HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: C556212@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Jeoff Hines)
Subject: Re: DI file players (WAS : MOD players)
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 13:32:31 CDT

 
I think I know what you're looking for.  I have a little desktop ACC that plays
 MIDI songs in the background while I do my word processing.  I am not sure
how large of a file it can handle, but it may be enough to handle what you
want to do.  It loads several songs into memory and then plays them in order
and repeats itself.  It is called 'Music Studio Background Player'  and the
file name as I have it on my boot drive is MYMSPAC.ACC.  It is PD and I have
the source code too!  It is old though, as is all my wares because I have
been out of the ST mainstream for some 3 years now...  Oh, it was written
by a James Patchell.
  If you need it and cannot find it elsewhere, tell me.  But I am not going
to be able to u/load it for a while, as I have not yet figured out how to
u/load or d/load to my local mainframe yet.
  If you need more info, just ask!
 
Jeoff Hines            c556212@mizzou1.missouri.edu
From: hyc@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov (Howard Chu)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Why no floppy port on the Falcon??
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:46:41 GMT
Organization: SAR Systems Development & Processing, JPL

In article <18rjtgINN7m1@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa399@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Len Stys) writes:
>I guess I'll have to agree.  We all cried about not having CD-ROMs
>available for our computer.
>
>The SCSI 2 port should help a lot there.

Yah, SCSI-2 is definitely a good thing.
>
>I thought about how the Falcon 030 and Jaguar could possibly
>be compatible with each other.
>
>We hear that the Jaguar may have two 68030 processors running in
>parallel.  Well, what happens if you stick another 68030 in that
>empty processor slot?

Ya ever notice that the quotes always say "386SX" for that processor-direct
slot? The slot is a *68000* bus-slot, i.e., 24 bit address and 16 bit data.
Dunno why they'd put a 68000 bus into a 68030-based system, but it's there,
with all the glue needed to make 68030 control signals look like 68000
control signals. Weird. And also makes a very explicit statement about the
system, it is not intended to allow peer-to-peer "parallel" processing, but
to allow a less-powerful "slave" processor. So forget the thought of having
two 68030s running in parallel, or any other dream of that sort, it isn't
really workable.
>
>And, I bet the Jaguar wilhave a CD player built in...
>
>What happens if you just add a CD player to that SCSI port in the back?
>
>I'll bet that the Falcon 030 and future Jaguar are very closely
>related and I'll that both were worked on the same time...

As an interesting footnote, the preliminary Falcon docs were available at the
Glendale Atari Fair. A few of the pages still had references to "Sparrow"
scattered in the text. Fancy that, eh?
-- 
  -- Howard Chu @ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
 ::To the owner of the blue Mazda, license 742-XLT, your headlights are on...::
 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,comp.sys.atari.st.tech
From: muts@fysap.fys.ruu.nl (Peter Mutsaers)
Subject: Mint + minix fs: any good backup programs/ideas?
Organization: Rijks Universiteit Utrecht
Distribution: comp
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 09:34:33 GMT

I use mint + minix on my harddisk. I wonder what good method there is
to make backups of my disk. The regular TOS programs won't work
because they cannot handle longer filenames and links etc.

I would use simply gnutar to /dev/ps0, and with incremental tar's this
would be feasible were it not that I produce multivolume tar's in that
case. I do not like this idea because to restore something on say the
5th diskette I must read all previous ones than, with the risk that if
somewhere on one of the backups is wrong the rest of the backup is
unusable.

Does anyone have better ideas/programs to do this job? Thanks,
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Peter Mutsaers.         |================================================ 
muts@fys.ruu.nl         |        Quod licet bovi, non licet Jovi
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
From: volker@sfb256.iam.uni-bonn.de ( Volker A. Brandt )
Subject: Re: PERFPICH.TOS v1.1 posted to a.a
Organization: Applied Math, University of Bonn, Germany
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:49:43 GMT

In article <18kqgmINNnfi@peponi.wcc.govt.nz> sheppard_r@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.013825.25099@terminator.cc.umich.edu>, weiner@terminator.cc.umich.edu (Jeff Weiner) writes:
>>Better yet, let's all just use zoo in high compression mode.  Speed, 
>>compression rate, and stability over platforms is key.

>ZOO is far to bugy and has to many limitations, no output redirection
>and no folder creation..

Oh No!

