Floppyshop 2/Floppyshop - 2.zip/Floppyshop - 2.iso/diskmags/0022-3.564/dmg-0126/355.txt

Text File | 1997-04-16 | 29KB | 648 lines

Info-Atari16 Digest         Wed, 26 Jun 91       Volume 91 : Issue 355

Today's Topics:
                     Amiga is better then what???
                  Atari ST color monitor in VGA mode
                                Games
                    How is Atari doing in Europe?
               MiNT, MGR, emacs, problems and questions
                  Problems with Ghostscript (2 msgs)
             UPDATE: Atari ST Parting out Sale! (2 msgs)
                        What archiving format?
                           What is MetaDOS?

Welcome to the Info-Atari16 Digest.  The configuration for the automatic
cross-posting to/from Usenet is getting closer, but still getting thrashed
out.  Please send notifications about broken digests or bogus messages
to [e-mail].

Please send requests for un/subscription and other administrivia to
Info-Atari16-Request, *NOT* Info-Atari16.  Requests that go to the list
instead of the moderators are likely to be lost or ignored.

If you want to unsubscribe, and you're receiving the digest indirectly
from someplace (usually a BITNET host) that redistributes it, please
contact the redistributor, not us.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 91 16:18:21 GMT
From: noao!ncar!gatech!udel!brahms.udel.edu![e-mail] (Donald R Lloyd)
Subject: Amiga is better then what???
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rod
 Fulk) writes:
>Tom, Apparently you have not really used an Atari computer...
>There are many offerings available on the ST that are not available on any
>other computer to date.

         Okay, I was going to sit back & watch, but I felt compelled to reply to
this one...

>Since atari does not make the ST computer any more that I know of you must
>compare the capabilities of the STe to that of the amiga.
>A 1040 Ste compares VERY favorably to an amiga 500. The ONLY thing the amiga
>500 has over the atari is the fact that the atari can not do as many colors on
>the screen at the same time...

         There are many who would disagree with this statement....

>However there is a 24bit card available for $800 with a coprocessor of some
>sort for really good graphics...

         I can get a 24-bit card for $299 (list).  It takes advantage of the Amiga's
built-in coprocessors.  For about $100 more I can get one that also includes
a slow-scan video digitizer.  This one (DCTV) has been demoed at shows paging
full-motion, full-color video off a HD and displaying it through this advice in
real time (Watched a few minutes of Back to the Future III...)

>Adding things to the ST come alot cheaper over all then on the amiga and the
>standard equipment atari sells is of better quality on average.

         Better quality in what way?  I assume you're speaking of quality of
'workmanship' or quality control with this point.  What data are you using to
arrive at this conclusion?
         Besides, if you have a problem with your 500, you FedEx it back to
Commodore (at CBM's expense) & it's promptly replaced or repaired & sent back.
If your 2000, 2500, or 3000 go bad, and your warranty is still valid (1 year
warranty on all models, w/option to purchase an extension), Commodore sends
someone to your home to fix it there.

>Compare....
>An Ste with tos 1.6 and blitter performs pretty well...
>Compared to an Amiga 500 the amiga only has a slight edge over the Atari..

         I've seen the so-called blitter on an ST.  I was not impressed.  The
Amiga's blitter performs most operations about as fast as a 14 MHz 68020
(according to Dave Haynie, a CBM hardware guy who frequents c.s.amiga.*).
The ST's processor runs .86 MHz faster than the Ami's 68000, but the blitter
more than makes up for this in all but extremely processor-intensive apps.
     Of course, for about $10 (probably less) you can pop a 68010 into your
Amiga & make up for that difference.  Unless Atari has finally released a
non-TT TOS version that supports 680(1+)0 chips, ST owners don't have this
option.

>(Note: for the price no other computer even comes close... )

         The A500 can be had for about $400 now.  It generally also comes bundled
with some software as well.

>Compare OS's... The St is built with a much more complete OS then ANY of the
>amiga OS's.. (The 2.0 doesnt really count at this point since last time I
>looked it was not available on amiga 500's yet)

         In what way are they more complete?  Do they include a shell environment
as well as a GUI?  Do they support multiple simultaneous screens of different
depths, resolutions, and pallettes?  (Can the ST even change resolutions yet
without a reboot?)  Shared libraries & interprocess communication? (Oops!
No need... no multitasking!  Sorry.)

