From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 10:43:25 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 05:06:44 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970214050641_1180678151@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 417 Lines: 17 In a message dated 13/02/97 13:25:33, you write: >> You don't have your SAM with you?? A CRIME! I've got mine.. :) > >Yes, but you don't get people saying "Why do you bother with that? >That's the glorified Spectrum, isn't it?" All this while they stand >behind you and read your email. > >(Before I kill him, at any rate.) > >Paul Make it a slow painful death.... I know, make him use a PC with WIN'95. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 10:43:26 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 05:06:36 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970214050634_1049376903@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 717 Lines: 23 In a message dated 13/02/97 12:28:08, you write: >On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 10:35:52 +0000, Simon Cooke said: >> Anyone want to start working on a completely annotated version of the ROM >> source? > >I started this in 1991. Then I ran out of time so it went into sleep mode, >with only a rather brief wake-up in 1995 when I transferred it from my +3 to >my Unix account together with a copy of the official Sam ROM source. > >The current status is: > >ROM 0: 1572 lines of 9660 contain comments >ROM 1: 1033 lines of 8963 contain comments. > >Not good. > >imc But not bad either, considering that when ROM version one was launched Andy's source contained no comments at all (not enough ROM on the CPC he used). Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 10:44:13 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 05:06:23 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970214050622_583438087@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 878 Lines: 23 In a message dated 13/02/97 10:28:47, you write: >At 13:34 12/02/97 -0500, you wrote: >>The intergration stage, trying to merge HDOS+MasterDos+other bit, may not be >>so hard once we get a feel for what Andy has done in the ROM. > >That's the hard bit... he's used so many different, varied and absolutely >wonderful tricks (he must be a hardware designer at heart - he's got De >Morgan's rules and logic minimisation down pat) that it's hard to see how >some stuff works -- even with the source code. Mind you, I've dissected the >keyboard routines and the drawing routines... the hard part is the BASIC >interpreter and working out how to patch things into it. > >Anyone want to start working on a completely annotated version of the ROM >source? > >Simon True, even with the source it is difficult - but if we can poke it and prod it, I think we will get somewhere. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 10:55:24 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:26:21 +0100 From: ft@edh.ericsson.se (Frode Tenneboe) Message-Id: <9702141026.AA07494@asmal.edh-net> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 824 Lines: 16 > True, even with the source it is difficult - but if we can poke it and prod > it, I think we will get somewhere. You might have noticed my sceptism for this, but let's just say, for the sake of the argument, that some people actually manages to introduce bug-fixes this way. How are you going to manage the revision of this. If, say person A, fixes a bug in section 1 of the ROM which also involves fixing something in section 2, he submits this to person B who administer the whole lot. Now, say person C fixes a bug/adds functionality/ whatever in section 2 independantly of person A. Person Cs fixes will most likely conflict with peson As. How the heck is person B supposed to handle this? It MIGHT be handable if only two persons are involved, but I get the feeling that this is not the intention here.... -Frode From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 12:11:44 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:04:59 +0000 (GMT) From: Justin Skists X-Sender: c93js1@klein.cms.dmu.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: ROM changes, SRAM and compilers In-Reply-To: <19970213180130Z49166-22961+561@sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1138 Lines: 26 On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Simon Cooke wrote: > Ah... now was this fixed in the new version of ProDOS I've got (not > generally released folks - sorry :( )? Any info as to release date?? I've checked the version number on my version and it's v1.9 so it may bear some bearings as to why I don't find the following: > If you loook on the Prodos PD disk, there should be a program called "!" Nopers. I can't see any file called '!' (or anything similar) on the PD Sampler disk I got with it nor the system files disk. It may be the fact that I was reading the directory listings with a pint-mug of beer in it.. > It's for the SUBMIT stuff... that *MAY* have something to do with it. SUBMIT stuff?? Now, where have I heard that word before... -- ============================================================================= |Justin Skists (c93js1@dmu.ac.uk) | Artificial Intelligence: | |BSc (Hons) Computer Science, Year 4 | Making computers behave like | |De Montfort University, Leicester, England | they do in the movies. | ============================================================================= From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 12:25:02 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <13189.199702141218@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: The Next Step. To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:18:24 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <970214050641_1180678151@emout18.mail.aol.com> from "BrenchleyR@aol.com" at Feb 14, 97 05:06:44 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 192 Lines: 7 > Make it a slow painful death.... I know, make him use a PC with WIN'95. Certainly