Not again Roger!  Please stop this nagging.  We all know that you hate zoo
even more than I hate vi.

You will never change your opinion despite all the prefectly valid arguments
for zoo that you have been given during the last zoo war.  We all know that.
But please don't start one zoo war after another, it will serve no good.

Thank you -- Volker
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bitnet:   UNM409@DBNRHRZ1                              Volker A. Brandt
UUCP:     ...!unido!DBNRHRZ1.bitnet!unm409             Angewandte Mathematik
Internet: volker@sfb256.iam.uni-bonn.de                (Bonn, Germany)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
From: mats@netcom.com (Mats Wichmann)
Subject: Re: TT Unix ASV
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 04:09:57 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

chuck@cpg.trs.reuter.com (Chuck Menard) writes:

>References: Re: TT Compatability questions
>>> 4.  Is there a Unix like OS  for the TT?  If so, has anyone gotton X11
>>>     R4 or X11 R5 to compile on a TT?
>>There's a System V R 4 from Atari Corp. containing X11/Motif and some
>>other neat stuff. It has only two problems: The ASV package is rather
>>expensive (in my opinion) and slow. But it is said to be quite stable.

>Can one actually purchase it now?  Is it for public sale or for developer's
>only? I'm am told by a local dealer that it's still for sale only for developer's
>here in the U.S.  The dealer did give me an expected price and it is outrageous.  
>I expected it to be expensive but not -that- expensive.  And I hope that 
>it will be available in color as I do not wish to pay more for a monochrome 
>monitor.

I'm kind of surprised nobody has posted anything to the net about this.
Atari have pretty much canned the ASV project.  At any rate, the team
within Atari has been laid off and all development has stopped. There's
still some rumbling about a resurrection as a third-party product.
The O.S. porting was done outside the company anyway, so it doesn't seem
entirely impossible for that to happen, but I've no idea who has rights
to what and so on.

As far as comments on stability, speed, etc. it's extremely stable at
this point.  The speed is well, about what you'd expect from a 68030 in
these days when many workstations are running with processors with 10
times the performance or more (I spent some time working with an SGI
Indigo recently, which fits into the 10x category).  On the other hand,
it's quite possible to get decent work done on it - I've worked on much
that is far worse.
-- 
Mats Wichmann
Unisoft Corporation
mats@unisoft.com (or mats@netcom.com)

Silly Disclaimer:  speaking only for myself, except when I'm not.
Xref: sparky comp.sys.atari.st:13837 de.comp.sys.st:1370
From: wenzel@marsu.tynet.sub.org (Markus Wenzel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st,de.comp.sys.st
Organization: Marsupilami's private UUCP site - Palumbien, Germany.
Subject: GhostScript 2.4.1 TT version available
Reply-To: wenzel@marsu.tynet.sub.org
X-Software: HERMES GUS 1.04 Rev. Sep  5 1992
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:44:42 MET

Hello!

I recently compiled a TT version of Tim Gallivan's Port of GhostScript 2.4.1.
For compilation I used GNU C 2.2.2 (including -m68020 -m68881) and a TT
version of GNU library PL82. The binaries should run under MiNT as well as
under plain TOS and can simply be configured by environment variables.
I also included Tim's GEM shell for GhostScript (GemGS) in version 1.2.

The packet containing the adapted sources and the binaries is available on

	ftp.uni-stuttgart.de 	(129.69.1.12)
	
	directory:   /soft/atari/TT/MiNT/apps
	
If any problems with the binaries occur, please contact me via email,
questions/bug reports/fixes concerning the sources should be addressed to
Tim Gallivan.

Enjoy,
Markus.

PS: Other interesting TT-compiled binaries can be found there, too!
    Just have a look, I think it is worth it.


-- 
/dev                Markus Wenzel, University of Stuttgart
/usr/spool/mail     wenzel@marsu.tynet.sub.org / @rus.uni-stuttgart.de
/etc/motd           >> Luck is believing you're lucky ! <<
From: kovarski@zooid.guild.org (Mark Kovarski)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Is Falcon worth buying????
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:51:03 GMT
Organization: ZOOiD BBS