>If you compare the amigas 2.0 to the Mega Ste's 2.x and the TT's 3.X the atari
>beats it hands down.
>(Beats it in all areas of ease of use and of pure power...)

     Workbench is just as easy to use as any most other GUIs.  Double click
the icon & away you go...
         As far as "pure power", I've yet to see a GUI with the pure power of
a Unix-like command line, which is part of the Amiga OS (note that you
don't _have_ to use this; it's just there in case you want to).

>                                                             Of course the
>amiga does multi task but I have very little use for multi tasking..

         Normally, I'd counter this standard argument with another standard one
("Then you probably haven't tried it yet"....), but...

>(I use a 25 mhz '386 with desqview.. On the BBS multi tasking is nice..)
>VERY few people I talk to use multi tasking more then ocassionally.

         Nearly every Amiga user I talk to uses it on a regular basis.  I'm doing
it now.  A BBS is certainly far from the only time multitasking is useful.
         A list of the processes currently running on my system (using Snap, one
of those processes, to clip this text from a window & paste it here):

CLI(1):artm
CLI(2):iprefs
CpuBlit V1.00
AssignX
FaccII
ForFacc
RexxMaster
CLI(4):c:snap
CygnusEd
CLI(3):loadwb
jr-comm
DMouse
Virus_Checker
jrcomm-clock
SD

        (Note that I've deleted a number of system processes (devices & handlers)
because they're not things that I specificaly started up in one way or another.)

>As to sound? Well The ST is the only one so far that has the capability of 3d
>sound. The STe series computers have the capability of using 3 seperate
>speakers with different sounds out of each.... 2 of those full 8 bit digital..

         How is this superior to the Amiga's 4 channel 8 bit stereo sound?  (8 bit
on all 4 channels, not just 2 of them).  There's even software (Octaplayer?)
that supposedly pushes out 8 voices.  Of course, unlike the ST, the Amiga's
sound is driven by yet another coprocessor, so it takes almost 0 CPU time to
play a musical score or a digitized sound (as a background process in your
multitasking environment, while you work on something else).

>It is easy to use HD floppies on an ST.. I have yet to see on on an amiga...

         Applied Engineering and Commodore both make Ami HD drives.  The problem
with HD drives on the Amiga is that the floppies are controlled by a coprocessor
(yes, another one!) that allows me to do things like formatting a floppy (which
I'm doing now via the SD process listed above) with little loss of CPU time.
This coprocessor, though, cannot handle the throughput speeds of high density
drives (twice that of the older drives), so workarounds have had to be found.


>Since the ST uses standard parts it is easy to get most of the items...

         Eh?  Standard parts?  Like the standard SCSI drive inside my Amiga, the
standard memory chips, the standard printer connected to my standard parrallel
port right next to the standard serial port which talks to my standard modem?

>Comparing an ST to an Amiga at purely CPU intensive things the Amiga can not
>be compared very favorably.
     No?  Why not?  That .86 MHz doesn't make much of a difference... especially
if the ST also has to use the CPU to do I/O and/or graphics stuff at the same
time.  Oops!  Forgot again... no multitasking.  Never mind.

>The amiga has a hand up on the serial port since the ST is limited to 19200
>baud...
>
>ALL the memory can be used in an ST as compared to the amigas limitation of
>chip memory... (Note the ST does not waste memory... You must waste memory on
>an amiga to do double buffered graphics and digital sound at the same time.)

         I can use all the memory in my system too.  I just have to keep graphics &
sound data in the 1st 2 megs.  Why do you say the Amiga has to waste memory to
do d.b. graphics & sound?  Having to keep it in a limited section of memory
only constitutes a limitation, not a waste.
     On the subject of memory, what exactly is the difference between "ST
memory" and "TT memory" on the TT?  Is ST mem 16 bits wide?

>Each has its own strengths and weaknesses.. The Standard ST is MUCH better
>suited to bussiness then an amiga. However the Amiga is better suited to
>games and higher resolution color work...