fits the slow and painful part. Paul ... Windows 97 will be released when Windows 95 finishes loading... From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 12:25:02 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <13453.199702141220@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: SAMSboss's Identity To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:20:07 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: from "Andrew M Gale" at Feb 14, 97 08:49:48 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 144 Lines: 6 > > try looking a little further West. > Wot, like in Gloucester?! You'd be surprised... Another hint: Samsboss isn't only the boss of Sam... From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 12:42:06 1997 X-Authentication-Warning: dcsun4.comp.brad.ac.uk: lwillis set sender to Relaxed using -f To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: SimCoupe at nvg References: <9702140812.AA06254@asmal.edh-net> X-Mammoth-Status: Aware From: unknown Date: 14 Feb 1997 11:46:23 +0000 In-Reply-To: ft@edh.ericsson.se's message of Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:12:36 +0100 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 605 Lines: 20 ft@edh.ericsson.se (Frode Tenneboe) writes: > > > Erm, The binaries you've put up don't seem to work on Solaris 2.5.1 > > and I thought this was meant to be backwards compatible with > > 2.4. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'll try compiling it myself sometime > > soon though ... > > It's compiled with MIT-SHM. Perhaps that's the problem? > Yep, that's the one, but I can't compile it myself as our system seems to be severely lacking in the region of X11 libraries. Anyone any suggestions ? -- Lee. X-Mammoth Development Team. Are you aware ? Contact L.Willis@comp.brad.ac.uk for more information. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 12:42:06 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:54:26 +0100 From: ft@edh.ericsson.se (Frode Tenneboe) Message-Id: <9702141154.AA07783@asmal.edh-net> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: SimCoupe at nvg X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 300 Lines: 10 > > It's compiled with MIT-SHM. Perhaps that's the problem? > > > > Yep, that's the one, but I can't compile it myself as our system seems > to be severely lacking in the region of X11 libraries. Anyone any > suggestions ? I'll compile it without MIT-SHM and upload it withing the our :) -Frode From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 13:24:58 1997 From: James R Curry Organization: De Montfort University To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:26:53 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: SimCoupe at nvg In-reply-to: <9702140751.AA06232@asmal.edh-net> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 470 Lines: 15 > > > Now a plea. Please upload more stuff. The Sam directory has > > > a quite high download rate, and it can get better. PLEASE > > > upload anything! > > > > Erm...(thick Johnna strikes again)...how? > > The keyword here is FTP. Isn't that more of a key-acronym? -- James R Curry hc95jc@dmu.ac.uk "If you really want something in this life, you have to work for it. Now Quiet! They're about to announce the lottery numbers!" - Homer Simpson, the Simpsons. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 13:29:25 1997 From: James R Curry Organization: De Montfort University To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:32:37 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-reply-to: <13189.199702141218@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk> References: <970214050641_1180678151@emout18.mail.aol.com> from "BrenchleyR@aol.com" at Feb 14, 97 05:06:44 am X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 524 Lines: 17 > ... Windows 97 will be released when Windows 95 finishes loading... Very true. I logged into one of the Windows '95 machines here at uni the other day.. And to say it was running slowly was an understatement, even for win '95. It took 26 MINUTES to log me in and load it! ARGHH! Seems to be better now though. -- James R Curry hc95jc@dmu.ac.uk "If you really want something in this life, you have to work for it. Now Quiet! They're about to announce the lottery numbers!" - Homer Simpson, the Simpsons. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 15:47:55 1997 Message-Id: <199702141544.QAA12221@dxmint.cern.ch> From: Allan Skillman Subject: SimCoupe Web Page To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 16:44:03 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1258 Lines: 29 Hello All, I've created a SimCoupe homepage, based on the original XCoupe one. It includes links for downloading the source and boot/root distributions. Its a bit drab at the moment, but it will do for a start. The UCL is http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~ajs/simcoupe Can everybody update their links and change references to XCoupe to SimCoupe. The old URL now just gives the link to the SimCoupe pages. After the weekend I will probably put an official anouncement in comp.emulators.misc, and stand back for the deluge of 'where are the games' mails (Well maybe) Allan -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Now available! SimCoupe, the one and only SAM Coupe emulator | | *** http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~ajs/simcoupe/simcoupe.html *** | +------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+ | Allan Skillman | "There are five flavours of resons, the | | HEPP Group | elementary particles of magic : up, down, | | University College London | sideways, sex-appeal and peppermint." | | Email : ajs@hep.ucl.ac.uk | - Terry Pratchett (Lords and Ladies) | +------------------------------+-------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 16:21:43 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:17:03 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970214111700_583459459@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: An Open Offer (was Re: A Future Problem.) Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 247 Lines: 16 In a message dated 13/02/97 19:16:52, you write: > >On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 04:17:19 -0500 (EST), BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > > > > I does seem that certain people just love to argue. > > > > Bob. > > > >I disagree! Now don't you start :) Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 16:21:43 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:17:08 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970214111706_983812483@emout11.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: SAMSboss's Identity Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 210 Lines: 14 In a message dated 14/02/97 08:50:42, you write: >> >> hint: >> try looking a little further West. >> > >Wot, like in Gloucester?! > >-A That's South, don't they teach Geography in school these days? Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 16:21:43 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:17:10 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970214111708_1147156867@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: SAMSboss's Identity Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 606 Lines: 20 In a message dated 14/02/97 08:58:35, you write: >On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >> Why were you surprised? Did you doubt he intelligence? >> (by the way folks, uk.singles is nothing like what you are thinking - its >for >> spider hating, cat loving, chocolate eating,vodka drinking, intelligent >> people - like me... ) > >How can anyone not like spiders???? (Then I wouldn't suggest you look at >my personal homepage then) Thats just rubbed you of my Christmas list Justin - the only good spider is a dead spider. Bob. - - "Press SPACEBAR once to quit or twice to save changes..." From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 16:32:45 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:29:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@blue.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Samsbobs's Identity In-Reply-To: <970214111706_983812483@emout11.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 859 Lines: 24 On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 14/02/97 08:50:42, you write: > > >> hint: > >> try looking a little further West. > > > >Wot, like in Gloucester?! > > That's South, don't they teach Geography in school these days? > > Bob. Not from here it isn't. +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 16:48:52 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:45:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Justin Skists X-Sender: c93js1@klein.cms.dmu.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: SimCoupe at nvg In-Reply-To: <9702141154.AA07783@asmal.edh-net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 592 Lines: 13 I've just uploaded the HPUX 9.0.5 compiled SimCoupe upto nvg in the /pub/sam-coupe/incoming directory. Since I've never uploaded anything to a public FTP server before, I hope I did it right... -- ============================================================================= |Justin Skists (c93js1@dmu.ac.uk) | Artificial Intelligence: | |BSc (Hons) Computer Science, Year 4 | Making computers behave like | |De Montfort University, Leicester, England | they do in the movies. | ============================================================================= From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 17:11:14 1997 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:07:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Tim Paveley To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: SimCoupe at nvg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 680 Lines: 20 On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Justin Skists wrote: > I've just uploaded the HPUX 9.0.5 compiled SimCoupe upto nvg in the > /pub/sam-coupe/incoming directory. > > Since I've never uploaded anything to a public FTP server before, I hope I > did it right... So, who wants to tell him about the difference between binary and text transfers then ;) (This is of course assuming he's previously downloaded with a web-browser or something...) ....@/ .........................................................................@/ Unc - Tim Paveley - http://dplinux.sund.ac.uk/~unc/ Staff of the Monochrome BBS - http://www.mono.org/ Owner of a Sam Coupe - http://www.mono.org/~unc/Coupe/ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Feb 14 17:36:09 1997 From: Johnna Teare Organization: University of Central Lancashire To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:32:26 GMT+0 Subject: I know who Samsboss is... X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <18624BD6C18@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 317 Lines: 12 Hello, It has been revealed who samsboss really is...but I don't know what FORMAT to write the answer in. It certainly will be a REVELATION. Thanks Nev, looking further West would've helped. Johnna Pig Teare (JohnnaPig@deathsdoor.com) JohnnaPig OnLine (www.yi.com/home/TeareJohnna) "They call me Mad The Swine." From imc Fri Feb 14 19:16:52 1997 Subject: Re: SimCoupe at nvg To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:16:52 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <9702140812.AA06254@asmal.edh-net> from "Frode Tenneboe" at Feb 14, 97 09:12:36 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 PGP6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 247 Lines: 9 On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:12:36 +0100, Frode Tenneboe said: > It's compiled with MIT-SHM. Perhaps that's the problem? What release of X is it compiled with? (We have X11R5 on our SunOS machines and X11R6.1 on our Solaris machines. Ho hum...) imc From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sat Feb 15 12:38:24 1997 