dhbutler@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Your Conscience) writes:
>>You can configure ANYTHING in OS/2 2.0, including what you want to install.
>>My swap file doesn't exceed 2 MB. You must be joking when saying, "it feels
>>like a 8 mhz ST." Have you really tried it. I see NO speed decreases in OS/2
>>at all. As a matter of fact, I am running it on a 486/50 MHz DX with 16MB
>>RAM and ATI Graphics Ultra. It is as fast as a TT with NVDI loaded in. The
>
>Yes, I've used it, in fact, I can step over right now and use it on a 50mzh 
>486, I'll grab a window and move it, and I bet it won't be as fast as the ST, I
>bet it even uses the swap file just to move that little window around, I'll go 
>check and be right back...
>
>OK, well, the screen display *is* snappier than I remembered, but certainly not
>*faster* than an ST with Quick ST III installed, but I have to admit I may have
>understated the speed, but not by much! I was absolutely correct about the disk
>swap, I opened Drive C, grabbed the window, and dragged it into the upper left 
>hand corner of the screen, it accessed the hard drive just to do this.
>
>I can't say I *hate* OS/2 as much as I do Windows, but you must be joking when 
>you say it is "as fast as a TT with NVDI loaded in". :-)
>---------------------------------------------------------------------->
>|-! -David Butler- dhbutler@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>
>- And now a .sig sure to insult (or at least baffle) 95% of all computer users:
>
>  |||    - Dos and Macintosh = Standardization and Stagnation -     //
> / | \   - Atari and Commodore = Innovation and Invention     -   \//

I have also the Atari and _I_ know if the 486/50 is faster. I have seen the TT
running and to be honest, didn't impress me AT ALL (otherwise I would have
bought it). BTW, try downloading on a TT at 14.4 on two comm ports and see if
you get 1680-1695 CPS rates on both. At the same time though get a WP to 
reformat a doc and then drag/copy/move files around. All at the same time.
Try to keep all windows open so you can see how it progresses. Let me know.

You can use MiNT to do it since MultiTOS is not available. Hope to hear from
you soon...

Regards,
Mark K.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: ZOO problems (was PERFPICH.TOS v1.1 posted to a.a)
From: rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Ryan 'Gozar' Collins)
Date: 15 Sep 92 10:24:18 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <1992Sep14.035858.2395@actrix.gen.nz>, Steven.Wells@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> When comparing .ZOO, take into mind that the MAJORITY of users will be
> using GEM, and not UNIX.  Using ZOO v2.1 from UN*X will let you
> re-direct.  From versions of GEM prior to 2.05, this is not possible
> with ZOO 2.1.  TOS 2.5 and above allow for output re-direction to
> whatever window is currently selected, which means, you can make
> programs automatically put files where YOU want them.  (Teradesk, and
> I imagine some other replacement desktops also have this feature!)

     What I do is open a window that has ZOO.TTP in it, then open a
window with the zoo file, and then open a window with the destination
direcory. Then, making sure the destination window is on top, I
double-click on ZOO.TTP while holding down the right mouse button. The
box dialog box comes up, I type in the full pathname for the zoo file,
and let it go. It puts everything in the directory that is in the top
window. (Although using a shell is a lot nicer, this method works.)
 
Later.......

------======={{{{{{{{((((((Ryan 'Gozar' Collins))))))))}}}}}}}}=======--------
"You can never own enough /    __    ___  ___  \rlcollins@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
computer equipment"      /    /  /  /  /    /   \RC1DSANU@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu
                        /    / _   /  /   /      \rcollins@apsvax.aps.muohio.edu
 |||   "Power Without  /    /__/  /__/  /___      \  R.COLLINS1 on GEnie
/ | \     The Price"  /                            \
	    ------======={{{{{{{{(((((())))))))}}}}}}}}=======-----  15-SEP-1992
From: sm86+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stefan Monnier)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Weekly Posting of New Stuff
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:10:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.UegOM6W00awL84C14e
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.atari.st: 12-Sep-92 Weekly Posting of New
Stuff Atari Archive Robot@atar (7757)


>   drwxrwxr-x atari	1024	Sep 6 03:01 .
>   drwxrwxr-x jrd	5120	Sep 6 12:29 ./8bit
>   -rw-rw-r-- jrd	31514	Sep 6 12:18 ./8bit/telecomm/ansiterm.arc
>   drwxr-xr-x jrd	512	Sep 6 12:33 ./8bit/graphics
>   -rw-rw-rw- jrd	39687	Sep 6 12:19 ./8bit/graphics/cgs093.arc
>   drwxrwxr-x jon	6144	Sep 11 21:17 ./utilities
...
....