         Oh?  On what do you base this assumption?  I really don't know what
business software is available for the ST other than PageStream (is
2.1 out yet for the ST?  I've been using it for a while, & am looking
forward to the 2.2 upgrade they're now advertising for the Ami version),
Calamus, and DynaCadd (now also available for the Amiga).
     Of course, around here, the Amiga will nearly always win out over
the ST simply because there are no ST dealers around and no sources of
ST software short of mail order.  I've been to nearly every computer
store in this state, but have yet to see an ST anywhere.

>Start comparing at the TT to amiga 3000 level and the difference is alot less..
>The TT can do some graphic modes the amiga would be jelous of and visa versa.

         If I remember the TT specs correctly, the only grahics mode the TT has
that can outdo a stock Amiga 3000 (or any other model, if it weren't for the
flicker in interlace mode on <3000 Amigas) is the 1024x960 mono mode which
needs a special monitor.  With the CBM A2024 monitor or Moniterm Viking, any
amiga can do 1008x800 (1008x1024 in PAL mode) mono.

>The sound systems are for the most part the same.. Differences can be over
>come by the speed of the processor. If you REALLY push it the amiga can do a
>few things better in the graphics arena though.. Over all though you have no
>bussiness stating the ST is no where as good as the amiga.. It is not true..

         From what I've seen of the ST it doesn't take much pushing for the Amiga's
graphics to beat it.  The processor speed differences (ST vs A500) are so small
they're almost irrelevant; the Ami's blitter, copper, and other coprocessors
make up for them easily.

>However Atari USA is missing the boat....
>Actually someone shot the boat they were on while they were sipping a toast
>to what they thought was going on... Then federated almost killed them..
>From the current trends I would predict that the Atari will come on very strong
>in the next five years.. If Atari ever gets over their fatuation of keeping
>low graphics to keep the price down and offer a multi tasking environment then
>there will be nothing any amigaite can say against the ST... ;-)

         From the current trends I would predict that Atari sales will continue to
be negligible in the US and falling in Europe.  Sales of the TT might go well
for a little while as current ST owners upgrade, but IMHO, they'll die down
shortly.  I would also predict that Commodore's sales will continue the steady
rise they've been experiencing worldwide.

>(Multi tasking doesnt make a better machine but since most people dont realize
>they are not gonna need it they think they need it and might lewt it make some
>sort of an effect on them..)

     Multitasking _does_ make a better machine for any machine that's not
completely dedicated to a single task.  I won't buy a computer that can't do it,
and feel extremely claustrophobic when I find myself having to use one that
can't.


--
  Gibberish   May the        Publications Editor, AmigaNetwork
  is spoken   fork() be      Amiga Student On-Campus Consultant, U of D
    here.     with you.      DISCLAIMER:  It's all YOUR fault.

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 16:02:20 GMT
From:
 noao!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!emory!utkcs2!hydra3b.cs.utk.edu!gathings@a
 rizona.edu (Golando Gathings)
Subject: Atari ST color monitor in VGA mode
To: [e-mail]

I see many people using VGA monitor on ST's  I was wondering if the
opposite has been done.  I would like to hear from anyone who
has done this as I am planning on using an
st color monitor as a vga monitor on my AT.

Golando


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

Date: 26 Jun 91 07:34:14 GMT
From:
 noao!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintak
 a!ogicse!clark!pro-haven.cts.com![e-mail] (Kevin Raley)
Subject: Games
To: [e-mail]

AS I am in the black hole of cultural activity, I have very little access
to ANYONE supporting the ST line of software. I am an avid FRP gamer and
have finished (among others) Dungeon Masters 1 & 2, Bloodwych 1 & 2,
Phantasie 1-4, Ultima 1-5, & Bard's Tale. I recently purchaced a game
called Legend of Faergail by Rainbow Zoo & it is givin me a LOT of prvlems
with HD installation and software quirks...Has anyone else had these
experiences with this game?

Oh yeah- Anyone knowing of anything new (or recent) game-wise please inform
me, I hear that the people who made Captive are producing a Fantasy game of
the same quality called Knightmare, and would like to know if anyone has
seen it...

Oh well, thanx fer the ear & I'll be seein ya in the net!

                                            Bandersnatch
----
ProLine:  bandersnatch@pro-haven                    Kevin Raley
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP:     crash!pro-haven!bandersnatch
ARPA:     crash!pro-haven![e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 06:42:02 GMT
From: uupsi!sunic!isgate!krafla![e-mail] (Adam David)
Subject: How is Atari doing in Europe?
To: [e-mail]

Thanks Claus for stating a different side to what I said. In restrospect I see
that some of my wording was not entirely clear.

