, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 23:52 EDT The ad specifically mentioned TOS 1.2 because that is currently available on newer 520ST and 1040ST systems. But the accelerator will work with the older TOS 1.0 ROMs also, but the blitter socket needs a version of TOS (ie. 1.2 or 1.4) that supports the blitter chip if present. Coincidently, if I understood Mr. Hannaford correctly, there will be two versions of the Processor Accelerator. One will be for the older style 520ST's (the ones without an internal disk drive) and Megas. The other version will be for 520STF/M and 1040ST systems. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 4 Sun Jun 04, 1989 T.C.S. at 09:21 EDT Any info on ram cache, etc.??? I like the blitter idea. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 5 Sun Jun 04, 1989 ANTIC at 14:32 EDT The ROM chips on the CMI board can be accelerated as well as the 68000. This gives the OS a big boost. Now if someone could accelerate the ROMs, 68000, and include a cache...that would be nice. -STeve Mortimer- ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 6 Wed Jun 07, 1989 NEVIN-S at 15:24 EDT How is someone supposed to buy a blitter to stick in this slot? Or are they including their own home-brew blitter? --Nevin ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 7 Wed Jun 07, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 16:10 EDT I imagine one would have to get a blitter through an Atari Service Center. CMI is not set up to sell blitters themselves. They just supply the option to add one if you have the chip. Sorta like the Spectre and Magic Sac carts rely upon the consumer getting their own Mac ROMs. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 8 Thu Jun 08, 1989 C.MAURITZ at 22:50 EDT Nevin, Blitters are easily available. Several of my European friends have u upgraded their 520/1040ST's long ago. If you cannot find them, I'll check on the price/availability from my friends. Chris Mauritz ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 9 Fri Jun 09, 1989 DARLAH [RT~SYSOP] at 08:40 EDT Please do. I did not realize it myself. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 10 Sat Jun 10, 1989 DOUG.W [ST*SYSOP] at 15:23 EDT I beleive both Best Electronics and B&C Computervisions will sell you a BLiTTER. --Doug ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 11 Mon Jun 12, 1989 ZMAGAZINE [_WK Whitton_] at 00:18 EDT Really? I'll have to check into this one... _WK Whitton_ ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 12 Wed Jun 14, 1989 R.GILLIES at 19:18 PDT Is CMI's accelerator board shipping, taking orders? Does anyone have one installed yet among those who ordered? I'm very interested! ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 13 Wed Jun 14, 1989 ZMAGAZINE [_WK Whitton_] at 22:25 EDT The accelerator is not currently available. I have an interview scheduled with the developer in the next few days. Keep an eye out for the next issue or two of ST*Zmag for further info on this ground breaking product (support for uis left-behinds!) _WK Whitton_ ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 14 Thu Jun 15, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 00:32 EDT CMI is looking for shipping around July 1st. I hear they also intend to be at WOA in Dearborn with their first batch of boards for sale. Be here on July 12 for a formal RTC with representatives from Creative Microsystems Incorporated. They'll be here to talk about the Processor Accelerator and answer all our questions. The RTC starts at 10:00pm EDT. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 15 Wed Jun 14, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 at 22:02 PDT Ok, my name is Bill Coldwell (as soon as they get the name changed to CMI*TECH the happier I'll be ;-). I guess you could call me the slimeball who got volunteered to do this ;-). I am new to GEnie, so e excuse my lack of terminology and understanding of how this network functions. On to business: There will be a formal conference on July 12th that I will be attending along with the engineers and marketing manager. For those of you that have read the STart ad, we have tricked you. We were going to launch the ST-PA (ST-Processor Accelerator) on June 1st. Well, ok, we lied. We figured that we needed to add a few things to it first: an MC68881 or MC68882 math co-processor socket and an expansion connector for up-coming products. So, because of the board re-work, we moved it back a month to July 1st. Considering that the idea is only 6 weeks old, we didn't want to nounce it too soon. We know you hate vaporware, and so do we. We didn't want to get into the ST market at all, since there were all of these announcements for the past 2 years of other accelerators - but we couldn't believe that no one ever really came out with one il lately. So, since we have been making accelerators for the Amiga computers, we decided to invest in the ST market. This is not something that is put together in someone's garage, and sold in low quantities with virtually no advertising. This is a *real* product. This is not a simple 16MHz 68000 that you must rip out your old CPU to get a fabled 30% increase. This product does not have "video" problems. The Amiga market has treated us very well, and we hope that the ST market will also treat us well. We have listened to complaints that local ST owners had about the limitations of their machines, and decided to incorporate as much as we could into the ST-PA, with the daughterboards to take care of the rest. Here are the specs: * 16 MHz 68000 * Blitter socket * MC68881/68882 math co-processor socket * Expansion connector * 16MHz FastROM access * Mega/520 (older style) and 1040/520 (newer style) models * $299.95 This product does not have a RAM cache. We looked at the idea of having one, but decided that it wouldn't be as effective as 16MHz ROM access in most applications. Since the ST relies on ROM accesses for most functions, throughput gets improved by approx. 40% (using the new time/old time * 100 - 100 equation: Where 100 percent is twice as fast a normal ST). It's switchable between 8 and 16MHz with a hardware switch. We feel that this product will greatly improve your productivity on the ST. We have 2 years experience designing 680x0 accelerators, and we are ready to provide you with the speed that you need. You can expect up to 10x speed improvement with programs that use the MC68881! No kidding. We have seen these results on the Amiga, and you can experience it on your ST. Ok, commercial is over. I'll be here to answer your questions, or you can call Lilliane (our fabulous red-headed Tech Support person) to send you information on it, or just to say "Hi!". Bill Creative Microsystems Inc. 19552 SW 90th Court Tualatin, OR 97062 (503) 691-2552 biz (503) 691-1292 fax PLINK:CMI*TECH Compuserve: 73577,3377 Here:CMI*TECH UUCP: tektronix!sequent!calvin!billc ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 16 Thu Jun 15, 1989 JLS [John STanley] at 04:12 CDT Bill, would you please explain your use of the term "Fast ROM". Your description implies it's an accelerated ROM that you're using instead of a cache. How can you manage to alternate ROM? (Or is it the ST's normal ROMS placed in a special socket? Or....?) Please elaborate. PS: Liked the flier I received from you folks. Unfortunately, even after reading it, the "Fast ROM" isn't really explained. I suspect (given that I do much of my own processing in assembler) that I may really and truely want to have a cache. Any chance this could be one of your "daugthter-board" options? ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 17 Thu Jun 15, 1989 PSINC [Mark S.] at 08:41 EDT They are speeding up the access to the ROMs (increasing clock speed). But I thought the ROMs were slow (250ns). Hmmm... Neat Idea though, I wondered if someone would use that technique. RAM cache as well would be neat. Mark ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 18 Sat Jun 17, 1989 P.MCCULLOUGH at 02:54 EDT Bill, Great NEWS! I saw an Amiga mag rave about the results they got using your 68881 co-pro. You're right! What a difference. Thank you for developing what should be the first significant accellerator for the ST market. Rest assured that you've probably sold at least one. PS- do you anticipate a version for Mega owners who already have a Blitter and don't need the added socket? Nice to know that a third party developer is filling the needs of 520 and 1040 owners who waited for years for a Blitter only to have Atari dash their hopes. I hope you guys keep developing for the ST- its a wide open market hardware-wise! Cheers, PVM ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 19 Sat Jun 17, 1989 K.STEVENS1 [Ken] at 19:04 CDT YOu stated that you did not have to rip the 68000 chip out....how does the board install then...is it clipped onto the processor or what.....and what about compatibility with the PCD II......... Ken ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 20 Sat Jun 17, 1989 TLMAY [Terry May] at 18:31 PDT PVM, For the record, it wasn't exactly ATARI who dashed the hopes of us 520/1040 owners who would like the BLiTTER -- it was the FCC! The shielding is not sufficient in 520/1040s to pass the FCC. I guess CMI can get around this because they're not exactly selling the BLiTTER, but only a socket. -==- ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 21 Sun Jun 18, 1989 ZMAGAZINE at 10:11 EDT K.Stevens If you don't wish to physically remove the 68000, CMI provides instructions on how to clip 2 pins on the 68000 installed presently in your St, and then solder a socket on top of it. The board will then plug into this socket. Actually, its the same way I installed my Tweety board. Much easier to unplug the board that way it it ever needs to be replaced/fixed etc than desoldering from the chip below it. _WK Whitton_ ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 22 Mon Jun 19, 1989 TLMAY [Terry May] at 21:15 PDT WK, As I recall, the Tweety Board installation is a simple matter of sticking a chip on top of the Yamaha sound chip and then sticking their circuit board where you have available space. Why would you need to solder ANY socket? Please explain... (Sorry, Topic Police!) -==- ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 23 Thu Jun 22, 1989 P.MCCULLOUGH at 00:49 EDT Terry- Pity. I guess the Megas have more or better shielding then? PVM PS- is it legal then to put a blitter into a CMI board? ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 24 Thu Jun 22, 1989 TOWNS at 02:22 EDT A better question is whether or not it's legal for CMI to sell the board with a BLiTTER. This would indicate whether or not the product was FCC certified with a BLiTTER or not. I don't think there is anything legally preventing you from putting a BLiTTER in the CMI board in your computer ( /computer/cmi/BLiTTER :-) even if it is not certified by FCC. The problem you might run into is if there is interference generated by operating the board and it disturbs your neighbors. Warning: I am by no means recommending that anyone violate FCC laws.. Understood? -- John ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 25 Sat Jun 24, 1989 M.GOMPERTZ2 at 00:13 EDT I think your accelerator processor board is great, but what are the prospects of having an accelerator board that uses a 68020 (which is actually quite old) or a 68040 like the accelerator boards that are used for the Amiga and Macintosh? ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 26 Sat Jun 24, 1989 DOUG.W [ST*SYSOP] at 17:15 EDT Jim Allen (FAST Technologies) has stated he could have a 68020 board up and running in just a couple of weeks, EXCEPT TOS won't work! TOS (the ST's operating system) will not work on anything except a 68000 (currently). --Doug ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 27 Sat Jun 24, 1989 DAEDWARDS at 19:50 PDT 68040 is pretty unlikely, at least until Motorola starts shipping them. Don Edwards ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 28 Sun Jun 25, 1989 M.GOMPERTZ2 at 01:01 EDT Will the new TOS 1.4 allow for the newer processors? ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 29 Sun Jun 25, 1989 P.R.SKLENAR at 10:40 EDT Gee, you mean Motorola's already started shipping 68040's!? I thought it's be close to a year or two before THAT was available! Now if we could plug in a 50Mhz 68030! CMI*TECH, It sounds very promising, but, I too, would like to know just what is meant by "fast ROMs". Pat---- ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 30 Sun Jun 25, 1989 G.E.M. at 14:57 PDT 68040's probably go for about $700-$1000 apiece anyway. That would mean that an accelerator board based on the 040 would cost more than the computer that it goes in. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 31 Mon Jun 26, 1989 FB [ST Librarian] at 23:33 EDT Pat-- When CMI was in the RTC one night they were asked about it. Said that by caching the ROM code from the ST in RAM that it system ram much faster. Since the ROMs are 200-250ns and the ram is maybe twice that fast it does make sense that it would speed up ROM calls that are in the ram cache. CMI has a formal RTC coming up in July so I will ask further questions then. Fred Beckman ST File Librarian ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 32 Wed Jun 28, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 at 18:53 PDT Ok, please excuse my absence - I got bogged down with having to start rking on the ST Accelerator manual. Now, on to what I could gather from the messages that I just read. FastROM is very simple. It is the action of accessing the ROMs at 16MHz. Nothing more, no tricks, no gimmicks. There is *NO* (none, zilch, nada) RAM on the ST Accelerator, so any mention of us cache'ing is bogus. We also have no intention of having a RAM cache on future daughter boards. As far as the legality of putting a Blitter in your machine (520/1040) - does the government tell you what to do in your own home? We simply provide a socket on the ST Accelerator for you to pop one in. As far as the FCC goes, I'd probably be arrested for not using *ANY* RF shielding on my developments. My neighbors don't complain, and I have no trouble receiving TV and radio stations. (You should have seen the wire-wrap version of the ST- PA!) Anyway, since the board is not an external device, we don't worry about the FCC - what you do is your own biz. Ok back on the subject(s). The MC68881 does greatly increase the speed at which programs that use it run, by a factor of multiples rather than percentages. To judge our Accelerator based on that fact would be unfair to the competitors (I mean - THEM: 40% US: 10x - not real fair). Also: When comparing, don't get confused! Use the equation: OLD-TIME / NEW-TIME ------------------- X 100 NEW-TIME This will give you a delta percentage of speed improvement (providing that the times are in a common unit - we used seconds). Competitors would like to cover up their actual throughput by throwing words at like "RUN YOUR ST TWICE AS FAST", and "CPU INSTRUCTIONS ARE EXECUTED IN HALF OF THE TIME". Now, these *are* true statements, since you are running your ST at 16MHz rather than 8MHz, which means that the CPU access is twice as fast, which (by no other choice) means that the execution time is cut 50%. CONFUSED? Well, that's the idea. Now, you are probably thinking that an Accelerator should give you a performance of twice as fast - right? Or that you should have your programs run in 50% of the normal time - right? Guess what - they mean the exact same thing, only said in different ways. By using the above equation, a 100% improvement is twice as fast. Simple, and not confusing. Since only the CPU and ROM are being accessed at 16MHz, you will not get a 100% improvement, and since most of the CPU's work is playing with RAM (that's at 8MHz, since it *can't* be accessed reliably at 16MHz) you will not get a grandious improvement. What you WILL get is increased productivity - less time waiting for the computer. What makes us different from the other ST accelerator manufacturers, is (ADVERTISING! Sorry, tacky but true) that we also include a Blitter socket and a math chip socket. We are awaiting to receive a couple of the competitors accelerators to evaluate them, but at this time, we are going on what (few) ST owners in the NW have to say about them (few ST owners refers to the number whom have the competitors accelerators, not to the total # of ST owners in the NW - sorry). Ok, I'll leave you alone in a second: see if this makes sense of the blurb that I said earlier... Some people are getting confused into believing that because 50% time is saved in execution that 50% is really twice as fast. This is wrong - dead wrong. So when someone says that you get a 30% improvement, you aren 't getting 30% of 50%, you're getting 130% of 100% - or (geez this is complicated) about a 1/3 improvement in speed over a stock machine. Ok, I'm leaving. If I confused you more, our tech spec sheets will explain it. Call us @ (503) 691-2552 to get yours. Bill Creative Microsystems Inc. 19552 SW 90th CT Tualatin, OR 97062 691-1292 fax ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 33 Thu Jun 29, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 00:32 EDT Or you can catch the RTC with CMI here on the Atari ST Round Table on July 12th at 10:00pm EDT for more info. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 34 Thu Jun 29, 1989 ST-INFORMER at 20:49 EDT Bill, There was some dicussion among the ST Informer staff over benchmark math very much along the lines of your message. I agree it is important we all use the same math for the benchmark numbers. I just pulled out an old electrical instrumentation text where the following are stated: (standard value - measured value) X 100% % Difference = ------------------------------- standard value (standard value - measured value) X 100% % Accuracy = ------------------------------- measured value Assuming the " / " in the numerator of your equation was meant to be a " - ", it looks like you used what this particular text calls % Accuracy rather than % Difference. Anyone else have any input on what is the correct way to express percent difference when looking at performance improvement? Ron (now I wish I stayed awake in Statistics) Robinson ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 36 Sat Jul 08, 1989 M.ABSALOM at 20:29 CDT Both methods are valid ways of expressing delta percent, which is why in any technical type article the method of calculation the author uses is listed. You can express percent difference in terms of the old or new value, with equal validity. It's the wording of the sentence that clouds the issue. I am just about to expand the RAM on my 1040, is there anything I should be aware of (planning on purchasing the accellerator in the future). Chip speed? Memory expansion board? I'd hate to spend money on an unsuitable memory expansion. Does anyone have any suggestions as to the expansion board of choice? ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 37 Sat Jul 08, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 23:28 EDT Just a reminder to everyone that Creative Microsystems Inc will be our guests for the formal Real Time Conference this week. Be here on Wednesday, July 12, at 10:00pm EDT to hear all about the Processor Accelerator for the ST line of computers and ask you questions in person. ("In person?" Well, you know what I mean! ) Jeff Williams ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 38 Sat Jul 08, 1989 G.ANDERSON at 23:53 CDT How's this for a formula to get the % improvement of a program? ((base time/new time)-1) x 100 = % of improvement Gregg ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 39 Sun Jul 09, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 at 23:01 PDT M.Absalom: With our accelerator, it does not matter as to what speed your RAM chips are, since we do not access the RAM on weird cycles, or access the RAM at an accelerated speed. G.Anderson: Let's try to keep the equation "standard". Everyone else who cares: I have done some timings with both QIndex v1.4 and v1.5 - since no one has posted any comparisons with QI1.5, I'll post the ones with 1.4. Bill ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 41 Mon Jul 10, 1989 JLS [John STanley] at 02:29 CDT Here's the same message reformatted so the tables are readable.... ------------------------------ Received: by calvin.CMI (5.17/Tek) id AA04582; Wed, 5 Jul 89 12:45:12 PDT Date: Wed, 5 Jul 89 12:45:12 PDT From: richr Message-Id: <8907051945.AA04582@calvin.CMI> To: billc Since there has been so much interest lately in the barrage of accelerator choices that have suddenly come to the ST market, we thought that a comparison of them all, side by side, was in order. Here are the results! SOFTWARE: The software that was used is QuickIndex 1.4. The Mandelbrot test of the FPU was one distributed on Atari's FPU004 development disk. HARDWARE: Atari-8: Atari ST Mega2, unmodified, hi-res monochrome, no blitter JATO-16: Atari ST 1040, JATO-16, med-res color, no blitter FAST-T16: Atari ST Mega4, FAST-T16, hi-res monochrome, no blitter [K CMI: Atari ST 520, CMI Processor Accelerator: blitter; 16 MHz Math FPU; FastROM, hi-res monochrome RESULTS: The table below contains the tests of the different accelerators. The tests of the JATO and FAST boards were as submitted to GEnie by two different posters. All values are represented as percentages. The tables between the results -------------| are the difference between the CMI Accelerator and the system | results listed in the column to the left. The tests are | listed in the approximate order they would be used in a normal | application. The number in parentheses next to the test name is | an importance value that is used to obtain the weighted average | of each test. | CMI Proc Accel Atari-8 V JATO-16 FAST-T16 Price($U.S.) $299 $339 $99 $399/299? (Blitter) vs. CMI vs. CMI vs. CMI |------| |------| |------| CPU memory (3) 101 101 100 | -1% | 100 | 0% | 130 | 29% | GEM draw (3) 220 279 158 |-121% | 151 |-128% | 187 | -92% | BIOS text (3) 201 210 143 | -77% | 162 | -48% | 177 | -33% | GEMDOS I/O (2) 112 112 112 | 0% | 112 | 0% | 75 | -37% | DMA read (2) 161 161 161 | 0% | 161 | 0% | 161 | 0% | CPU divide (1) 183 183 100 | -83% | 183 | 0% | 202 | -19% | CPU shifts (1) 180 180 100 | -80% | 179 | -1% | 205 | 25% | Mandelbrot (FPU) 153 976 100 |-876% | 100 |-876% | 100 |-876% | |------| |------| |------| COMPARISON: (CMI vs Atari) (CMI vs JATO) (CMI vs FAST) Weighted Avg: 163% 144% 127% Weighted Avg (FPU): 226% 208% 200% ^ |___ CMI is this much faster than the competition. FEATURES: CMI Proc Accel Atari JATO-16 FAST-T16 Blitter support !! YES !! Mega only NO NO Math FPU support !! YES !! NO NO NO FastROM mode !! YES !! NO NO NO Toggle 8/16 !! YES !! NO YES YES Total Compatibility !! YES !! YES NO ??? (CacheOn/Off) Expansion connector !! YES !! Mega only NO NO Cache RAM NO NO NO YES Since we were not able to test all products at the same time with the same equipment these results will have to be labeled "unofficial". Some people may argue with the manner or purpose of the weighted average. We feel very strongly that this was chosen in a "fair" manner. If the results are not weighted, a person will not be able to get a realistic picture of OVERALL system performance. Some people may question the "obvious bias" that this test has, leaning towards the CMI Processor Accelerator. Quite frankly, we don't give a damn. We think that without question the CMI Processor Accelerator is by far the most superior product that you can purchase to enhance your ST. Richard N. Rodgers, President Creative Microsystems Inc. 11952 SW 90th Court Tualatin, OR 97062 (503) 691-2552 ...tektronix!sequent!calvin!richr If you don't like my test, give me a call and tell me why. Or better yet, do your own test and post the results. If you want to place an order, or get product information: Lilliane Carter, (Customer Service & Support / ST Dealer & End User sales) ...tektronix!sequent!calvin!lillian ---------------------------------End of text ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 42 Mon Jul 10, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 07:49 EDT Thank you, John, for reposting the chart. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 43 Mon Jul 10, 1989 GORDON at 13:52 EDT Jeff why dont you deleat the original message. Its an awful long commercial to read twice. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 44 Mon Jul 10, 1989 DARLAH [RT~SYSOP] at 18:00 EDT Gordon: Changing topic he aders is Sandy and my job. I don't think 2 lines is excessive unless you are talking about something else?? A duplicate Gordon: That is Sandy and my job. :-) I will take care of it. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 45 Mon Jul 10, 1989 M.ABSALOM at 19:52 CDT I noticed in the preceding commercial that the CMI cartridge supports an exp? v wf 9 expansion slot. Does this mean that I would have Moniterm capability in my 1040? It is, by the way, in an XT case so that any modifications are internal and not critical as to size. (or certification). ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 46 Mon Jul 10, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 23:19 EDT Darlah, Gordon was refering to message #40 posted by CMI (W.COLDWELL1) in which the table got reformatted by GEnie's message editor. John Stanley was thoughtful enough to take the time to reformat and post the message again in his message #41. I see that you or Sandy have already deleted it. Gordon, I agree. I just don't do BB maintenance. It scares me. :-) Bill, GEnie's message editor will reformat the text in messages to fit the screen width our callers have told GEnie their system supports. In order to save a message with the exact format that you wish it displayed in, use the *SN command instead of the *S command. Unfortunately, your tables in message 40 got twisted about a bit, making them difficult to read. John Stanley reformatted them back to "normal" and uploaded it in message 41. Jeff Williams ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 47 Mon Jul 10, 1989 JLS [John STanley] at 22:28 CDT No problem Jeff, but thanks for noticing... Using Flash, it only took about 30-40 seconds to reformat the tables to something readable. I would have done that anyway just so I could read the data they contained. I seem to remember reading that "with great power comes great responsibility...". Flash gives me what I consider great power so I help-out now and then where I can... ;^) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 48 Tue Jul 11, 1989 D.ANDERSON22 [FastTech Rep] at 01:18 EDT The numbers given for TURBO16 were accurate at the time they were posted, however, that particular test was run on a prototype board. For the sake of clarification, I would like to update those numbers with the results of a test (under QuickIndex 1.4) run more recently, on a final, production spec board. The test was run on a monochrome Mega4 system, all peripherals turned off. BLiTTER BLiTTER OFF ON CPU memory 136% 136% CPU register 203% 203% CPU divide 203% 203% CPU shifts 207% 207% BIOS text 213% 220% GEM draw 236% 301% GEMDOS I/O 112% 112% DMA read 100% 100% These numbers may show just a little better how T16 stacks up against the Processor Accelerator. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 49 Tue Jul 11, 1989 DAEDWARDS at 21:22 PDT Ah... how did you do GEMDOS I/O with all peripherals turned off? :-) Don Edwards ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 50 Wed Jul 12, 1989 STEPHANIE.A at 02:01 CDT Does your math coprocessor meet the 'standard' requirements for the ST, -- is it supported?? Or is this another proprietary upgrade?? Also, some benchmarks utilizing such would be nice. '10x' is pretty vague without supporting data. Tom Dodge ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 51 Wed Jul 12, 1989 JAMOS at 18:21 MDT Do floating point hardware additions to the ST (ala the CMI board) require pecial software, or will any program be able to use the co-processor? I ber (can't ever spell that word - REMEMBER) reading something to the fect that only software with special hooks could access a co-processor. Please tell me I'm wrong! Also, just got the CMI brochure yw`esterday. is it tru that the current version won't wok with my 1040, and that we (who represent about 75% of ST owners, is my uess) will have to wait another month or so? or did you just mean the 1040 FM would be later? inally, how about board size? Somehow, it seems to me that with all of these connectors and sockets, I won't be able to fit the accelerator, a memory upgrade, d my clock chip all in the case (and still be able to close it!) Thanks, Jim ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 52 Wed Jul 12, 1989 D.ANDERSON22 [FastTech Rep] at 20:28 EDT The only ST software package I'm currently aware of that takes advantage of a math co-processor is DynaCadd. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 53 Wed Jul 12, 1989 D.ANDERSON22 [FastTech Rep] at 21:44 EDT Hi Folks, this is Jim Allen from Fast Tech. I have some questions for CMI, I think the answers will be of interest to us all. 1: When FT says "Runs your ST twice as fast" we mean what took 10 secs now takes 5 secs. What does CMI mean when quoting timings? 2: The proper formula for measuring % speed improvement is: %X = ( ( old-time-in-secs/new-time-in-secs ) -1 ) * 100 ex: 100% = ( ( 10 secs/5 secs ) -1 ) * 100 which IS twice as fast! How does CMI explain their formula? 3: CMI printed a benchmark comparison table (msg 41). CMI was inaccurate in the following ways: * CMI left out the "CPU REGISTER" test in QI1.4. This is odd because the instructions used (move/add/bra/cmp...) comprise 80-90% of the typical makeup of 68000 programs. Why did CMI leave this out? Its the best indicator of overall speedup! * CMI timings used the blitter while atari/T16/JATO were without blitter even though you had access to w/blitter timings. Why try to be deceiving if ST-PA is so much better than the others? * The timings with the FPU didn't mention the price of a 68881? Certainly ST-PA-FPU at 16Mhz will run $550, right? * CMI did not mention that only 1 mainstream ST program Dynacadd uses the FPU and that the 68881 has been available for 2 yrs to ST owners so inclined. Why not be straight with ST users? * Was CMI using TOS 1.2 or TOS 1.4 for this comparison? I provide a corrected comparison here with production T16 timings: Quick index 1.4 / TOS1.2 / floppy / Mega 4 w/o blitter w/blitter ST-PA T16 rel% ST-PA T16 rel% cpu memory 101 135 +35 101 135 +35 cpu register 101 203 +102 101 203 +102 * most important!!! cpu divide 183 203 +20 183 203 +20 cpu shift 180 206 +26 180 206 +26 bios text 201 185 -16 210 179 -31 * 250ns vs 312.5ns gem draw 220 233 +13 279 295 +16 gemdos i/o 112 112 0 112 112 0 dma read 161 161 0 161 161 0 In CMI's own "weighted?" +179% +167% average, T16 is this much faster than ST-PA: !!!!! w/ TURBOST and GPLUS bios text ??? 505 +304? ??? 505 +295? gem draw ??? 521 +301? ??? 558 +379? And if TURBOST and GPLUS +787% +856% are used, this measure increases to: !!!! 4: Thats a little sleazy since CMI has not posted TURBOST/GPLUS timings. How well does ST-PA respond to TURBOST and GPLUS? 5: Why doesn't FALCON work with ST-PA? Or so says your order taker- Lilliane Carter! Does it crash or what? Games in general? 6: What is FASTROM? The TOS roms are 200ns devices that can be operated at 312.5ns cycle times (16Mhz 1 wait state) and all the accelerators do this- JATO,T16,ROCKE Comp.,ATIN,DATAFREE PAK68.... What makes yours different? 7: ST users know both blitter upgrades and 68881 upgrades have been available for years and these haven't sold well, what marketing forces convinced you to add these bells and whistles? Does CMI sell blitters, atari says they are for MEGA service only? 8: Should ST users talk to AMIGA users about the PA before buying? FT feels strongly that they should. FT also recommends reading "AMAZING AMIGA" June 89'. There is a review of the PA for the AMIGA. 9: About the FCC. Yes if you screwup TV reception the government can tell you what to do in your own home. And fine you $10000 and put you in prison for 1 year for illegal transmissions. Just ask DATA PACIFIC about skirting FCC mandates. By the way is the 16Mhz osc. for the 68881 certified? It was not an original part of the computer. T16 is both totally internal and does not produce any RFI not originally in the ST at FCC qualification time. 10: CMI provides instructions to clip pins on the original 68000 and install ST-PA on top of the 68000. Won't a blitter, a 68881, an accelerator with a 2nd 68000, and the original 68000 all tax the old power supplies? Especially with a ram addon and tweety board or even PCDITTO II? Sounds pretty kludgy to me! 11: Does ST-PA speedup SPECTRE128 or PC DITTO? Do you have a SANE library replacement designed for your 68881 under SPECTRE? 12: Since the MAC relies on its ROMs as much as the ST why aren't there a flock of low priced accelerators with FAST ROM for the MAC? Its a much bigger market. And it would even benfit from an Atari blitter and quick draw replacement!!! 13: CMI says a comparison of accelerators is called for. So it just happens that a T16 is in the neighborhood over at ST WORLD. How 'bout a comparison article? ST WORLD can have it printed in the next issue for release at the DALLAS show. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 54 Thu Jul 13, 1989 D.S.HARRISON at 02:42 CDT I've been following this topic, and there sure seems to be a lot of controversy about how to represent percent change, when an increase in performance is actually a decrease in execution time. I've got a problem with the formula presented in the last message, where the fractional change = (old/new)-1. This is a function of 1/x, which is _not_ the same as percent change when an "increase is really an increase." The latter is a linear function of x (the new value); given the (1+fractional increase)*old value, you arrive at the new value. That's clearly not the case with any functions presented here; with the function from the last message, you would have new value = old_value/(1+fractional change), which is kinda the reverse of what's typically assumed (and it's confusing). For example, using 10 as the old value and 7.5 as the new value, you would have a percent change of 33% using the formula above. So, if you were going from 7.5 to 10, I would agree the increase would be 33%. But in fact you're doing the reverse, going from 10 to 7.5, and I have a hard time thinking of 2.5 as 33% of 10, which is where you started. But the example from the last message is correct; going from 10 to 5 gives a 100% increase or is twice as fast. Notice that equally spaced steps give non-equally spaced increments in the percent change, a consequence of the non-linear function. Why not just express it as a simple fraction and dispense with this percent garbage? For example, "execution factor" = new/old. That way, I know if I have a program currently consuming 10 "time units" and install your board with an execution factor of 0.65 (relative to what my program does!), I can infer the program will then require only 6.5 time units. To me, this is a lot simpler than hearing the board gives a 53.85% performance boost using (10/6.5-1)*100 as previously suggested; to compute my new time I would need to take 10/(1+0.5385), which is not only a pain but far less intuitive. Oh well, sorry for the tirade, but I feel percent is a highly overrated concept :-| (would you believe physicians sometimes measure concentration in "milligrams-percent?" Ack!) -Doug ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 55 Thu Jul 13, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 07:05 EDT Since CMI (and others) have explained their formula for determining the increased performance percentage, I don't think it's necessary to continue debating that formula here. Perhaps another topic for that express subject would be more appropriate. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 56 Thu Jul 13, 1989 NEVIN-S at 10:20 EDT The proof will come when the boards are all released, and they are compared with real-live programs, such as printing with one DTP program, search and replace in the exact same 200K document in WP, compiling of the same program using some compiler, etc. Right now it is hard to sort out all the mumbo jumbo...good luck to all...! --Nevin ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 57 Fri Jul 14, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 00:28 EDT The transcript of the 07/12/89 conference with Creative Microsystems Incorporated is in Library 13 now. The ARCed version is CO071389.ARC (file #11096). The ASCII text version, which can be downloaded or listed online, is CO071289.TXT (file #11095). Thanks to CMI for an informative conference! ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 59 Sat Jul 15, 1989 STEVEREED at 12:21 PDT Bill, have you tried running Turbo ST version 1.6 on the Processor Accelerator? I'm curious to see the results, since Turbo ST already speeds up my old 520st an almost unbelievable amount. The results from qindex 1.5 are: Bios Text 334% Bios String 1270% Bios Scroll 185% Gem Draw 212% Those text and Gem increases + PA's overall increases should REALLY make things cook! STeve ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 60 Sun Jul 16, 1989 G.ANDERSON at 19:27 CDT Yea, it's me again folks. I'm going to ask one last time for some advice. Which formula do you use to determine performance gains with a hardware or software accelerator? I have two basic formulas to choose from and would prefer to stick with whichever one is considered the 'standard'... I.E.: Which formula does CMI use for its advertising? 1) ((Base Time - Test Time) / Base Time) X 100 = % 2) ((Base Time - Test Time) / Test Time) X 100 = % this is where the - means subtract, / is divide, X is multiply. I realize that this is a bit 'off the beaten path' but I really would like to know which formula to use for my calculations, I want to stay with a standard formula. The headache is that both formulas are good, and both appear from time to time. Anderson ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 61 Sun Jul 16, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 20:43 EDT Bill Coldwell posted the equation used by CMI in his message number 32 in this topic on June 28th. Just type the number 32 at the prompt at the end of this topic to read it. Or, if you're NOR'ing it right now, at the next BB prompt, type SET 4 (hit return), and READ 22 32 (hit return again). ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 62 Sun Jul 16, 1989 D.S.HARRISON at 22:13 CDT Regarding message 32, somehow I fell an inverse square law is not what he meant... (fell == feel) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 63 Mon Jul 17, 1989 JLS [John STanley] at 01:25 CDT If something once ran in 100 seconds and now runs in 125 seconds, I'd say that's 25% speed increase... By that reasoning, the 1st formula G.ANDERSON gave sounds like the correct one. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 64 Mon Jul 17, 1989 STAN50 at 20:38 EDT To John Stanley: I wouldn't want you doing calculations for me! Sorry, I couldn't resist that cheap shot. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 65 Mon Jul 17, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 at 20:07 PDT Sorry that I haven't been on for a couple of days, but some of us have "real" lives to contend with ;-). I've captured the new messages, and will be posting a reply to the questions in the next few days. Bill ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 66 Mon Jul 17, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 23:50 EDT John, You might want to re-read your message #63 again. :-) Jeff ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 67 Tue Jul 18, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 at 20:04 PDT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Creative Microsystems Inc. As many of you know, we have been shipping a Processor Accelerator product for the Amiga for over a year, and have literally thousands of satisfied customers. In that market though, we were often dismayed by the amount of company and product "bashing" that takes place on the various network services. We had hoped that in the more established Atari-ST market, things would be different. We had high hopes that our marketing and customer service people would be able to spend their time providing our current and potential customers with helpful new information and personal assistance, rather than hashing and re-hashing contrived criticisms from not-so-disinterested third parties. Unfortunately, it appears that this will not be the case. We will take the time to attempt to address the "concerns" expressed by other organizations on this network in the material that follows. What we will not do under any circumstances is criticise or second-guess any other company that shares this marketplace with us, competitor or not. We feel that our product will address the needs of a unique segment of this market, and the only sentiment we care to share with those who likewise toil in the high tech vineyards is: Good Luck! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Category 4, Topic 22 Message 53 Wed Jul 12, 1989 D.ANDERSON22 [FastTech Rep] at 21:44 EDT Hi Folks, this is Jim Allen from Fast Tech. I have some questions for CMI, I think the answers will be of interest to us all. 1: When FT says "Runs your ST twice as fast" we mean what took 10 secs now takes 5 secs. What does CMI mean when quoting timings? **** Bill Coldwell - Creative Microsystems Inc. Depends on how you look at it: With our Processor Accelerator for the ST, we run the our 68000 CPU at 16MHz, which is "twice as fast" as a normal ST, and we also run the ROMs at 16MHz (also "twice as fast"). Since the standard RAM, disk i/o, video RAM, or any other major chips are only accessible at 8MHz, a "TRUE" overall 100% speed improvement of the entire machine is just not possible. Specific functions may be increased up to and over 100% at times, but with our board, it depends on how CPU, CPU to ROM, blitter, and FPU intensive a program is. **** 2: The proper formula for measuring % speed improvement is: %X = ( ( old-time-in-secs/new-time-in-secs ) -1 ) * 100 ex: 100% = ( ( 10 secs/5 secs ) -1 ) * 100 which IS twice as fast! How does CMI explain their formula? **** There seems to be a lot of confusion over the % of speed improvement, and the % of time saved. Using the above example, there was a 50% reduction in the amount of time that the program executed - which means that it ran in half the time that it normally took, or it ran twice as fast. The amount of speed increase is directly related to the amount of time that it took to execute. We have stated what our equation represents in another message in this area. ((oldtime - newtime) / newtime) * 100 **** 3: CMI printed a benchmark comparison table (msg 41). CMI was inaccurate in the following ways: * CMI left out the "CPU REGISTER" test in QI1.4. This is odd because the instructions used (move/add/bra/cmp...) comprise 80-90% of the typical makeup of 68000 programs. Why did CMI leave this out? Its the best indicator of overall speedup! **** We do not believe that this test is really viable, since we do not know what this test is supposed to represent. Any 68000 register -> register functions would be at an accelerated rate. **** * CMI timings used the blitter while atari/T16/JATO were without blitter even though you had access to w/blitter timings. Why try to be deceiving if ST-PA is so much better than the others? **** Our product is an upgrade path to allow 520 and 1040 owners (which most ST users own) to have blitter and FPU capabilities. It allows the Mega to have FPU capabilities and for all machines to have FastROM access. Since we do not possess either boards, we have been unable to perform our own testing on them. We feel that comparing a 520 with our board against another manufacturer's board in a 520 IS a fair comparison and that we are not being deceitful in any way. **** * The timings with the FPU didn't mention the price of a 68881? Certainly ST-PA-FPU at 16Mhz will run $550, right? **** Because the FPU is asynchronous, you may run it at different speeds, and they are available in 12MHz, 16MHz, 20MHz and 25MHz models. You may also use an MC68882 which is about twice as fast as an MC68881. We do not sell MC68881s, but we have seen retail prices for an 881 between $99 and $150. **** * CMI did not mention that only 1 mainstream ST program Dynacadd uses the FPU and that the 68881 has been available for 2 yrs to ST owners so inclined. Why not be straight with ST users? **** We are very pleased that the people who produce DynaCadd realize the potential of having an FPU. We can hope that other developers will follow the footsteps of those who dare to tread new ground. Our FPU resides at the same address as the Atari SP004 FPU, therefore eliminating any in- compatibilities that other manufacturers may have had. We do not feel that any "crookedness" has taken place. The SP004 has only been out for 9 months - software developers need time to get and use the new products. **** * Was CMI using TOS 1.2 or TOS 1.4 for this comparison? **** TOS 1.2 **** I provide a corrected comparison here with production T16 timings: **** Please define "production" - does this mean shipping? How does this differ from the previous boards that were tested? **** Quick index 1.4 / TOS1.2 / floppy / Mega 4 **** The timings stated for our board are for the Monochrome system. Please state the mode that the test was taken under. *** w/o blitter w/blitter ST-PA T16 rel% ST-PA T16 rel% cpu memory 101 135 +35 101 135 +35 cpu register 101 203 +102 101 203 +102 * most important!!! cpu divide 183 203 +20 183 203 +20 cpu shift 180 206 +26 180 206 +26 bios text 201 185 -16 210 179 -31 * 250ns vs 312.5ns gem draw 220 233 +13 279 295 +16 gemdos i/o 112 112 0 112 112 0 dma read 161 161 0 161 161 0 In CMI's own "weighted?" +179% +167% average, T16 is this much faster than ST-PA: !!!!! w/ TURBOST and GPLUS bios text ??? 505 +304? ??? 505 +295? gem draw ??? 521 +301? ??? 558 +379? And if TURBOST and GPLUS +787% +856% are used, this measure increases to: !!!! **** One thing that was not mentioned, is that our tests can be done on a 520 or 1040 ST, and does not have be executed on a Mega to achieve blitter. We openly admit that in some respects, a RAM cache is faster than having FastROMs, but in most applications this increase is not that substantial. **** 4: Thats a little sleazy since CMI has not posted TURBOST/GPLUS timings. How well does ST-PA respond to TURBOST and GPLUS? **** We do not have these programs yet. We will be more than happy to post the results, when we receive them. **** 5: Why doesn't FALCON work with ST-PA? Or so says your order taker- Lilliane Carter! Does it crash or what? Games in general? **** Falcon *does* work with the ST-PA. At this time it has been confirmed that really OLD versions of Falcon do not run at 16MHz because of software timing loops that get executed at an accelerated rate. Most software developers realize that with the release of accelerators software timings loops are a problem, and have either updated their older software, or release hardware timer dependent software. The current release version runs just fine. Since the ST-PA is toggleable, there is no incompatibility issue - Falcon and everything else will *always* run fine at 8MHz. Usually, very few people *want* games to be faster, and generally want their productivity software to be accelerated. Lilliane is more than our "order taker". She is Technical and Customer Support, and the letters from happy customers prove it. **** 6: What is FASTROM? The TOS roms are 200ns devices that can be operated at 312.5ns cycle times (16Mhz 1 wait state) and all the accelerators do this- JATO,T16,ROCKE Comp.,ATIN,DATAFREE PAK68.... What makes yours different? **** We access the ROM at 16MHz with 0 wait states. What makes ours different is proprietary and is not harmful to your ST in *ANY* way. I haven't heard of all of the products you mention, and I haven't seen any of the other accelerators yet, so I can't say what they do. But comparing our timings with the ones I've seen posted for the JATO and DATAFREE boards I think it is unlikely they access the ROM's faster than an 8 MHz processor. **** 7: ST users know both blitter upgrades and 68881 upgrades have been available for years and these haven't sold well, what marketing forces convinced you to add these bells and whistles? Does CMI sell blitters, atari says they are for MEGA service only? **** We may sell blitters in the very near future - we are working with Atari directly on this and other issues. We will let the public know. As for our marketing force (singular) - Mark Hannaford one of the best in the business. His marketing experience and advertising abilities are absolutely incredible. Check out the our ST Processor Accelerator advertisement in STart July 89 to see what I mean. **** 8: Should ST users talk to AMIGA users about the PA before buying? FT feels strongly that they should. FT also recommends reading "AMAZING AMIGA" June 89'. There is a review of the PA for the AMIGA. **** We have numerous reviews for the Processor Accelerator for the Amiga. We have received both outstanding, and good reviews. We would strongly recommend that ST users read all of them. Read the reviews for CMI's Amiga products in the past *3* years - you will find that they show our experience and our outstanding Customer Support. In fact, we think that this is a *GREAT* idea. So the answer is *YES*. We believe that all users should read reviews, and call a company's Customer Support before purchasing a product to see how you will be treated, and to answer any questions you might have. **** 9: About the FCC. Yes if you screwup TV reception the government can tell you what to do in your own home. And fine you $10000 and put you in prison for 1 year for illegal transmissions. Just ask DATA PACIFIC about skirting FCC mandates. By the way is the 16Mhz osc. for the 68881 certified? It was not an original part of the computer. T16 is both totally internal and does not produce any RFI not originally in the ST at FCC qualification time. **** Our product fits securely under the RF shield, and we do not recommend removing this shield. We do not sell MC68881 nor crystal oscillators, but our product has sockets for them. Again, 16MHz is being used here as an example for a speed of the MC68881 (or MC68882). **** 10: CMI provides instructions to clip pins on the original 68000 and install ST-PA on top of the 68000. Won't a blitter, a 68881, an accelerator with a 2nd 68000, and the original 68000 all tax the old power supplies? Especially with a ram addon and tweety board or even PCDITTO II? Sounds pretty kludgy to me! **** Our board with an "standard" ST will have no difficulties with the power supply. As for other products, it is the customers responsibility to provide a more powerful power supply, should there be problems. It is our opinion that the majority of ST owners out there do not have any of these expansion products. The old 68000 is held in tri-state, and does not use much current as an active 68000. For those of you concerned, Lilliane will be more than happy to tell you how to disconnect the power from the old 68000. ***** 11: Does ST-PA speedup SPECTRE128 or PC DITTO? Do you have a SANE library replacement designed for your 68881 under SPECTRE? **** Please remember that our product is an *ST* accelerator, therefore we do not support any library replacements for these "emulators". As for speeding up PC-Ditto, I will post the results soon. As for Spectre, you'll have to ask Dave Small (author of the Spectre series), since he will have a board very shortly. **** 12: Since the MAC relies on its ROMs as much as the ST why aren't there a flock of low priced accelerators with FAST ROM for the MAC? Its a much bigger market. And it would even benfit from an Atari blitter and quick draw replacement!!! **** Please refer to my above remark. As for our endeavors in the Mac world: Who knows? **** 13: CMI says a comparison of accelerators is called for. So it just happens that a T16 is in the neighborhood over at ST WORLD. How 'bout a comparison article? ST WORLD can have it printed in the next issue for release at the DALLAS show. **** We will see. **** ------------ END OF CAPTURE ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 68 Tue Jul 18, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 at 20:09 PDT ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 56 Thu Jul 13, 1989 NEVIN-S at 10:20 EDT The proof will come when the boards are all released, and they are compared with real-live programs, such as printing with one DTP program, search and replace in the exact same 200K document in WP, compiling of the same program using some compiler, etc. Right now it is hard to sort out all the mumbo jumbo...good luck to all...! --Nevin **** We agree Nevin, we are shipping at this moment! You should be able to find it at your local dealer - if not, you can order directly from us. **** ------------ ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 59 Sat Jul 15, 1989 STEVEREED at 12:21 PDT Bill, have you tried running Turbo ST version 1.6 on the Processor Accelerator? I'm curious to see the results, since Turbo ST already speeds up my old 520st an almost unbelievable amount. The results from qindex 1.5 are: Bios Text 334% Bios String 1270% Bios Scroll 185% Gem Draw 212% Those text and Gem increases + PA's overall increases should REALLY make things cook! STeve **** Steve, I'm dying to get a hold of it - as soon as I can borrow it from my ST friends, I'll post the results. **** ------------ ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 63 Mon Jul 17, 1989 JLS [John STanley] at 01:25 CDT If something once ran in 100 seconds and now runs in 125 seconds, I'd say that's 25% speed increase... By that reasoning, the 1st formula G.ANDERSON gave sounds like the correct one. **** I don't know John, something that takes 25 seconds longer sounds like a Processor Decelerator to me... ;-) **** ------------ Sorry to bombard you with all of this, but I just captured them and tried to answer all of the questions personally. Bill ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 69 Tue Jul 18, 1989 JLS [John STanley] at 23:07 CDT Opps.. The folks that pointed out that I botched msg #63 are correct. That's what I get for trying to make sense that late at night... Sorry.. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 70 Tue Jul 18, 1989 LEPULLEY at 23:51 MDT Nevin, I agree. Until we see some _real_ comparisons on _real_ programs that all of us use, all of the bench marks don't mean much. From what I've been able to filter out, a lot of the speed increase (or lack of) is very dependent on what program you're running and how it's written. While CMI's board seems to be very professional, it also seems that I am paying for features on it that I don't want or need (i.e. blitter upgrade and maybe the math co-processor). And while Dan (FastTech) has been in the ST market longer and probably understands it better (and what we need), CMI has been making acceler- ator boards longer. (LL)oyd Pulley ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 71 Wed Jul 19, 1989 DARLAH [RT~SYSOP] at 07:07 EDT I agree, until I see both of these products, a decision can't be made as to which I would choose. With no local dealer, I will be waiting for the release from both companies and listening carefully to what others think before I lay down my $$. Perhaps I will want them both. I do have the machines to support it but until they are out to market.......... ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 72 Wed Jul 19, 1989 DERRICK at 19:52 EDT Come now guys, lets *STOP* this product bashing. The proof will be seen when the magazine review time comes. Allen, if you say your product is better fine. CMI if you say yours offers more options fine. Atari screw up TOS, that is the main reason why we can't use faster 68000 microprocessor, you know 68020 and 68030. TOS 1.4 is reported to fix this. So when TOS 1.4 is release to the public, we will all see more powerful accelerator boards using the above microprocessors. Also if you don't want the options CMI provide, see the others. We have free choice here not only CMI and FastTECH. Peace to every one! May the best one make lots of money! Derrick ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 73 Wed Jul 19, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 20:25 EDT I, for one, am glad to see that ST owners are enjoying such a choice of accelerator products for our ST systems. Like Derrick, I don't enjoy seeing some of the bickering going on about this board or that board and what one does that the other doesn't, etc. There are topics for most of the boards, so I would hope that discussion of each board can be limited to their respective support topics. It sounds like ST users don't have any one "clear-cut" best accelerator product, as each board seems to have particular features that make it the most desirable to particular segments of the ST community. The differences seem to reflect the diversity of ST users' needs. CMI's board may not be the best choice for EVERYBODY, but neither is the Fast Technologies board, the JRI board, or the DataFree board (did I leave anyone out?). I really appreciate the selection of products with their unique features, pricing, and support. I too am looking forward to seeing objective side-by-side comparisons. Jeff ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 74 Thu Jul 20, 1989 D.ANDERSON22 [FastTech Rep] at 00:32 EDT I wish to publicly apologize for any "product-bashing" I may have inadvertantly committed both here, and in Fast Technology's own topic. However, I would like to point out two things: 1) The somewhat long message from Jim Allen was just that: a message from JIM ALLEN. I posted it at his request, as his representative, and, while I agree that some of the language he used was somewhat inflammatory and/or confrontational, _I_ cannot apologize for what _he_ says or does, unless he asks me to, which, at this point, he has not. I agree that there is room in this market for more than one developer of a product such as this, no matter how biased I may personally be as to which developer has the better product . 2) Lloyd, my name is _not_ Dan. It's David. Dave for short. I should think we've passed enough messages to one another on "one of those other networks" that you'd know that by now (even though my username "over there" is STARWALKER, I usually sign my [first] name to my messages). Again, I offer my own personal olive branch, as well as the promise that I will attempt to refrain from "product-bashing". Now, let's get on to something a bit more constructive, shall we? -Dave ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 75 Wed Jul 19, 1989 JLS [John STanley] at 23:52 CDT To avoid unecessary disapointment... I've seen -no- official announcement from Atari that states that TOS 1.4 will allow using 68020 or 68030 processors. As a matter of fact, I think I saw a note from someone at Atari that explicitly stated TOS 1.4 would -not- support the advanced processors. DERRICK, unless you're sure of something like that it's a very bad idea to announce unsupported rumors as "fact". The question I have to ask about your message (#72) is "reported" by whom? ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 76 Thu Jul 20, 1989 DERRICK at 01:05 EDT If that is the case, then the Atari TT will not work with TOS 1.4. The TT is an 68030 base machine. I have no idea which topic this falls under. Call it a rumor or what ever you wish. Well maybe TOS 1.4 on the TT is running at the 68000 level and not at 68030. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 77 Thu Jul 20, 1989 JAMOS at 00:00 MDT Please guys, let's stop this petty "let's see if the competitors can swer THIS question" crap. Frankly, of the two companies that have been discussing things in this topic, one has shown themselves to be a professional rgainzation, and the other comes across like a bunch of insecure hackers. It should be obvious which is which. I know which board I will be buying, and t has nothing to do with the columns of numbers we've seen bandied about, it has to do with profesionalism (sp) both on-line and off. (Company 2 never ven answered their phone when I called! Guess you have to know the owner's home phone or be a good buddy of his.) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 78 Thu Jul 20, 1989 TOWNS at 02:13 EDT Derrick and John, Derrick you last statement is correct. TOS 1.4 will not work on a 68020/30 and doesn't run on TT. However, TOS has been modified to work on this machine. -- John ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 79 Fri Jul 21, 1989 DERRICK at 00:30 EDT TOS 1.4 modified to work with TT. Why not Sts too? I personally don't think this is a good idea AtAri CoRp! Are you tryin to keep the accel. board makers from competing against the TT, by releasing 68030 boards for the ST line? ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 80 Thu Jul 20, 1989 TLMAY [Terry May] at 22:36 PDT Jamos, I agree 100%. For a company to respond to so many questions presented in a negative tone by a rival company, and answer each and every one on an individual basis WITHOUT ONCE contributing anything negative and/or confrontational says a lot about their professionalism. I'm not so sure I could have done the same. -==- ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 81 Fri Jul 21, 1989 DOUG.W [ST*SYSOP] at 03:04 EDT Although TOS 1.4 (in source code form) works on the 68020 and '030, the compile, assemble, and linking procedures are different for the ST and TT machines. They are each optimized for the machine they are running on. In other words, using a 68030 version on the ST would probably be slower (or larger) that the 68000 version. --Doug (to clarify a bit more, Atari is (rightfully) trying to provide the best situation for the MAJORITY of ST owners) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 82 Fri Jul 21, 1989 JEFF.W [ST*SYSOP] at 07:03 EDT Topic Drift! :-) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 83 Fri Jul 21, 1989 TOWNS at 17:05 EDT Actually, we have NO plans to release any kind of 68030 board for the ST computers. TOS was modified to work on TT. It has to be. The reasons for the modifications are obvious. different processor! -- John ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 84 Fri Jul 21, 1989 DERRICK at 20:14 EDT TOWNS, I would like to carry this conversation a little more, but this is CMI spot. Mr Traffic cop is hinting me here. lastly I really don't know what atari is doing now-a-days. Sorry about this topic drift CMI. Ya, I know that was my last, but CMI how are you doing? ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 85 Fri Jul 21, 1989 P.MCCULLOUGH at 22:49 EDT Who would've thought this time last year that we'd have an embarrassment of choices on accelerators in the ST market??? Atari is definitely BACK! :-) PVM PS- I challenge all the accelerator makers to come up with a better GENLOCK then JRI! (JRI can jump in here, too!) HEHEHEHE! PPS- Seems that Atari could get in on this, too! ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 86 Sat Jul 22, 1989 SANDY.W [SysOp] at 12:55 EDT Ok guys....lets keep move any discussion on formulas to Topic 36 in this category (accelerators in general), the TOS discussion to any of the TOS or TT topics in Category 14, and reserve the specific accelerator topics for product support or questions about the specific board. Thanks. :-) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 87 Sat Jul 22, 1989 C.CROOK at 19:31 EDT CMI: Your manual for the board ( yes, I bought one today ) says that "you will notice that on the PA there are 2 sockets on the top of the board that are unused. These are for those people who obtain a set of ROMS from us that will allow them the Fast ROM capability. We are in the process of getting distribution rights at this time. For those people who have the 6 ROM set, the Fast ROM Hack is available at this time." Question: When will those ROMS be available from you, and at what price? Are they equivalent to the installation method given in the manual ( the 'hack' ), or is there more involved? Question: I ran Qindex on the system, comparin the effects of Turbo ST, the Mega's blitter and the CMI board ( 8 sets of numbers. I notice that the CPU memory and CPU register numbers remained unchanged in all configurations. Why are those sort of instructions not affected? Question: You mention that either the 12.5 Mhz FPU or the 16.67 Mhz FPU can be installed. Have you compared the results with the different chips? BTW, the CPU register and divides moved from 99% to 180% - Looks good so far. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 88 Sun Jul 23, 1989 C.CROOK at 13:25 EDT Here are yet another set of Qindex results for the CMI board: Equipment Configuration 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 CPU memory 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 CPU register 98 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 CPU divide 99 99 99 99 179 179 180 180 CPU shift 99 98 99 99 176 176 177 177 DMA access 971 955 939 997 982 910 935 950 Gemdos I/O 247 250 236 250 235 235 235 235 Bios Text 350 350 107 107 352 352 111 111 Bios String 1399 1399 99 99 1428 1428 102 102 Bios Scroll 187 187 174 174 187 187 174 174 Biox Draw 286 287 171 171 292 292 176 176 1 = 8 Mhz, Turbo ST On, Blitter On 2 = 8 Mhz, Turbo ST On, Blitter Off 3 = 8 Mhz, Turbo ST Off, Blitter On 4 = 8 Mhz, Turbo ST Off, Blitter Off 5 = 16 Mhz, Turbo ST On, Blitter On 6 = 16 Mhz, Turbo ST On, Blitter Off 7 = 16 Mhz, Turbo ST Off, Blitter On 8 = 16 Mhz, Turbo ST On, Blitter Off Accessories loaded: NeoDesk Control Panel ( v 2.02 ) G+Plus ( solid line ) Turbo ST ( 1.6 ) NX 1000 setup QMI Tablet Driver Autoboot Software Start Selector Hardware: Mega4 Tweety Board JRI 4096C Color Board ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 89 Sun Jul 23, 1989 FB [ST Librarian] at 15:52 EDT In the previous message the 8th column is not right I believe. At least it says that a 8mhz ST is a whole lot faster in the bios area than the 16mhz version. Think the last 4 numbers are copies of the 7th column. This is the reason the file was left hidden in the library. On another note I would like to see how it works on a 520ST using the CMI blitter because all the other numbers without the blitter are the same that I get using the JRI board. Now if I am going to spend $200 more then I would like to see what I am buying. Fred Beckman ST File Librarian ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 90 Mon Jul 24, 1989 DERRICK at 19:42 EDT CMI it is my understanding that your Accelerator boards are being shipped with out the FastROMS. Will these ROM chips cost extra when you start shipping? Are these ROM chips actually TOS on two chips? ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 91 Mon Jul 24, 1989 C.CROOK at 21:33 EDT FB: The numbers are correct. You might not be comparing the correct columns. Column 8 should be compared to column 4. There is one typo; category 8 has Turbo ST OFF, not ON. Another member of Novatari has obtained identical numbers ( other than the DMA numbers - different harddrive ) with his ( otherwise identical ) Mega4, Turbo ST, Blitter and CMI. Charles ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 92 Tue Jul 25, 1989 FB [ST Librarian] at 00:13 EDT Charles, That would do it for trying to read the list.. That is an important typo as it would appear that CMI in 16mhz shuts off TurboST. Fred Beckman ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 93 Wed Jul 26, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 at 18:11 PDT Sorry people, I do not have time to reply to all (or any o) of your messages. I will be attending an Amiga trade show, and will not be back util Tuesday. Ill make the time to answer your questions then n more detail. FastROMs from us: Yes, you have to purchase them - theey will most liikely be the cost of the two chips plus ever licensing fee that Atari may ant to use. (I'm using a VT100 terminal, so I can't see what I m typing! ;-). Scream at Dave Small, since e now has a board for answers if you can... ;-) TTYL, Bill ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 94 Thu Jul 27, 1989 DOUG.W [ST*SYSOP] at 05:46 EDT Well, since Dave (Small) doesn't get over here very often, I think it's safe to answer for him (grin). As of today, we haven't had a chance to try out the CMI STPA yet. We've been *way* over our heads in Spectre GCR code. If I have time tomorrow, I'll make an effort to give it a try. I may not post "actual" benchmarks, but will try to give a rough idea how it works. --Doug Wheeler P.S. If you didn't know, I'm Dave's sidekick. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 95 Thu Jul 27, 1989 SEKIYA at 22:06 PDT btw since this CMI accelerator has a 68881/68882 socket on it. What programs support this math co-processor? Is it compatible with the Atari 68881 board for the MEGAs? Is it compatible with this Moniterm big screen 68881 board? Having some speedy hardware would be nice but it would be nice to know if I could put it to real use. Baron ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 96 Fri Jul 28, 1989 DOUG.W [ST*SYSOP] at 03:54 EDT Well, the first day of trials resulted in failure. So far, I have not succeeded in even getting the machine to boot with the STPA installed. The biggest problem is that I'm using a machine with a socketed 68000 with the BLiTTER mod installed, and I'm trying to install the STPA without soldering to the motherboard of the ST. Anyway, I'll hack on it some more tomorrow and/or next week and let everyone know what I find out. --Doug ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 97 Fri Jul 28, 1989 C.CROOK at 19:41 EDT Doug- I had my local dealer do the install and he said that rather than use the socket provided by CMI ( the one that was separate in the package ), he used one ( a machine socket ? ) similar to that used by the JRI accelerator board. He claimed it was a better choice of a socket, and I have had no problems booting or running anything. BTW, Falcon runs just fine in 16 Mhz mode. Charles ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 98 Fri Jul 28, 1989 STACE [Mark] at 20:14 EDT Doug, There has been some "traffic" about the CMI upgrade over on Usenet. Apparently, when installing the CMI board in an existing socket the "fly wires" are still needed. Or at least, SOME kind of jumper wires are still used. CMI says that instructions are provided on using an existing socket. Mark (If you don't have the correct jumpers attached the symptoms are: No drive booting...no drive icons. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 99 Fri Jul 28, 1989 TOWNS at 23:57 EDT Who are you in contact with here at Atari regarding the licensing of TOS for the FAST ROMs project? -- John ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 100 Sun Jul 30, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 03:35 EDT John I think they should talk to Leonard. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 101 Sun Jul 30, 1989 DOUG.W [ST*SYSOP] at 04:38 EDT Actually, I have the jumpers installed, and have even called CMI. When turning on power, the screen just stays black, and the machine fails to boot. --Doug P.S. Yes, I've also used both the 'cheap' and machined sockets. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 102 Wed Aug 02, 1989 DAVESMALL at 00:29 EDT Oh, *that's* who's been playing with the debug Mega 4. I wondered what all those wires were. Having sent out many demo units in the past, I have great sympathy for CMI. Seems like no matter how hard you test and check out a board, the postman drops it, a chip dies, a pin bends -- and it doesn't work. I even coined "demonstrationitis" as the name for it. Anywho, Doug and I will keep on trying and see what we come up with. I think that a little applause is deserved for the accelerator manufacturers making sure of Spectre compatibility (as well as pc-ditto) in the interest of the user base. JRI, CMI, and FastTech have all done this with us; and like I say, CMI just had a bit of demonstrationitis. We'll get 'er fixed. Further note--> The power supply on the Mega being used was weak, and was fixed tonight. That might have placed an unfair burden on the CMI board. As for the timings .. I think the best way is just to plain avoid percentages, and just post seconds-required-to-do-it. You know, ARC a 200K file; run a Tom Hudson raytrace out of START; open 6 windows; format a disk. That sort of stuff -- "real world" benchmarks covering what people do. For instance, if I can ARC and it takes me 5 seconds less out of 60 total, I'm not going to care much, but if it only takes me 30 seconds instead of 60, I'll care a bunch. Any suggestions for a "real world" testing suite of programs to test by? They should run long enough for a stopwatch to pick up differences between boards. As for professionalism, etc ... remember, these boards are people's babies, they've put a lot of work into them, and people tend to get really upset about any criticism, either me. I mean, look at my performance in Cat. 18 awhile back... *grimace*. Also, some are network neophytes, who always come across worse. As soon as we get the temporary CMI problem fixed up, we'll go from there, and try to do some benchmarks both in the ST world and in the Mac world. Alas, I fear that without the ROM acceleration in the Mac world, the CMI might not hold up as well; but that's sheer speculation until I get out the stopwatch. -- thanks, Dave / Gadgets p.s. After hearing there was some sort of debate going on in this topic, I looked it over. I tell ya, this is positively mild compared to some other stuff I've read. Perhaps things are on the upswing after all; people aren't going for the throat. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 104 Fri Aug 04, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 at 18:57 PDT Just captured all the new messages. I'm real busy trying to catch up for the time lost at AmiExpo (boy was that a trip! Never knew you Chicagoans were so wild!) I'll try to get a reply up in the next few days... UPS lost my Mac in the shipment to AmiExpo, and it still hasn't shown up :-(. Doesn't look like PC-Ditto II will work the the PA due to the size constraints. Also, (for Mega owners) the Mega is a 1 expansion product - hence the single expansion slot: Consider the PA as your expansion product ;- ). Bill ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 105 Fri Aug 04, 1989 P.MCCULLOUGH at 23:10 EDT Hear, hear! All of the third-party developers deserve credit for their attempts to fill the void in the ST market place. (And, as I've griped in the past- its a pretty wide-open market!) Bottom line is, if you get 10-20 or 30% increase in software execution- your still ahead of the game. The only truly exciting difference in the CMI board is the capability of adding a math-copro. (Assuming software hooks can be made for it!) I wonder if Tom Hudson (Or some other ANTIC programmer-) will write a hook to allow CAD-3D to utilize the CMI 68881 math copro? (I heard a rumour that Hudson abandoned the Atari community- is this true?) If the CMI w/68881 could enhance CAD-3D, they can rest assured that I'd by one in a second! Cheers! PVM ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 106 Sat Aug 05, 1989 DMAY [Student] at 14:38 EDT Winner's Circle out here in Berkeley, California has started selling the CMI board. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 107 Sat Aug 05, 1989 DAVESMALL at 15:50 EDT I can't speak for Tom, of course; first, he can speak for himself nicely, and second, he knows his way around full auto weapons, so I don't *dare*. However, he takes a dim view of Star Trek: The New Age or whatever it is, so he's fundamentally okay. I do know (and it has been said many times) that Tom is now developing on a 386 machine in VGA. I've not seen him on the networks in Atari areas for awhile. But of course Antic may give him a call and ask him to interface something like CAD-3D into the 68881. But personally I'm not looking for anymore ST products from him. The IBM market is just so much bigger and more potentially lucrative, along with harder to start up in. [I wonder what criterion the topic police go under for off-topic. I think I managed to get 2 of 3 paragraphs in on the subject. Well, we'll see. Heaven help me if they *like* Start Trek: Fundamentally Fouled Up Scripts.] grin, Dave / Gadgets ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 108 Sun Aug 06, 1989 LEPULLEY at 15:26 MDT Dave, Just so you know, that's "Star Trek: The Yuch Generation....or You To Can be a 16 Year Old Boy and Run Your Own Starship" (LL)oyd Pulley ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 109 Mon Aug 07, 1989 ST-INFORMER at 00:09 EDT He He! - Good one Loyd - Ron ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 110 Mon Aug 07, 1989 D.ANDERSON22 [FastTech Rep] at 15:19 EDT Oh...and all this time, I thought it was "Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation, OR, How to Turn Klingons From Perfectly Good Villians to Moderately Moody Security Guards." (On the other hand...they DO tend to be the Security Personnel you don't DARE list as "expendable.") -Dave ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 111 Wed Aug 09, 1989 DAVESMALL at 15:39 EDT Whoo, that's a good one. Hope the topic police don't delete it. Let's see if we can tie it into the discussion here real quick. "While installing the CMI board, I was watching ST:TNG. I was plugging it in when I noticed a moderately moody security guard. One pin was difficult to install, so I watched Warf, or is it that I warfed watch?" Whatcha think, sysops? Any chance we can get away with this? -- grin!! Dave / Gadgets ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 112 Wed Aug 09, 1989 SANDY.W [SysOp] at 16:07 EDT Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm......... :-) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 113 Fri Aug 11, 1989 DARLAH [RT~SYSOP] at 00:20 EDT Gee Dave....I go on vacation and you come back from one. You are always so good at adding the topic in. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 114 Sat Aug 12, 1989 P.MCCULLOUGH at 00:45 EDT Gee, Dave- I was thinking of buying a Spectre GCR, but since finding out you don't like ST:TNG - WHICH I LOVE (Uh-oh!)- (AND YES, I LIKED STAR TREK FIVE: THE FINAL FRONTIER- YES IT WAS ME! I WAS THE ONE!) hmmm... Must be too much time working with that 'other' operating system... (Actually, I'll probably buy a GCR in spite of your Trek bashing... right after I get PC-DITTO II! Ouch! Bet that hurt. HEE-HEE) Just kidding, Dave. Back to topic: Has anyone got an ST up and running with the Math CoPro installed. (Please: someone not affiliated with CMI for an unbiased review) ? Any noticable speed increases? Cheers, PVM ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 115 Sat Aug 12, 1989 K.STEVENS1 [Ken] at 16:12 CDT I got the accelerator and installed it, but it didn't work properly... I sent it back to CMI to see if it was defective...if it isn't defective then the odds are that it is not compatible with rev 4.0 mega st's....I'll know by this coming wednesday if it is or not....... Ken ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 116 Tue Aug 15, 1989 FB [ST Librarian] at 00:45 EDT CMI, Has there been any reports of Calamus not running under the CMI board? This is a very important program for me and with one other accelerator having trouble with it I am checking before I even think about it. The math co- processor would really kick DynaCADD! Fred Beckman ST File Librarian ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 117 Tue Aug 15, 1989 DOUG.W [ST*SYSOP] at 06:26 EDT Fred, if I get a chance (and remember), I'll give it a shot. --Doug ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 118 Tue Aug 15, 1989 FB [ST Librarian] at 21:22 EDT Doug and all, I have found out about the CMI board Calamus and DynaCADD. Seems that you don't have to have the jumper in the math chip socket. With the jumper in you can't load Calamus or the DynaCADD demo. A little testing and when the jumper was removed both programs worked fine. After a nice chat with Lilliane at CMI it turns out the ST doesn't need the jumper. Programs that use the math chip check for it and not finding it just continue. With the jumper in it confuses the issue and the program locks up. Hopefully this information will be in the next manual and marked out on the version being shipped. Hope this helps people that have this problem. Fred Beckman ST File Librarian ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 119 Wed Aug 16, 1989 DOUG.W [ST*SYSOP] at 03:00 EDT Fred, thanks for looking into that. --Doug ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 120 Wed Aug 30, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 17:09 EDT Hi CMI I was wondering how you were getting along with Big A over rom licensing? I hope you can get them to do it since its in their best interest. Though they rarely do anything in their best interest!!! Have you had any luck with Antic and CAD3D, that program really NEEDS the 68881? ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 121 Wed Aug 30, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 at 22:21 PDT Jim, from what I hear from the person at Atari, the paperwork is finished, and is in their "legal dept". We will keep everyone informed as to what is going on with that, as soon as we get the ok. Geez, had to recapture all of the messages, since I lost the last one, so please accept my apologies for taking so long to answer some of the questions that y'all have. Also, since I am getting bogged down with Amiga software writing (my "real" job, our Customer Service/Technical Support person will be on here under this name. Lilliane will fill the gaps when I am not on here for more than 3-5 days. Bill PS - Software Developers have a tendency not to make changes to currently shipping products in order to make accomodations for the small number of people with math chips. Hopefully, this will change with the increasing number of sales of our product (as we have seen in the Amiga arena). [Hey, come on: Amiga is not a 5 letter dirty word! ;-)] ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 122 Sun Sep 03, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 at 23:59 PDT Well, after being subjected to an overdose of Twinkies and Hostess Ho-Ho's on some other topic area, I have decided that Lilliane will take over answering questions here in this topic. I will pop in now and again to see what's going on in the ST realm, but since my time is very limited she'll take care of you. I apologize for any inconvience (which I can't imagine that there is any, but will apologize for it just the same) that this may cause you. [Please keep the cheers to a minimum ;-)] Bill ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 123 Tue Sep 12, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 at 19:05 PDT CMINEWS(tm) and its contents are (C) 1989 Creative Microsystems Inc, and may be publically posted or printed out, but may not be ingested, or otherwise consumed. Prolonged exposed to eyes may cause blindness, baldness, sterility, sweating, pregnancy, drooling, and may leave unsightly stains in hard to reach areas. Shake well before using. -----snip here---cut here---tear here---rip here---fold here---lick here----- ***************************************************************************** ***** Public Release: September 12, 1989 - 18:00 ***** ***************************************************************************** **** ** ** ****** ** ** ****** ** ** ***** ** ** *** *** ** *** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** *** **** ** * ** **** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** *** *** ** **** ** ** ****** ** ** ****** ** ** ***** FR: Customer Service/Technical Support TO: All 520/1040 ST Processor Accelerator Owners RE: BLiTTER Upgrade Announcement Today, Atari (US) Corp. contacted us stating that we now have the rights to market BLiTTER chips with our product. Since hearing this great news, we placed an order for BLiTTERs, and expect their arrival shortly. We will not be marketing the BLiTTER seperately: They *MUST* be purchased with our product. Current 520/1040 ST Processor Accelerator owners may send us their board back with $40 to receive the BLiTTER chip installed and fully tested. (Contact Customer Service for an RMA number.) Those wishing to purchase a CMI ST Processor Accelerator with a BLiTTER already installed and tested, may do so by contacting Customer Service and placing an order for an ST-PA 520/Mega or 520fm/1040 w/BLiTTER for $339.95. Without the BLiTTER, the ST-PA is only $299.95. Please note: Our 1Mb EPROM TOS 1.4 rights are still in the works. We are confident that this will be taken care of shortly. There will be an announcement in the near future of the availability. Creative Microsystems Inc. - 19552 SW 90th Ct. - Tualatin, OR 97062 (503)691-2552 biz (503)691-1292 fax (503)691-2903 login:cminews UUCP: ...tektronix!sequent!calvin!lillian -----snip here---cut here---tear here---rip here---fold here---lick here----- ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 124 Mon Sep 18, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 at 03:18 PDT Hello there, this is Lilliane Carter - CMI Technical Support and Customer Service. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask them and I will do my best to answer them for you. Take care and happy com- puting!!! Lilliane ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 125 Wed Sep 27, 1989 M.ABSALOM at 20:36 CDT Has there been any progress on the "Fast ROM" hack for the 1040? I spoke to you a number of times on the telephone (to refresh your memory, you suggested a resistor replacement that was unsuccessful). If no news on "hack", has there been any movement regarding the ROMs from CMI? My anxiety stems, at least in part, from the comments I recieve from local ST users, " It sure doesn't look any faster." ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 126 Wed Sep 27, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 [CMI*TECH] at 19:04 PDT Interestingly enough, just today did we figure something out...that som ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 127 Thu Sep 28, 1989 JEFF.W [RTC Sysop] at 01:15 EDT Lillianne (or Bill) - Your message didn't come out complete. Type 126 to read your message at the reply at the end of this topic. Jeff ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 128 Fri Sep 29, 1989 M.ABSALOM at 00:32 CDT Yes, PLEASE re-enter your message. I spent over a week with my computer in pieces, swapping ROMs, waiting, phoning CMI daily, changing resistors, (it's amazing what lengths I'll go to for a little cheap speed), and now you tell me you have something.... WHAT!! 8l ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 129 Tue Oct 10, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 [CMI*TECH] at 23:48 PDT file: /u/billc/STPA/CMINEWS2.TXT created 89-10-10 11:00 CMINEWS is copyrighted 1989 by Creative Microsystems Inc. Permission is granted to distribute this message provided that it remains totally intact. Do not ingest. Shake well before using. Member FSLIC. + *-- ---*- -*----- = Jingle Bells. Christmas? Already? Soon! We who bring you the CMI Processor Accelerator for the Atari ST series, would like to extend our hospitality out to you this Christmas shopping season, in a way that we think you will like: ============================================================== = Starting TODAY, October 10th, 1989, until December 23rd: = ============================================================== When you order direct through CMI, you will get the CMI Processor Accelerator for the Atari ST (regularly $299.95) for only: ************* * $180.00 * ************* * How do you get in on this deal? Call us. * Need more than 3? Then you pay $150 each. This offer is open to anyone during this special. Creative Microsystems Inc. - 19552 SW 90th Court - Tualatin OR 97062 (503) 691-2552 9-5 PST (503) 691-1292 FAX *h ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 130 Wed Oct 11, 1989 PSINC at 10:51 EDT I wonder how dealers will react to this? Mark ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 131 Wed Oct 11, 1989 JEFF.W [RTC Sysop] at 12:15 EDT We have one in stock at the store I work at. I will be taking this announcement to the owner, who I am sure is going to return it to our distributor immediately. Sounds like a desparate move to me. Dumping the boards at this price, knowing you'll likely lose your dealers in the process, sounds like CMI is looking to get out of the market. CMI - I hope my statement above is an incorrect conclusion. If you are indeed remaining in the market, you must have some price protection plan in place for your dealers who stocked the ST-PA at the much higher price. Please reply with those details here or in Email to me. Thanks. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 132 Wed Oct 11, 1989 DARLAH [RT~SYSOP] at 13:04 EDT Please let me know as well. I am truly interested in knowing. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 133 Thu Oct 12, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 [CMI*TECH] at 23:21 PDT We are reducing the price because the Atari market does not seem to respond as well as initially anticipated. We feel that this Christmans (-n) special will boost sales dramatically. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 134 Fri Oct 13, 1989 M.ABSALOM at 01:53 CDT I'm still waiting for what you figured out about the Fast ROM hack. You posted a message (#126, I think) saying: Interestingly enough, just today did we figure something out...that som and that was all. I've been waiting for a month and a half for some information, ever since installing my $250 CMI board. I know you're not trying to make me look like a fool for paying that much for it, but I sure feel like one. Especially when you add in the $15-20 I spent on phone calls to try to get the Fast ROM hack to work in my 1040. Apparently, you didn't even try it before writing up the instructions. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 135 Fri Oct 13, 1989 LEPULLEY at 21:49 MDT Category 4, Topic 22 Message 133 Thu Oct 12, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 [CMI*TECH] at 23:21 PDT W. Coldwell, >>>the Atari market does not seem to respond well..... Hmmm.....the folks that put out the T16 board don't seem to feel the same way....and they came out after you did. Could it be (i.e. the reason that the Atari market has not responded well), that the CMI board didn't produce the results that they were lead to expect? I know of 3-4 people around the country that tried your board and only one is still using it (2 couldn't ever get it to work). And the one that is still using it wishes he'd gotten a T16 board.....as he can't get the speed increases that I can with my T16 board. (LL)oyd Pulley ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 136 Sun Oct 15, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 [CMI*TECH] at 23:48 PDT I would never claim that you fell off of a turnip truck, Lloyd. The speed increases that we advertised were obtained by use of the QIndex program and commercial software programs. As with any type of accelerator there are *many* factors that make a speed difference. Most people have a difficult time detecting something that is not a magnitude order of speed. A difference is very noticable when machines are placed next to each other for timing tests. When you add a blitter to the 520, then you see a speed up in graphics. When you add an MC68881 to an ST and then use a program that uses it, then there is a speed up. When you are running at 16MHz, you will get a speed up [period] - it may not be much, considering the type of work that you are doing, but there _is_ a difference. . Bill ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 137 Mon Oct 16, 1989 LEPULLEY at 05:35 MDT Bill, True, if put a CMI accelerator into your machine there is a difference. But if you put a T16 accelerator in, there is a DIFFERENCE. And there is no difficulty in detecting the difference. (LL)oyd Pulley ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 138 Sun Oct 22, 1989 DAVESMALL at 03:59 EDT In the Datafree topic, #31, Lillian of CMI mentions an upcoming comparison of accelerator boards for the ST. She says: "There is a review coming out in START in December's issue that will hit the newsstands the 1st of November...looks good!" This implies clearly to me that CMI has been given access to unpublished START material. Furthermore, it had been brought to my attention, although unproven, that CMI has contacted Pacific Software Supply (a distributor) and mentioned an extremely favorable review in START, compared particularly to the FAST T-16 board. This again indicates to me that CMI has been given access to unpublished START material. The only times I have ever released working drafts of my material to a manufacturer were to check certain technical items. It strikes me as deeply wrong, against journalistic code, to supply the manufacturers with a favorable review to go drum up business. Even the drafts I released were portions, containing only the technical data. I'm aware that Alex Leavens wrote this review. Accordingly, I have the following questions for CMI: 1. Did Alex Leavens supply you with a draft or final version of his accelerator board review? 2. Was this review favorable to CMI and unfavorable to FAST T-16? 3. Did you contact P.S.S., mention this review, in an effort to boost sales? 4. Have any advertisements been placed mentioning text from Alex's unpublished review? When writing a review, I must necessarily maintain distance from those I am reviewing, lest the review prove biased. Every product has good points and flaws. Having Alex supply you with a review which you are in turn using to drum up business, before START publication, to me crosses the line of my personal journalistic ethics. As for the legal issues, I'll leave them for the lawyers. -- Sincerely, David Small / Gadgets by Small / START Reviewer ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 139 Sun Oct 22, 1989 ICDINC at 14:58 EDT Dave, I must disagree with you on this one. We ask for copies of reviews before they go to print to try and head off the published in-accuracies that are.. rampant in most computer publications. I do not think it "crosses the line" in any way as long as long as the reviewer is not getting spoon fed the copy. Incorrect quotes on specs, compatiblities, prices, etc. do no justice to anyone. (Look at the 8 Megabyte/min. speed quoted in ST-LOG for the DVT fo instance.) So I can spend an hour to write a letter that may get published a few months later in response to incorrect information but the damage has been done by then. - TOM - ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 140 Sun Oct 22, 1989 M.ABSALOM at 23:57 CDT As long as the review is unbiased and accurate, what's the harm? I know for a fact, that authors are paid (by their publishers) to blurb other authors' works, a somewhat less savory practice that the one you suggest, but common none the less. If the review is written, the endorsement has already occurred. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 141 Mon Oct 23, 1989 DOUG.W at 03:44 EDT I think the point Dave is bringing up is that CMI is *PUBLICLY* discussing this review before publication. --Doug ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 142 Mon Oct 23, 1989 PSINC at 11:09 EDT Dave, it is common practice to send reviews to the manufacturers after printing, and before publication. We get them all the time. It is for the reason stated by Tom. It is nothing journalistic, as it has nothing to do with the reviewer. It gets sent to me _after_ the author has completed his/her work. Many times, with the close relationship we have with the magazines, I'll get a call if there's a gripe with the product. This is not wrong, as it is used to verify that the reviewer is correct on something. Many manufacturers have been thrashed in a review unfairly, and follow up letters do not limit the damage. Start probably called CMI (and _should_ have called FAST) and told them what was up. I've known for several months that a review is coming up in Decembers Start on The Cordless Mouse. Nothing wrong with it. Mark So bottom line, most likely Alex did not supply a review - I think you are jumping the gun. Most likely Start called and said that a review was going to be printed, and that the CMI board came out ahead. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 143 Wed Oct 25, 1989 DAVESMALL at 00:38 EDT Welp, we'll see. This may be a new record; I get disagreed with by both Tom *and* Mark? I've been whonked on reviews, too, and would love to see them in advance, for purposes of catching booboos. But wouldn't then say a hot review of my product is coming out XX. I guess different people draw lines differently. It may be a fine point, too. Or a flair pen. Since my metaphors are actively greasing the wheel, it's probably time to wrap this baby down. -- sknaht, Evad / Gadgets ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 144 Wed Oct 25, 1989 PSINC at 12:13 EDT I would probably say a review was coming out, but not use it to bonk the competition. I agree that CMI has been "questionable" in some of their business practices. For example, the Nov. Start has a review on us, but I don't have it. It's good enough for me to talk to the reviewer and answer any questions he/she has. But it is true that some companies try to influence reviews with advertising. Mark ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 145 Wed Oct 25, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 [CMI*TECH] at 23:47 PDT Dave, . No, Alex did not supply us with the article because Start would not allow him to, which is understood. Yes, we did know the results of the article and yes, we did come out on top. Alex did have bad luck with the T16 which made his review of it not so good. Our marketing manager myself, and the president and VP of the company all knew the results of the article and whether or not Bob at Pacific was told about this or not - I'm sure he was but surely not for unethical reasons...in either case, I find all of this tomfollery childish and am sorely dissapointed in the Atari ST marketplace. For all of these fights between Jim and CMI the STart article has been cancelled and will not appear. Alex has also not been paid for his massive efforts and because of this may not write for STart again... I don't know. In either case, it's all in the past and T16 will prevail, so what else needs to be said?!??! Lilliane M. Carter ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 146 Thu Oct 26, 1989 JLS [John STanley] at 02:40 CDT I have to wonder if Alex hs though about going to another magazine with his article... After all, if STart isn't going to pay him, he's under no obligation to them... ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 147 Thu Oct 26, 1989 ST.REPORT [Ralph] at 07:13 EDT T16 will previal because it is the premier accellerator. Because Mr. AL had problems with the installation or use of the product is not a fault of the product as Fast Tech has repeatedly stated that the product must be installed by a qualified tech. Personally, I have been using the T16 for more than 90 days in a mega 4 with absolutly no problems at all. IMHO T16 has the field, the stadium and the scoreboard. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 148 Thu Oct 26, 1989 M.ABSALOM at 23:14 CDT I'm sorry to hear that you find the ST markeplace lacking. "Sorely dissappointed" in the consumers? An odd view for someone in marketing. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 149 Fri Oct 27, 1989 DARLAH [RT~SYSOP] at 08:31 EDT It also creates anger and exactly what you think of the market. It creates an enviroment that the consumer uses their emotion directed at the company to make their choice. It gets to the point that the product doesn't even speak to you no matter how hot of a commodity it is. All one can think of when making a choice is their emotion. I don't get into things like this but I think CMI created this situation. I am sorry that they did. I truly am. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 150 Mon Oct 30, 1989 DAVESMALL at 20:50 EST Could I suggest tabling this conversation until the issue in question comes out? I was just curious what CMI would say before the review appears. Or doesn't appear. Or whatever. -- thanks, Dave / Gadgets ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 151 Tue Oct 31, 1989 FB [Fred Beckman] at 23:20 EST I heard a rumor that Antic pulled the review from the December STart. This is only a rumor but is interesting anyway in light of all the messages about the review. Fred ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 152 Sun Nov 05, 1989 DAVESMALL at 23:07 EST They pulled one review -- and added another. Hope this clears up the confusion, Fred. -- thanks, Dave / Gadgets ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 153 Tue Nov 07, 1989 FB [Fred Beckman] at 00:09 EST Thanks for clearing that up. Since I haven't gotten to see the new STart yet I was in the dark so to speak. Fred ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 154 Tue Nov 07, 1989 MAT.RAT at 00:12 EST Hey Dave / Gadgets, How's it going. I've heard and seen great things about your Spectre GCR. Folks came in to the McDonnell Douglas RCC Computer Fair last Saturday to see the Macintoshes (including the portable) across the room. Many never got past the Atari booth, just inside the door, because they saw this Atari computer doing very Macintoshy things. Their minds reeled. The Mac portable costs more than your basic Hyundai. I'd rather have a STacy, Spectre GCR, and a Yugo myself. Mat*Rat ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 155 Tue Nov 07, 1989 DOUG.W at 00:39 EST I *like* it! --Doug ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 156 Tue Nov 07, 1989 JJKENNEDY [RT*SysOp] at 12:31 EST --=+Topic Police+=-- ;-) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 157 Sat Nov 11, 1989 G.ANDERSON at 15:40 CST Can someone post a USEABLE phone number for CMI???? Are they even still in the Atari market???? I need to talk to them about something. Thanks; Gregg ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 158 Sat Nov 11, 1989 JEFF.W [RTC Sysop] at 18:46 EST I checked some old Amiga magazines to see if there was a different phone number posted in their Amiga ads than the one in the STart ads. Nope, it's the same one. If they are still alive in some form, they are not getting phone calls. You might try U.S.Mail, Gregg. Perhaps registered mail with a return receipt. It would be interesting to see if there's anyone around to sign for it. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 159 Sun Nov 12, 1989 PSINC at 11:05 EST I'll check with American Software, a large Amiga distributor. They may know. Hmm, they made a RGB convertor for the Amiga too... Mark ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 160 Fri Nov 17, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 18:39 CST I hope that they're not belly up. I had to send mine back for a refund. That was 2 months ago. I checked with information in Oregon and they have not installed a new phone. If anyone has a refund coming, they'd better channel they're request through they're credit card company for proper tion. < *FLUSH* I see $$$ going down the john> Dave ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 162 Tue Nov 21, 1989 DAVESMALL at 23:30 EST That's really a shame. I hate to see consumers stuck that way, if this happens. -- thanks, Dave / Gadgets ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 163 Wed Nov 22, 1989 SANDY.W [RT SysOp] at 10:55 EST Topic 17 in Category 18 was started by those trying to contact CMI. Check it out. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 164 Thu Nov 23, 1989 M.LEE3 at 18:28 EST I'm going to get to the point: Does anyone have any trouble with the drawing program Unispec when the processor Accelerator in pluged into the computer?? When I run Unispec it displays red diagonal line across the screen. Does anyone know what the problem is??? ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 165 Fri Nov 24, 1989 T.MCCOMB at 00:45 EST Spectrum software is HIGHLY speed dependent, _any_ change in original HW will break it. A new version is needed (non existant). ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 166 Sun Nov 26, 1989 M.LEE3 at 16:23 EST Thanks for the info. Now I guess I'll have to run in 8mhz for awhile until a new version is available. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 167 Fri Dec 01, 1989 M.DOUVILLE at 20:27 MST Has ANYBODY got the fast rom hack working with a 1040 (the one with the 6800 by the disk drive). There seems to be a problem with the accelerator itself, as some other people have suggested. I'm wondering if anybody has a FIX for this. I belive the fast rom jumper seems to have NO effect on the way the unit operates (it malfunctions the same with or withou t the jumper installed!). Maybe its miss wired or something Any help will be apprecited. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 169 Sat Dec 02, 1989 SANDY.W [RT SysOp] at 11:49 EST For those who may not have heard, CMI is no longer in business. See Category 18 Topic 17 Message 17 for further details. Thanks. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 170 Sun Dec 03, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 02:35 EST Maybe the CMI users should stick together and find solutions to any problems...after all an investment is an investment. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 171 Sun Dec 03, 1989 LEPULLEY at 21:00 MST Jim Allen, Maybe as public relations gesture, you ought to offer a trade-in for these poor people that got stuck with the CMI board? Maybe $199 and the old CMI board (there ought to be something you could do with the old CMI boards...maybe just point and giggle at them everytime some- one mentions the name "CMI"). ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 172 Sun Dec 03, 1989 M.ABSALOM at 23:51 CST Maybe Jim could make an accelerator for the accelerator. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 173 Mon Dec 04, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 02:27 EST One company already went broke with them...I'll pass. Maybe a cache card if there are enough takers. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 174 Mon Dec 04, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 18:14 CST Jim, There isn't any room for anything on the 520-1040STFM models. Most of those boards don't work anyway. -Dave ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 175 Mon Dec 04, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 22:24 EST I meant going UP vertically, pull the 68000 up and plug in a cache board, then drop the 68000 back on. The only problem with this is a good chunk of the cost of the T16 would still be on a cache card so it would cost $$. Not too realistic I guess, I wish I knew just how many of them were out there. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 176 Tue Dec 05, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 18:15 CST Jim, You CAN'T go up either. My board smacked right up against the chip on the keyboard on the GLUE chip end of the 68000. -Dave ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 177 Tue Dec 05, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 18:20 CST Sorry, you can remove the middle filler socket. But there are those critical pins that are wired directly to the motherboard. If you want more info, email me. -Dave ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 178 Tue Dec 05, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 21:03 EST You can basically install it the correct way, with the 68000 OUT and stuff, although you have a particularly tough system. The old 520s and Megas there is no problem with height. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 179 Wed Dec 06, 1989 M.DOUVILLE at 19:37 MST Jim, Its is VERY generous of you to take the time to help us out on a com- petors product. One solution would be to make the circuit layout public domain. That way we might all be able to brain storm on some solutions. I don't see how this could hurt them since they are no longer in business My dealer locally (Denver) is unloading these things at $150.00 a piece. At that price its not to bad a deal considering... By the way have you heard if the Fast Rom hack for the 1040/520STFM worked or not? Anyway, I agree that if we put our heads together on this INSTEAD of just complaining (though I know 299.95 hurts more than 150.00) we might come up with some good solutions! THANKS MICHAEL H. DOUVILLE ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 180 Wed Dec 06, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 21:27 CST JIm, Your right. -Dave ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 181 Tue Dec 19, 1989 M.DOUVILLE at 19:34 MST Here is another question. I hope you guys don't think I'm being a pain. I just added a Blitter to the CMI, but it gives me 4 bombs after using the system at 16mhz for a while only when using turbost. 