Hey, that's a good surprise !

	Stefan Monnier


-----------------------------------------------------
-- On the average, people seem to be acting normal --
-----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
From: avgroeni@cs.ruu.nl (Annius Groenink)
Subject: Free Commercial Software
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:10:20 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science



New idea?


Commercial software today is very expensive for the sole reason that
once a couple of people have bought a program it is just copied over
the rest of the world. My solution is this one:

  Make commercial software very cheap (10 dollars or sth) and get
funding from e.g. Pepsi. Surely on the Falcon it must be possible to
have your word processor open with an impressive colourful flying
bottle of 'Vidal Sassoon'? Sorry, I have to wash and go now.

-- 
________________________________________________________
    Annius Groenink|undergraduate student
Laan van Borgele 24|maths/computer science at the
   7415 DJ Deventer|University of Utrecht, Holland.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
From: leonp@cs.kun.nl (Leon Pillich)
Subject: Re: Is Falcon worth buying?
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 09:41:41 GMT

Well, just a couple of thoughts.
I want to buy a new computer within a year (I now own a 1040 and I'm happy
with it and I wont sell it) and I'm making a few considerations now:
- I want to have multitasking. Why? Simple because it permits me to
  edit a text, and still run my favourite terminal emulator and gcc
  in the background. This is great for downloading and such. Moreover it is
  nice to have multitasking in that you can have several applications active
  (not necessarily running), so you can switch easily: just click its
  window.
- I need lots of memory (at least 4meg for an atari and 6 meg for a pc).
  This is neede for multitasking, latex, c++ etc.
- I want a windowing system. I just like them and it makes me much
  more productive. It also makes multitasking sensible. This window
  system needs to be easy to program, that is I want easy access to developer
  software etc. Good looks for the system is also nice. For all this
  I need high resolution (800*600 or in that range) and maybe colour.
- I need raw horse power for doing neat things, like latex, dtp, maybe
  image processing.

The possibilities are:
- Buying a MAC II or LCII. A great os (I DO like System 7). Great
  software support and network support (though I don't need that), but
  expensive, hard to program (really) and limited multitasking, though
  multifinder is really neat.
- Buying a 386DX/33 PC with 6 or 8 Mb, VGA and a BIG HD. This would
  need to run MS-WINDOW 3.x (Yuck!), OS2/2.0 or linux/X-Windows/OpenLook.
  I hate messy-windows, because it is slow, crashes and consumes to much
  hd space in comparison with what it offers. OS2/2.0 seems nice, stable
  fast, modern, but it needs lots of Mb (internal and external).
  Linux however is a unix clone (I like unix), its free, it can run X-Windows
  and maybe I can get it to run the OpenLook user interface and apps.
  Linux with X consumes lots of hd space however.
- Buying a falcon with 4 meg and a 65 meg hd and a vga monitor.
  This looks great. With MultiTos it certainly offers what I'm looking for and
  a lot of nice extras and its not to expensive. Memory can still be
  expanded and I already have lots of software (partially self-made) that 
  can be used on the falcon. However: it cannot and will never run
  unix (at least not for free) with X-Windows/OpenLook and I am not
  very confident in Atari at the moment. They might just make it, because]
  the falcon is a winning machine and a great MULTI-MEDIA machine, but
  they have to invest in advertisement and software for it.

So, I don't know yet. All have certain advantages and disadvantages.
Falcon really looks the best choice at the moment, but I'll have
to wait for atari really getting things going. If not I might just
be forced to buy myself a cheap and fast and memory spending PC with 
linux, allthough I hate pcs more than I hate rainy days.

Well, just my 2 cents worth....
Bye, leon.
leonp@cs.kun.nl
leonp@sci.kun.nl
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
From: hutch@bellman.lanl.gov (John Hutchinson)
Subject: Glendale '92 Show
Reply-To: hutch@bellman.lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:15:43 GMT

Just returned from the Glendale show in southern California.  While we had loads
of fun (as should be expected), renewed old friendships and began new ones, we
found (subjectively) that attendance was down from previous years.

Congrats to Jason (?) who won the Atari Falcon 030 plus 1 year of free online 
time on GEnie as the major doorprize.  Certainly worth the price of admission!