[e-mail] (Claus Brod) writes:
>[e-mail] (Adam David) writes:

                    vvvvvv
>>TOS has yet to be junked. In all seriousness Atari, why not have a REAL OS
>>in ROM and the option to load TOS and GEM from disk for backward
 compatibility?

I think a little explanation is in order. Maybe junked was a rather unwise
choice of words. The point I intended was more in the sense of recycling.
I sincerely believe that both TOS and GEM have outlived their allotted lifespan
as the central OS foundation in ROM (where indeed they take precious space and
considerable chunks are often replaced by RAM resident routines anyway).
I did not say they had outlived their usefulness. I'm sorry if I implied that.
To put things in perspective I still use CP/M on Z80. I don't get rid of a thing
which still has some use in it.

From a historical viewpoint, TOS started off as a RAM based OS probably because
it was still being written. It stabilised into TOS 1.0 the first ROM version.
Since then we have had infrequent updates usually with only minor changes. A few
bugfixes are made (sometimes in the wrong direction :-() and a few utilities
added. Suddenly in recent times versions 2.x and 3.x appear with a few more
bells and whistles. A completely new GDOS is arriving (in RAM of course). TOS
and GEM almost became fossils in ROM. Some of the material in the ROM should
(IMHO) rather be made RAM resident so that updates can be made available and
to give better system flexibility. Manipulation of system-specific hardware
obviously belongs in ROM but I would like to be able to load GEM when I need
it, and reclaim its space when I don't.

>TOS is usable. TOS is useful.
>And personally, I think GEM is a real gem. It has all the potential
>to rival the MacOS.

>And with the advent of Atari Unix we also have a full-featured SysV.4.
>Think about it.

Nice stop-gap  :-)  :-)  :-)

[explanation: In a few years time look back with nostalgia and say
"I still use Unix"]

>The XBIOS floppy routines worked with HD drives from the day they were
>created, likewise for BIOS and GEMDOS. Now, isn't that a sign of
>thoughtful design?

Yes. The low-level stuff for this is all in place, as it should be. Only very
recent versions have a GEM format option for other than a simple choice
between single and double sided disks. IMHO the only sensible sector size to
use on HD disks is 1024 bytes (except for MSDOS compatibility when needed).
If I understood correctly, only the first and latest versions have been able to
handle these. In which version number was it fixed?

Wouldn't it be sensible to have reasonable control over disk format
built into the desktop?
Shouldn't a decent ramdisk be included in the ROM?
A simple text editor would not be out of place in the ROM.

>With machines speeding up considerably and speeders all over the place,
>the need for fine-tuning the ROM code diminishes. It's more important
>for Atari to have control over the various TOS development lines, and
>this is near to impossible to do with hand-optimized code.

It could be worked on in-house as a non-optimised version and then run through
an optimiser for production. Both speed and space are at a premium even in these
days of multi-megabyte accelerated systems (Whoever thought back then that 4 MB
wouldn't be enough RAM). Optimisation could be made almost automatic, the only
handwork necessary would be to mark which parts of the code must not be changed
because they are in some way critical.

Just eliminating redundant reassignment of variables and making absolute long
references into absolute short where possible would save enough space to fit
STE TOS versions into older ST computers without having to move ROMbase to the
newer (and lower) address.

Enough said for now. This is meant as constructive criticism.

--
Adam David.
([e-mail])

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 18:31:11 GMT
From:
 noao!ncar!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!atha!aunro!alberta!brazeau.ucs.ualbert
 a.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!geog.ubc.ca![e-mail] (Peter Jackson)
Subject: MiNT, MGR, emacs, problems and questions
To: [e-mail]

Hello, I am setting up a system with MiNT and MGR and have encountered
some problems and questions that I hope someone could help with:

1. MGR works fine with the init.prg supplied with MiNT, but if I try
to use BASH or gulam as my shell, then I get a "can't get a pty" error
when I try to open a windom. (I remember someone mentioning a solution
to this before, but didn't take note at the time)

2. BASH seems to choke when using the LS.PRG supplied in akputil7.zoo
- I get a bus or addressing error and MiNT crashes. LS.PRG seems to work
fine with other shells. Has anyone else encountered this? Is there another
LS that I should be using?

