From: jhwhit01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: NCTIS report
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:53:21 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1jp9seINNbqj@mailgzrz.TU-Berlin.DE>, willi@zrzsp5.chem.tu-berlin.de (Winfried Winkler) writes:
> 
> I mentioned DD-diskcontrollers, because for some programs it is really "a pain
> in the ass" :-> to use'em with SD-drives only -- or very annoying for the one
> who's writing software to assume only SD-disks available...
 
Most programs benefit from being put on a DD disk.  The only time I ever format
a disk under 720K is when I am going to send it to someone.  If I do not know
which format they can handle, I send them a 90K disk (SSSD).  Had TI made a
DD-controller to begin with as IBM did for its first PC, we would not have to
live in the dark ages of SD.  Some TI users, perhaps the majority, are not
going to want anything more than what the TI controller gives them.  Maybe if
there was a super program out that required DD-capability to run, and someone
was still manufacturing DD-controllers, things could be different.
 
> 
> Because the support in europe was sometimes even worse - pricing was always! -
> some people decided to get any information necessary for themselves -- the hard
> way, if no other source of information could be used ...
 
It seems that when TI dropped support of the 99/4A in 1983, that's when things
started happenning in the U.S.  Maybe the non-support 99/4A users got in
Europe before the pull-out was the reason for my impression that TI was more
free with information outside the U.S.  Americans can buy software off of
store shelves in 1983 for the 99/4A, so why worry with how the computer works.
Europeans cannot, either because the stock is not there or the costs are too
great, so they hack the computer to see what they can do with it.
 
In both scenarios, it seems that TI being out the picture did more good than
harm.  What might have been had TI introduced a successor to the 99/4A before
pulling it from the market?  We'd probably still be using mostly module-based
software.  :^)
  
> 
> But back to our topic :->
> You've "level E" for Geneve ... well there's a GRAM device already so wide-spread
> and compatible to another TI99-GRAM (MG's GRAM-Cracker?) !
> Even if I'll have to agree with J.Cohen, that (estimated) 700-800 Geneve users are
> no argument for a true TI99'er -- considering numbers only, of cause :-> :->
> There are already several GPL Free/Fairware programs available, from austrian and
> german, as well as some american users, their number is growing and may grow even
> faster if that new GPL-assembler will come out "real soon now" :->
> GPL is easier to use and must not be learned "as a completely different language"
> compared to assembler. It allows use of more memory (without banking!) for the
> program itself and the complete CPU-address-range of RAM for data-storage.
> Easy:  build-in stack  (Don't worry about saving return-addresses over&over...)
>        "conditional jump" within 8K-segment unlimited (No "out of range"...)
>        easy-to-use build-ins for screen writings 
>        and many more...
> Isn't there a copy of TI's own "GPL Manual" floating around at some user groups ?
  
The original NCTIS proposed levels did not include the Geneve.  There were only
four levels, and no GRAM device was included in them either.  Level C is about
the best you could get from TI -- console, 32K, disk system, RS232.  I have
no great expectations for the number of GRAM devices or Geneves still in use.
GPL does not have to execute from GROM.  It can execute from RAM with the right
GPL interpreter -- or the video RAM of a 9938/9958 board.
 
Certain members of NCTIS were quite vocal in getting the Geneve added to the
levels.  Many developers for the 99/4A use the Geneve.  I am sure if there
were a strong voice for inclusion of GRAM-devices at some level, the NCTIS
would add it to the standards set forth.
 
Yes, the TI "GPL Manual" is floating around.  I believe it was released from
northeastern Canada.
 
> 
> 
>>When 4a Memex becomes available, it will be compatible with 16-bit 32K consoles.
> Do you know, what mechanism they're using to make this sure ?
> If they only support RAM>6000 or >4000 banking *additionally* me thinks most
> programmers will use banked >A000 to >FFFF range for ease of programming or just 
> because they're used to use that -- thus giving away 16-bit compatibility ...
> Could you give any more detailed information about the Memex :
> Estimated date of release & price, address range & banking mechanism
>  (CRU- or Memory-Address- usage for banking, for example ?)
  
I worked on the 4A Memex mapper design, so yes, I do know how it works.  The
4A Memex is compatible with RAMBO software, and the banking of memory is a
logical extension of how the Horizon/RAMBO works.  In other words, the mapper
is on the CRU bus.  The 4A Memex will support 16 Megabytes/card, up to 4 cards
in a system (total 64 Megabytes).  The price for a 1 Meg 4A Memex has been
estimated to be US $175.  No release date has been given.
  
Jeff White   jhwhit01@ulkyvx.bitnet