8mhz seems ok. I'm using a NS brand of Blitter so I tried adding the daugther board mod to it, but it still crashed. Maybe I'm not doing the mod right? I added a 74LS74 chip coming right of the Blitter clocked at 8mhz then back into the chip again but this time synced to the processor clock. Does this sound right? Maybe its just a bad BLitter. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 182 Sat Dec 30, 1989 M.DOUVILLE at 09:57 MST Well I found the problem, actually TWO problems. The simple one was some of the circuit pins were sticking THROUGH the plastic insulator on the bottom of the CMI pcb, shorting on to the RFI shield. This caused intermitten system crashes. The hard one was the BAD PLL 74HCT4046 (U6) that would heat up and cause the system to crash. The first type of crash that would show up seemed to be tied to the blitter, BUT if you let it heat up long enough you would also start getting drive read errors. Both of these problems relate to DMA and the associated BG, BGACK etc signals on the 68000. I sprayed the PLL with some FREON (Coolant) and PRESTO system worked! By the way the PLL is ONLY used during 16mhz operation, at 8mhz it is not used. (I don't have the chip in there now, just a socket and it works fine at 8mhz). I'm trying to fine a replacement with no luck, it must be a 74HCT4046 (HCT high speed CMOS with LSTTL compatablity) in order to work at 16mhz (its rated at 18mhz). Does anyone know where I might look?? I'm wondering if I Tweeked the PLL for a slightly higher Freq if I could make it a little faster 16.5 mhz or even 17mhz (If the mpu can handle it of course!) Any way I hope this info might help, BYE FOR NOW MIKE ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 183 Sat Dec 30, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 13:45 EST Mike, you could actually do without the PLL all together by using the STs 16Mhz clock. The poor accuracy and reliability of the PLL approach is what made us use the STs clock. Just run the 16Mhz line over to what would have been the 16Mhz output of the PLL...if it's TTL compatible of course. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 184 Sat Dec 30, 1989 ICDINC at 14:04 EST Mike, We have some of those PLLs if you need one. I am really surprised they used a PLL in their design. Leave me your name, address, etc. in EMAIL and I will send you one. - TOM - ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 185 Sun Dec 31, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 00:14 EST Well, if you ask me Tom I think they used it because John used one in his:-) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 186 Sun Dec 31, 1989 ICDINC at 11:40 EST We used them in our 8-bit Atari MIO to lock into the 02 clock since we also had to generate our own refresh when the computer was off. - TOM - ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 187 Sun Dec 31, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 23:28 EST Exactly, now that's a use for the PLL that makes sense. It was using it to synchronise a 16Mhz clock to the 8Mhz clock that requires the kind of temperature independent accuracy...+/-15ns that made no sense and is actually one of the reasons the CMIs don't work always even when the PLL is functioning. The nastiest reason is that the blitter demands the bus handshake look EXACTLY like an 8Mhz 68000 or it will bomb randomly. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 188 Thu Jan 04, 1990 M.DOUVILLE at 19:22 MST Thanks Jim, the 16 mhz line worked fine. I did have to use a buffer in front of it or I couldnt use my hard disk, ( some kind of loading.). I used a 74LS365 before I went to pin 4 (VCO out) of where the PLL used to be and it worked great. No more drive problems, but my blitter still crashed when using turbost at 16mhz. I'm going to try a new blitter and see what happens. Thanks again for the help! Mike ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 189 Fri Jan 05, 1990 J.ALLEN27 at 00:43 EST Well I hate to burst your bubble but the reason the blitter won't work is that it expects to see all the control signals...AS,UDS,LDS,etc... to look JUST like an 8Mhz 68000. It requires this and the CMI doesnot provide that in the design. That's one of the reasons I was so agast at the inclusion of the blitter socket...I don't think they actually ever had a blitter to test with, it will NOT work correctly. You might be REAL lucky and find one of the "ST" Thompson/Mostek blitters which appeared to be reasonably immune to timing irregularities. The real pity is that without a T16 you just can't achieve the speed improvements you were promised...they lied. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 190 Fri Jan 05, 1990 M.DOUVILLE at 19:19 MST Well, I guess its worth trying a new blitter since the dealer isnt charging me for it (just trading). I really asked for a T16 first but the dealer told me (Horizon Computers Denver) that they had bad luck with the company that was marketing your product and refused to sell it. They instead recomended the CMI, which they admitted was out of businness , but was a good deal at $150.00. So Jim I guess Im saying I would have loved to have your product but it wasn't available. The dealerreally is nice to deal with, and I don't totally blame them. Do you offer your board through mail order? Will you take a trade in? Ha Ha! Thanks! Mike ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 191 Sat Jan 06, 1990 J.ALLEN27 at 00:18 EST Well to be frank, we delibrately sat back and delayed shipping until the truth came out about the CMI. The market is too small to risk your neck with such a technically sophisticated product, it is very difficult to have people understand the differences and make the right selection. A few slick words, just the right phrasing...doubles instruction speed...and the users are completely baffled as to which to buy. So we waited till it was obvious that CMI was blowing smoke. As it is we did lower the price due to all the "pseudo" competition...and I'll never market another ST product under such circumstances again. Standard price structures should have the T16s list at $399 not $299 and Fast Tech is on the short end of the stick. If I hadn't sunk so much in the development effort I would have cancelled the project. I have to say that we and the ST press did everything we could short of saying outright that the PA design was lousy, ST Informer even went that far, so really I really think by September there was enough info about the situation that people would wait till the T16 was available. All I can say is good luck, I don't know anyone who ever got a blitter to work in a PA. I wish you had waited, you would've been happier :-) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 192 Sat Jan 06, 1990 ST.REPORT [Ralph] at 08:37 EST I know of one online magazine thsat saw right through the CMI hype and stated so too. <> ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 193 Sat Jan 06, 1990 M.DOUVILLE at 09:56 MST Well I guess I'll take it as a learning experance. I think next time I'll get a computer that has expansion designed in. Less hassles and more reliable. Oh by the way I do know of one person how got his Blitter to work ok he has a 520 though. Thanks again Jim and I hope the T16 does well for you! MIKE ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 194 Sat Jan 06, 1990 PSINC at 12:03 EST I know how you feel Jim. At the time we were coming out with the VideoKey some guy in NY was saying they were going to come out with one at half the price. Even went to Atarifests. Had us going for awhile... One show was a riot. We _both_ had video convertors going. He told some people that we had a VCR under the table. Mark ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 195 Sat Jan 06, 1990 J.ALLEN27 at 12:48 EST Hehehehe typical Atari market manuevers Mark :-) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 196 Sat Jan 06, 1990 NEVIN-S at 21:28 EST Jeremy Berger, right Mark?? --Nevin ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 197 Mon Jan 08, 1990 PSINC at 11:19 EST I _think_ so. Yep Jim, now we can laugh, but at the time it wasn't too fun.;- ) We bit the bullet and priced according to our cost, glad we did. It was a gamble. Mark ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 198 Tue Jan 09, 1990 J.ALLEN27 at 00:13 EST That's what business is all about :-) The winners come out on top :-) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 199 Tue Jan 09, 1990 G.GECZY1 at 02:04 EST The winners may come out on top, but the winners are not _always_ the best. Can you say _IBM_? I knew you could... :-) -- George. ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 200 Tue Jan 09, 1990 J.ALLEN27 at 15:25 EST Your right about that George, just imagine how different the world would have been if IBM went Motorola. I was only refering to Mark and myself :-) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 201 Wed Jan 10, 1990 PSINC at 11:14 EST ;-) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 202 Thu Jan 11, 1990 P.MCCULLOUGH at 00:22 EST Once again, Jim Allen is proven right (ala the collapse of CMI)... they sure did have a nifty ad though. (I didn't bite... but it was tempting) I guess Amiga people are pointing at CMI as what happens when a company invests time in the ST... Now about that Small/Allen 030 board... :-) ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 203 Thu Jan 11, 1990 DOUG.W at 00:49 EST Actually, I don't know of any Amiga owners who liked CMI's accelerators... --Doug ------------ Category 4, Topic 22 Message 204 Thu Jan 11, 1990 J.ALLEN27 at 01:38 EST I tried to bring that up...the Amiga PA was really un-liked. A big dealer here in Ma still has 6 on the shelf...it's been almost 2 years :-) ------------ ************ Topic 17 Tue Oct 31, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 18:51 CST Sub: CMI a ripoff business... they got me!! Now that the number for CMI has been disconnected, I guess that the money they owe me, plus my ST can be kissed goodbye... I need to blow off steam plus warn others (if it isn't too late)... 69 message(s) total. ************ ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 1 Tue Oct 31, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 18:56 CST CMI (makers of the CMI accelerator) have apparently closed shop. I called their number today to inquire about my refund and my ST (which they said were going to ship last week), but I got a message that their phone had been disconnected!!! Since some of my dealings with them were thru the US Mail, I have contacted my local postal inspector and explained the problem to them. They are extremely anxious to investigate and possibly start mail fraud actions against the company. Since it looks as tho I have been screwed (and I didn't even get kissed first), I hope that anyone who was thinking about dealing with this company will take head and not do anything. Total cost of this rude awakening to me has been: $300 (for the board - which they have - plus my money) $500 (first ST - fried - plus memory upgrade) $300 (second ST replacement so I can still work and make a meager living) ----- $1100 Not bad for a screwing... Anyone have a cigarette??? - mike ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 2 Tue Oct 31, 1989 DARLAH [RT~SYSOP] at 20:25 EST Mike: Has anyone tried contacting them online?? ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 3 Tue Oct 31, 1989 GRIBNIF at 20:44 EST Mike, Allthough it has definitely been the case lately (look at that place in Quincy, MA recently) of ST dealers closing-up and taking people to the cleaners, you still have to admit that there is a (however small) possibility that there phone was just out of order, or the phone company screwed-up (wouldn't be the first time), or somebody just forgot to pay the bill. I'd keep trying for a few days and then get p*ssed. Dan ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 4 Tue Oct 31, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 22:11 CST Well, actually, they have been giving me the run-around for over 2 months now on fixing my computer and getting me my money back... Considering that I ordered one of the first boards, and turned right around and returned it, (which was in late july early august) one would think that would be enuf time to rectify any problems... Thanks for the advice Dan, I will certainly hope for the best. I had heard recently that they had been offering a two-for-one special on their accel. bds, but other people had gotten the disconnected line, altho I didn't find out for how long it has been disconnected... Still, I'm a weepin' now... It's one thing to take my money, it's another to take my money earner from me (my computer)!!! - mike vederman :-( ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 5 Tue Oct 31, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 22:14 CST Darlah, Give me an address, and I'll be glad to write to 'em. I couldn't find thing with my rudimentary attempts in the search command. - mike ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 6 Tue Oct 31, 1989 FB [Fred Beckman] at 23:22 EST The CMI rep has the GEnie address of W.COLDWELL1. Some times it is Bill and sometimes Lilliane. Fred ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 7 Wed Nov 01, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 01:23 EST Mike Call information in that area of Oregon and get William Coldwell's home phone. I will try to get some other names from the company for you by asking distributors. We have had our phone messed up by the phone company before so don't loose hope yet maybe it's just a screwup. -Jim ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 8 Wed Nov 01, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 07:44 CST Thanks Fred, I will try sending an online message to them. Thanks Jim, I hope it's just a phone screw up and not an indication of the company's demise... - mike ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 9 Wed Nov 01, 1989 JEFF.W [RTC Sysop] at 10:58 EST I just tried the phone number in their ad and I got the "this number has been disconnected" message also. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 10 Thu Nov 02, 1989 NHARRIS [Neil] at 13:17 EST The account CMI uses was last online on the 25th of October. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 11 Thu Nov 02, 1989 ST.REPORT [Ralph] at 18:30 EST FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS.............. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 12 Thu Nov 02, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 20:33 CST Thank you Neil. Hope they check it soon, 'cause I left 'em a juicy one! I also have made contact with someone in Tualatin that has the ability to do some investigation for me to see if they are open or what... - mike ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 13 Tue Nov 21, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 19:00 CST Mike, I also got an original board and returned it. It would not work. I have sent a letter to my credit card company and them requesting the refund (Ha ha ha .....). There is really nothing you can do. Just get the post office on them. You might try checking the courthouse to see if they have ffiled for bankruptcy. If they have, we both have had it. I sent them a certified letter so that if they are in bankruptcy, I can get a small file claim in. -Dave ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 14 Tue Nov 21, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 21:20 CST I have recently been informed that they are 'supposedly' forming a new company. Once I get more details, I will pass it along. mike ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 15 Wed Nov 22, 1989 DARLAH [RT~SYSOP] at 07:38 EST Please do Mike. It will be an interest to many, I am sure. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 16 Wed Nov 22, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 20:47 CST Mike, Please keep me informed. -Dave ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 17 Thu Nov 23, 1989 W.COLDWELL1 [CMI*TECH] at 20:38 PST Michael Vederman: Your machine will be on it's way as soon as I get it all together and boxed up. I will have to send it to you on my own time and with my own money (of which there is little since I no longer have a job...) As far as your refund, I no longer work for CMI but a good guess on my part is that you won't get your money back. If you want their lawyers name and stuff, let me know. David: As stated in message before, don't hold you're breath for your money cause you may not see it... To all those who had dealing with CMI: I often stated that I felt it was a bad idea to go into the Atari ST market place with our PA, and it seems I was right. Not because of you guys, just the market in general. It's a market were only one person with that kind of product really should have which is what Jim has...good luck to you Jim. I don't appreciate people trying to find our personal home phone numbers and am damn grateful that neither Bill's nor my number is under the names you know us as...I wouldn't want to be bothered about all this crap as I am no longer associated with that company. In reference to the reformation: There may be a new company company coming along that will buy out all of CMI's product line for the Amiga computer and resell it under the CMI logo and develop new products under their own logo...I may work for them, I may not. I will be in negotiations with the company stockholder next week to discuss $$$ and things of that nature. This company will not be headed by the people that headed up CMI and is a totally different company. You are forwarned now, that if the new company opens up and you do call them t a refund from CMI all you will get is the disertation that I just gave 31>. CMI is D.E.A.D., gone and buried. Looking for a good job, Lilliane M. Carter (FORMERLY with Creative Microsystems, Inc.) ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 18 Fri Nov 24, 1989 LEPULLEY at 00:34 MST Lillian, I didn't buy one of your boards, but I do want to thank you for taking your time and coming on here to explain what happened to CMI. While I took exception with W. Coldwell's comments and attitude, you have shown us that not everyone at CMI was like him.....you are a class act!! (LL)oyd Pulley ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 19 Fri Nov 24, 1989 DARLAH [RT~SYSOP] at 09:23 EST Sigh..such news. Thank you for letting us know what is going on. We appreciate it. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 20 Fri Nov 24, 1989 PSINC at 10:45 EST Lillian, good luck with getting a new job, I'm sure you won't have trouble finding one. A company failure is always a sad thing, as lives are affected. I consider it extremely professional for you to try to tie up "loose ends" even though you no longer work for the company. Good luck. Mark Sloatman Practical Solutions ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 21 Fri Nov 24, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 10:47 CST Lillian, Please let me know whomever is the legal contact for CMI. Thank you, - mike ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 22 Sat Nov 25, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 19:47 CST Lillian, I want to thank you for your help with my PA. As with with Mike, please let me know as to the legal contacts for CMI. -David ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 23 Tue Dec 05, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 18:06 CST As of today, CMI has not filed a bankruptcy notice with the US bankruptcy office in Portland. The numbers for the office are: 1-503-326-2231 Voice 1-503-326-2249 Computer/Telephone -Dave ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 24 Tue Dec 05, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 20:41 CST Thanks, Dave. Still no word here... - mike ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 25 Thu Dec 07, 1989 GORDON at 09:22 EST Some companies never do go formally bankrupt. They just close the doors and fade away. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 26 Thu Dec 07, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 21:26 CST Latest word I have is that they are reforming under a different name. If that is the case, they can still be accountable for previous injuries... Since they haven't declared formal bankruptcy, then they are still wide open... - mike ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 27 Fri Dec 08, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 00:32 CST My credit card company hasn't been able to find them either. I called them today, and they were rather concerned(?). Have you gotten you're (sorry) your machine back Mike? I just got a T16 installed and it does work fast. No major problems. -Dave ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 28 Fri Dec 08, 1989 GORDON at 10:29 EST Not sure about that Mike. If they were incorporated all legal liability lies with the corporation. They can start up a new Corp and do it all over again. As long as they did no overt Fraud.. If they were not incorporated they are personally responsiblity and it doesn't matter if they try to get going again or not. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 29 Fri Dec 08, 1989 PSINC at 13:00 EST Furthermore they can sell the assets to another company. Then they have to only pay back what they receive from the sale. This only applies if they re- emerge as the same company "CMI". They can also shut down totally and start a completely new corporation, this gets real sticky as it's tough to sue a dead corporation unless they went out with a lot of assets, which rarely happens. Mark ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 30 Sat Dec 09, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 01:29 CST As I understand it, in a corporation, you can still sue the BOD members. Whereas the corporate vale is really only another level to go thru to get someone to tackle. No, I haven't gotten anything from them. Anyone know how to make a letter bomb? - mike ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 31 Sat Dec 09, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 15:13 EST Yah Mike, I just happened to have this book.... ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 32 Sat Dec 09, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 16:23 CST Mike, Hey I'm about ready to start legal proceedings. This is getting rather ridiculus. I have a uncle who's a lawyer in Virginia. I may just give him a call... ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 33 Sun Dec 10, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 14:16 CST Maybe we can go into a joint suit... I also have heard thru the grapevine that they have sold off everything to another company, who will be supporting the Amiga products. No word on the Atari stuff. - mike ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 34 Sun Dec 10, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 20:38 CST I'll check with my uncle. If you can find out the people we need to bring it against, that would be a help. -Dave ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 35 Tue Dec 12, 1989 PSINC at 10:36 EST Time is of the essence. File it _before_ they change ownership. Mark ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 36 Tue Dec 12, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 14:05 CST I would suppose that William Coldwell (the owner?) would be the one to file against. Determining that should be easy enough by calling the tax assessor up there (I think that's who) and see who the DBA is registered to. - mike ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 37 Tue Dec 12, 1989 JEFF.W [RTC Sysop] at 20:18 EST I don't know who the owner of CMI is/was, but it wasn't Bill Coldwell. He was one of the employees. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 38 Tue Dec 12, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 19:24 CST Ok Mike, You contact your friend in Oregon and I'll talk to my uncle. He is right. Once they change ownership, We can't touch them. -dave ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 39 Tue Dec 12, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 20:03 CST Mike, I spoke with my uncle. Here's what must be done. (1) Find out the Registered Agent for CMI in Oregon. (2) You can file a small claim suit against them if you have: correspondance acknowledging your return such as a copy of of the RMA, a postal insurance slip stating you shipped the product back or and/or a cover letter you enclosed with the\ product return. (3) we could also file a joint suit with a lawyer on a contigency basis in which we would pool our claim and get a partial sum back. If they do not show at court, we could get the court to order the claim be paid in Oregon. (4) The only problem is getting them to pay once we have won the settlement. Please email me your phone number. I will email you mine. I have a cover letter I sent back with the product return and copies of the letters plus postal confirmation of registered mail receipts of those letters. -Dave ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 40 Wed Dec 13, 1989 GORDON at 10:28 EST Seriously doubt if you will ever get anything in a lawsuit. And you will have some nice legal bills. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 41 Wed Dec 13, 1989 PSINC at 12:46 EST Only thing you can do is to scare them into refunding you before they change. Believe me, Gordon is right. They have lawyers too! Mark ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 42 Wed Dec 13, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 19:16 CST If its a small claims court there are no lawyers. And they would have to pay to fly someone down to make the court appearance. That alone is more than they owe me. In mike's case he has ~$1000 in losses. That is w worth sueing over. And on a contigency basis, He doesn't pay unless he wins. Believe me, if we do nothing, we definitely won't see a dime. What they are doing IS illegal. You cannot close shop and not pay your bills without going into bankruptcy. Period. The registered agent is responsible for claims made. -Dave ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 43 Thu Dec 14, 1989 GORDON at 12:01 EST Dave.. In small claims court you have to sue them in their place of business.. Not yours.. that means you have to fly up their. Then if you win you still have to collect. Say you won $1000 in small claims.. how do you collect. they bank account is empty. you might try to seize something of value left in the building but I doubt if anything would be there. you cant go to his house. because your judgement is against the company... I heard of one case where a person had sent his water skies ($300) back to the manufacture to be repaired under warentee. The company went bankrupt. The owner had to fight with the court for 2 years to get his skies back. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 44 Thu Dec 14, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 21:06 EST Call Lilliane and ask her for the names of the principles...then bug the hell out of them until they send your money back. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 45 Thu Dec 14, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 23:58 CST To all those screwed: Always send products back with proof they have received it. If you paid by credit card the refund is automatic if you have tried to contact them. Never send your machine away to anyone. Period. Just remember to cover yourself with proof that shows the situation exactly. That way you can always pursue it if you wish. No proof, no dice. Mike and I are out of luck, so the best thing to do is learn and not do it again. If you haven't had this happen to you, take our advice. -Dave ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 46 Fri Dec 15, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 01:41 EST I repeat Dave, even without sufficient proof for legal action you may still get results by locating the individuals involved and bugging the crap out of them. You can make an awful lot of latenite phone calls for little money. It is absolutely inexcusable that Mike's computer is being held captive and I would be suprised if there weren't some criminal charges possible in relation to his case. You can't hold someones equipment hostage, I don't care if your a computer company or a stereo repair place if you don't return the customers goods when asked and no fees are do then you have stolen them. And besides who wants the ST anyway, it's probably just sitting on a shelf gathering dust. Maybe it's time for the ST press to get involved, since both STWorld and STInformer are both located in Oregon. Maybe consumer reporter Rod "Heraldo" MacDonald can come to the rescue. Call information and get the home phone numbers of as many of the former employees as possible and bug the dickens out of them. There is no legal manner they can dispose of Mikes computer, they must return it. Mike you do have the serial number right? File a criminal theft report with the Oregon state police!!!! ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 47 Fri Dec 15, 1989 GORDON at 10:22 EST One thing you might try. If you purchased the computer personally you could call your insurance agent up and tell him what happened and say you wanted to make a claim under your homeowners policy. If it was a business computer (receipt made out to company name) you will have to try to collect off your business insurance if you have that. Most policys will cover things like this. Then you also get the insurance company working on trying to get it back.. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 48 Fri Dec 15, 1989 D.MCNAMEE at 15:14 EST Also doesn't small claims end at about $500, anything above that goes into regular court as theft or something? Dan ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 49 Fri Dec 15, 1989 TIMPURVES at 19:14 EST I had a transmition go out on a car of mine. I took it to the local transmision shop and they gladly took the car in. They proceded to go bankrupt the next day. I called up my atorney and told him the story. About a week later the State Police and my attorney, went to the Transmition place with a court order to return my car. Since there was no-one there. They busted the door down and seized my car. Which they then returned to me. Then my attorney sued the owners of the place, and won enough money to pay him and get my car fixed for free!. So maybe Mike can do something simular to get his computer back. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 50 Fri Dec 15, 1989 DARLAH [RT~SYSOP] at 19:58 EST Sounds like an interesting day, Tim... ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 51 Sat Dec 16, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 00:27 EST Hey Mike, maybe we can find an Oregon Statie who is also an ST fanatic :-) ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 52 Sat Dec 16, 1989 JLS [John STanley] at 04:08 CST Dan McNamee, I don't know about other states, but in Minnesota, "small claims" court will handle cases up to $1200. I may be smaller where CMI is, but I strongly doubt it's less than $1000.... ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 53 Sat Dec 16, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 17:04 CST sigh... I'll see what my accountant can do for me as far as a tax write-off is concerned. Seems to me as tho that is my only real recourse. - mike ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 54 Sun Dec 17, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 00:00 CST Jim, I could bug the hell out of them, and Mike could call an attorney in his case. But, if they have no money, how can you collect it? Give me the reporter's GEnie address and I'll give him an ear full. CMI doesn't give a damn about their Atari image. They are out of the market. Mike, go ahead and put in that claim. You can get a new machine anyway. Is there a legal forum on GEnie? Thanks for all your input guys! -Dave ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 55 Sun Dec 17, 1989 GORDON at 10:55 EST There is a legal forum on GENie.. Small claims used to be $500 most of them have gone up to over a $1000 its called inflation. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 56 Sun Dec 17, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 14:30 EST Seems to me excepting your computer to do work on it then skipping town with that computer is definitely against the law, why don't you just call the police in Taulitin Oregon and file a criminal complaint? All I can say is yapping on GEnie ain't gonna help, time is of the essence...call a cop!!!!! ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 57 Mon Dec 18, 1989 D.MCNAMEE at 19:49 EST I didn't know for sure what the cut off was, and I figured it varied from state to state. Thanks for the info John! Dan ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 58 Mon Dec 18, 1989 D.MCNAMEE at 19:49 EST Gordon, Dan ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 59 Wed Dec 27, 1989 M.KELLER1 [Mike] at 22:09 EST CMI may not care about the Atari business now, but they (or the principals) do care about their reps as they move to new businesses and other machines. I believe they were very proud of their developments in the Amiga field. A lot of bugging and potential bad PR could go a long way toward securing your gear. After all, you are working on the "hassle factor" here: if you are enough hassle for them, and they can get rid of you with very little hassle (return your machine or give you a few bucks), it could be very advantageous for THEM to come across. After all, would these guys like to see their names in every mag that even remotely carries ST and Amiga coverage? %%%%%%%%%%%%%Mike%%%%%%%%% ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 60 Thu Dec 28, 1989 M.VEDERMAN2 at 11:24 CST Well, I spoke with my accountant and he said I could write the whole thing off, including the remainder of my computer (I've already started deducting that in previous years). At this point the cash would come in handy, but I'm tempted to scratch this one up to 'experience.' - mike ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 61 Fri Dec 29, 1989 HS at 15:19 EST But why let slime off the hook? ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 62 Fri Dec 29, 1989 J.ALLEN27 at 23:13 EST If it is any consolation guys you only lost a few bucks, I lost a couple hundred customers....burn them if you can. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 63 Fri Dec 29, 1989 DOUG.W at 23:23 EST Rather than sue CMI for the money, why not bring them up on criminal charges: THEFT?!? --Doug ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 64 Sun Dec 31, 1989 D.BURKHALTER at 21:30 CST The problem is that the main investors closed the company. All the "visible" people are gone. If someone can tell me how to get the names of those "invisible" investors, I'll be more than happy to get someone to scream. -Dave ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 65 Mon Jan 01, 1990 D.BURKHALTER at 18:06 CST I have sent email to ST.REPORT and they have indicated they will be reporting on this soon. -Dave ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 66 Mon Jan 01, 1990 J.ALLEN27 at 20:55 EST Go for ST Informer and STWorld too!!!! Especially since both are located in Oregon!!!! ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 67 Tue Jan 02, 1990 D.BURKHALTER at 20:15 CST Jim, Do they have GEnie addresses? -Dave ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 68 Wed Jan 03, 1990 J.ALLEN27 at 01:30 EST ST Informer does...NEVIN.S, ST World doesn't but just call'em. ------------ Category 18, Topic 17 Message 69 Sat Jan 06, 1990 D.BURKHALTER at 22:57 CST Both ST REPORT and NEVIN-S are looking into CMI. Please send them email if you have any information to pass along to them. Dave ------------