3. What (emacs-ish) editor are people using with MiNT/MGR? I have tried
mg2a inside a mgr vt52 widow - the text came up fine, but every keystroke
generated garbage (an @ character I think). I had problems with me310 as
well.

4. Has anyone compiled gnu-emacs to operate under MiNT and allow multiple
shells etc? (This is my preferred windowing environment) If so, would
they care to share the changes that were necessary to compile the
sources?

Thanks very much for any help, I will be happy to provide any information
I receive to others or summarize and post if there is sufficient interest.

--
======================================================================
Peter L. Jackson               | [e-mail]
Atmospheric Science Programme  | [e-mail]
Department of Geography        | [e-mail]
University of British Columbia | ph:[phone] fax:[phone]

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 14:42:52 GMT
From:
 noao!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!umich!ws
 u-cs!jake![e-mail] (Patrick Haggood)
Subject: Problems with Ghostscript
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc Bouron)
 writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Patrick
 Haggood) writes:
>> I just downloaded ghostscript the other day and have loaded it into
>>...etc
>> What am I doing wrong?  What's this fontmap it's looking for?
>
>The fontmap file maps between the PostScript font names (e.g. /Times-Roman) and
>GhostScript font FILES (e.g. ptmr.gsf).  It live in the ./fonts subdirectory.
>Now, to make the rest of it work, you need to modify your GS_LIB variable:
>
>GSLIB=e:\ghostscr.ipt\fonts,e:\ghostscr.ipt\ps
>
>Basically, it's a search path for any file GS wants to open.  Can't remember if
>the slashes face forward or back (forward in the variable, backwards on the
>command line?).
>

Hm, are there supposed to be more font files with the distribution?  The
only one in the distrib I got was UGLY(something).GSF.  So .GSF files
have to live in a FONTS directory.  To keep my path uncomplicated, I put
the GS executable in the \bin subdirectory.  Does my fontmap file have
to live there too or will it suffice to keep put it in some directory
pointed to by GS_LIB?
--
Patrick B. Haggood
Wayne STate University
Detroit, MI
Physics - Class of 1991 (-2?)

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 18:23:23 GMT
From:
 noao!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!think.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.e
 du!uc!shamash!timbuk![e-mail] (Marc Bouron)
Subject: Problems with Ghostscript
To: [e-mail]

The fontmap file needs to be in the GS_LIB path.  Regarding fonts, there are no
further .gsf fonts in the distribution, but they are freely available from
various ftp sites.  You can also make them yourself from .bdf fonts on Unix.

[M][a][r][c]


################################################################################
#                           #  [e-mail]           #     .   .     #
#  Marc CR Bouron           #  [e-mail]     (ARPA)  #    _|\ /|_    #
#  Cray Research (UK) Ltd.  #  [e-mail]  (DOMAIN)  #   (_|_V_|_)   #
#  [phone] x2208     #  [e-mail]    (JANET)  #     |   |     #
#                           #  ...!ukc!crayuk!M.Bouron (UUCP)  #               #
################################################################################

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 17:00:13 GMT
From: haven.umd.edu!umbc3.umbc.edu!gmuvax2![e-mail] (JanxSter)
Subject: UPDATE: Atari ST Parting out Sale!
To: [e-mail]


$$   Hardware:
$100      Star NX-10 Printer
$50       Navarrone ST Sound Digitizer
$50       IMG Scan Print-Head Optical Scanner

     Software:
$35       Prospero Developers Toolkit
$60       Prospero C
$60       Prospero Fortran
$60       Prospero Pascal
$35       Mark Williams C
$35       Neural Network Construction Set
$35       GFA Basic 3.0
$35       TimeWorks DTP
$35       TimeWorks SwiftCalc
$5        1ST Word Plus
$35       CAD 3D 2.0 w/ CyberMate and Architect Design Disk
$15       Circuit Maker I
$25       Circuit Maker II
$5        Captain Fizz
$5        Chrono Quest
$5        The King of Chicago

