home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
The Atari Compendium
/
The Atari Compendium (Toad Computers) (1994).iso
/
files
/
umich
/
misc
/
cmi.arc
/
CMI.TXT
Wrap
Text File
|
1990-03-05
|
162KB
|
3,998 lines
================================================================================
(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.
-=<Terry May>=-
------------
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!)
-=<Terry May>=-
------------
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!?<grin> I thought
it's be close to a year or two before THAT was available!
Now if we could plug in a 50Mhz 68030!<greedy grin>
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! <grin> )
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...". <big grin> 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.. <blush>
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 <it seems we suffer from an embaressment of riches> 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 <grin>.
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.
-=<Terry May>=-
------------
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<grin>. 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 <Phaser em first, ask questions later> 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......... <druming fingers near zap key> :-)
------------
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. <grin> You are always
so good at adding the topic in. <grin>
------------
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... <BIG GRIN>
(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 <just because the Atari users like 'the Power without the
Price' don't mean that we just fell off of a turnip truck
either> 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 <viva La Difference!> 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. <grin>
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. <<grin>>
------------
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<grin>.
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 <hopin' for the best> 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? <only joking - don't want to be framed...>
- 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,
<GRIN>
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
------------