Would like to hear other views from Glendale attendees; particularly how they
felt about the show in general and reaction to Atari's Falcon demos, pep talks,
etc.
---

___________________________ John "HUTCH" Hutchinson _________________________
_________________ Fair Dinkum Technologies     Member - IAAD  _______________
________________ "No worries, mate... it's from Fair Dinkum!" _______________
____________ email: hutch@bellman.lanl.gov   GEnie: FAIR-DINKUM _____________


Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
From: rosenkra@convex.com (William Rosenkranz)
Subject: Re: Use of Falcon's DSP?
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 05:02:32 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.



does anyone have any idea what the programming environment for falcon
would be? ie compilers. it would be nice to be able to use GNU C (-m56k).

-bill
rosenkra@convex.com

-- 
Bill Rosenkranz            |UUCP: {uunet,texsun}!convex!rosenkra
Convex Computer Corp.      |ARPA: rosenkra@convex.com
From: kruel@wpcst1.phys-chemie.uni-wuerzburg.dbp.de (Thomas-Martin Kruel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: CompoScript vs. GhostScript
Summary: comparision between CompoScript (commercial) and GhostScript (free)
Keywords: postscript
Date: 8 Sep 92 07:35:58 GMT
Organization: Institut f. Physikalische Chemie
X-Software: HERMES GUS 1.03 Rev. Apr 14 1992

Dear colleagues,

our department has bought CompoScript for the ST/TT, and regarding 
the discussion some time ago, I can add some experiences with it:

CompoScript comes from Lincoln & Co. and is distributed in Germany by 
CompoSoftware. The price was about DM 500.- (~ US $340).

The features a quite nice, in particular:

- a fine font selection scheme (they can be installed on demand by a 
  selector box via the real font name)
- external, configurable printer drivers (allows you to control e.g. the 
  number of copies, the sheet feeder, the paper format, etc.)
- multiple document support (can administer a list)
- can export to IMG- and TIFF-format
- runs in a GEM-window
- the screen resolution can be scaled (but not the printer resolution)


Whereas the GUI is really fine, the interpreter is really _slow_. We 
have a speed factor of 1:3 compared to GhostScript2.41 on an ST. 
Installed on a TT, the ratio is ~1:2, but mainly due to the disc 
intensive font loading.

An ordinary XY-plot in PostScript, produced by SciGraph and the 
unnecessary fonts commented out by hand, needs approx. 3 mins. on our 
old 8MHz ST compared to approx. 1 min. with GhostScript.

We also have troubles with the display of Encapsulated PostScript 
(*.EPS). The page is processed, but not displayed nor printed, if the 
"showpage" directive is missing.


Conclusion:

In the meantime, with GemGS available (Thank you, Tim!), we definitely 
prefer GhostScript over CompoScript.

In a commercial environment, however, and under circumstances, where 
you can't deal with PD/Shareware, CompoScript is worth a look at. 
 
Hopefully the guys at CompoSoftware will speed up their interpreter in 
the next release. They should compile a special TT version, also. At
the current stage, the DM 500.- has been a tremendous waste of money 
(sigh :-(.


Regards,
        Thomas
 
-- 
Thomas-Martin Kruel  Institut f. Physikalische Chemie / Universitaet Wuerzburg
                     Marcusstr. 9-11, D-8700 Wuerzburg, Tel. +49 931 31579
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: sampling and human hearing range (was Re: (none))
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 03:28:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <H.BFMk5qm6YLM@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca> jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca writes:
>In <+qwn34l.payner@netcom.com>, Rich Payne writes:
>>
>>DATS sample at 48KHZ so that one cannot make a direct digital copy from
>>CD's to DATs. 
>> 
>	Then why do they also sample at 44.1? And if your conjecture was true, 

This is -not- conjecture. This is the reason why we do not have DAT today, 
except for introductory high-priced offerings. The audio industry put a great
deal of pressure on congress (whoever, I am not certain), and completely stopped
the introduction of DAT to the US. The response of the manufacturers was to 
change the sampling rate to prevent direct digital copies. This is history, not
conjecture. Your assertion is one of ignorance, not past events.

What has happened since then I have not followed. Here -I- am ignorant. But
that does not change history.

>why do they have scms? And why is the Dat Tax being pushed through 
>Congress? 
 
Pushed, do you think that DAT is brand spanking new?
 
>-- 
>       John Henders      jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca
>    I think your "evolutionary scale" needs an adjustment.  Either 
>      that, or you've got your thumb on it. -> (lefty@apple.com)
>

Rich


payner@netcom.com