     Books:
$35       STart Collection 1986-1991 w/ disks
$5        Introducing the Atari ST (Abacus, #1)
$5        Atari ST Internals (Abacus, #2)
$5        Atari ST Gem Programmers Reference (Abacus, #3)
$5        Atari ST Machine Language (Abacus, #4)
$5        Atari ST Tricks and Tips (Abacus, #5 (2 copies!))
$5        Atari ST Graphics and Sound (Abacus, #6)
$5        Atari ST Peeks and Pokes (Abacus, #8)
$5        Atari ST Basic to C (Abacus, #11)
$5        Atari ST 3D Graphics (Abacus, #12)
$5        ST Disk Drives: Inside and Out (Abacus, #13)
$20       Compute! ST series V1-3 (AES,VDI,TOS)
$5        Atari ST Applications Programming (Bantam)
$5        Programmers Guide to GEM (Sybex)
$10       C-Manship Complete (Clayton Walnum, ST Specific)


Please make all offers/inquiries to [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 17:03:54 GMT
From:
 europa.asd.contel.com!noc.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!umbc3.umbc.edu!gmuvax2!croulan
 [e-mail] (JanxSter)
Subject: UPDATE: Atari ST Parting out Sale!
To: [e-mail]


$$   Hardware:
$100      Star NX-10 Printer
$50       Navarrone ST Sound Digitizer
$50       IMG Scan Print-Head Optical Scanner

     Software:
$35       Prospero Developers Toolkit
$60       Prospero C
$60       Prospero Fortran
$60       Prospero Pascal
$35       Mark Williams C
$35       Neural Network Construction Set
$35       GFA Basic 3.0
$35       TimeWorks DTP
$35       TimeWorks SwiftCalc
$5        1ST Word Plus
$35       CAD 3D 2.0 w/ CyberMate and Architect Design Disk
$15       Circuit Maker I
$25       Circuit Maker II
$5        Captain Fizz
$5        Chrono Quest
$5        The King of Chicago

     Books:
$35       STart Collection 1986-1991 w/ disks
$5        Introducing the Atari ST (Abacus, #1)
$5        Atari ST Internals (Abacus, #2)
$5        Atari ST Gem Programmers Reference (Abacus, #3)
$5        Atari ST Machine Language (Abacus, #4)
$5        Atari ST Tricks and Tips (Abacus, #5 (2 copies!))
$5        Atari ST Graphics and Sound (Abacus, #6)
$5        Atari ST Peeks and Pokes (Abacus, #8)
$5        Atari ST Basic to C (Abacus, #11)
$5        Atari ST 3D Graphics (Abacus, #12)
$5        ST Disk Drives: Inside and Out (Abacus, #13)
$20       Compute! ST series V1-3 (AES,VDI,TOS)
$5        Atari ST Applications Programming (Bantam)
$5        Programmers Guide to GEM (Sybex)
$10       C-Manship Complete (Clayton Walnum, ST Specific)


Please make all offers/inquiries to [e-mail]

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

Date: 26 Jun 91 19:15:09 GMT
From: mcsun!unido!horga!nathan![e-mail] (Udo Erdelhoff)
Subject: What archiving format?
To: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]>, Rainer Klute writes:
>LHARC:
>Slow and unreliable. It has become popular because it has the best
>compression factor. However, archiving and extracting is really slow. There
>are several not always compatible LHarc versions by different authors
>floating around. So if you don't have the right LHarc you might not be able
>to extract an archive at all. Just say NO.
You haven't ever used LHArc 1.1321, have you? Give it a try and start
thinkig about using LHArc again...
/s/
--
Udo Erdelhoff        [e-mail]        Fido: Udo Erdelhoff on 2:245/52.1


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

Date: 26 Jun 91 17:25:07 GMT
From:
 noao!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-
 state.edu!csn!boulder![e-mail] (MILLER TODD C)
Subject: What is MetaDOS?
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>
 [e-mail] (Claus Brod) writes:
>
>TOS is making its way in just the direction you're pointing at; it is
>becoming more modular. MetaDOS essentially replaces GEMDOS. GDOS is
>disk-based and allows for external screen drivers. (NVDI is such a
>GDOS/screen driver combo.) In fact, TOS is quite modular in itself due
>to the hierarchical architecture.

Excuse my ignorance, but what is MetaDOS?

 - todd

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

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