Message-Id: From: ee31ag@ee.surrey.ac.uk (Andrew M Gale) Subject: Re: SAMSboss's Identity To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 12:36:11 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <970214111706_983812483@emout11.mail.aol.com> from "BrenchleyR@aol.com" at Feb 14, 97 11:17:08 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 359 Lines: 16 > >> hint: > >> try looking a little further West. > > > >Wot, like in Gloucester?! > > > > That's South, don't they teach Geography in school these days? > Well, I live (or used to) in the West Country, and Gloucester wasn't all that far away! But maybe it's south of BB8 - wherever that is. Hold on! BB8?! BB-8?!! BB------------8?!!! BB?!!!!!!!! -Andy From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sat Feb 15 12:58:37 1997 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:57:05 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970215075704_1448700438@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1990 Lines: 39 In a message dated 14/02/97 10:29:57, you write: >You might have noticed my sceptism for this, but let's just say, for >the sake of the argument, that some people actually manages to introduce >bug-fixes this way. How are you going to manage the revision of this. > >If, say person A, fixes a bug in section 1 of the ROM which also involves >fixing something in section 2, he submits this to person B who >administer the whole lot. Now, say person C fixes a bug/adds functionality/ >whatever in section 2 independantly of person A. Person Cs fixes >will most likely conflict with peson As. How the heck is person B >supposed to handle this? It MIGHT be handable if only two persons >are involved, but I get the feeling that this is not the intention here.... > > -Frode It is a problem, but not too much of one. Most patches will, at least in the first instance, be jumps out of code to a patch routine. Once the fix is tested, then it can be passed to a co-ordinator who can test it with the other patched, if approved it goes out, if not approved it goes back to the programmer for another try. At the same time the patches can be intergrated into the main source of the ROM/DOS. At certain intervals the new source in distributed to all and we start anew with that. Sometimes, it could be possible, that a fix can't be left in because it does cause problems elsewhere (that are more major than the problem the fix is fixing) but at least it points in the right direction and no doubt can be intergrated at a later stage. Now, one thing to bear in mind is that doing things at the moment would be very difficult because we would need to blow eproms every other day. However, with the SRAM we can give it a try and if it does not work we have not lost anything except time. I feel that once the project is underway we will stand a much better chance of seeing what lays ahead for the possible Z380 system - although it is true that I don't see that being written in assembler. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sat Feb 15 14:35:58 1997 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:33:33 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@indigo.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970215075704_1448700438@emout02.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 889 Lines: 19 On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > I feel that once the project is underway we will stand a much better chance > of seeing what lays ahead for the possible Z380 system - although it is true > that I don't see that being written in assembler. > > Bob. Then you're more of a Microsoft fan than I thought. +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sat Feb 15 14:58:47 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <28876.199702151457@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: The Next Step. To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:56:59 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: from "Andrew Collier" at Feb 15, 97 02:33:33 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 461 Lines: 11 I've just made a discovery... if you leave procmail running and forget about it, you find all your sam-users mail in a file the next day. Oops. > > I feel that once the project is underway we will stand a much better chance > > of seeing what lays ahead for the possible Z380 system - although it is > > that I don't see that being written in assembler. Any particular reason? I'd imagine that assembler would be needed both for speed and size reasons. Paul From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sat Feb 15 15:00:43 1997 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:58:33 +0000 (GMT) From: Paul Walker X-Sender: csuan@holly To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 448 Lines: 12 On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, James R Curry wrote: > day.. And to say it was running slowly was an understatement, even > for win '95. It took 26 MINUTES to log me in and load it! ARGHH! See, Bob - this is what you get if you don't use assembler... ;) --- Any unsolicited commercial emails received will be proofread and returned to source, along with a bill for 150UKP. Sending such emails to my account will be deemed acceptance of these terms. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sat Feb 15 15:03:07 1997 Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:00:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Paul Walker X-Sender: csuan@holly To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: I know who Samsboss is... In-Reply-To: <18624BD6C18@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 377 Lines: 12 On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Johnna Teare wrote: > It has been revealed who samsboss really is...but I don't know what > FORMAT to write the answer in. Only got a choice of two... :) --- Any unsolicited commercial emails received will be proofread and returned to source, along with a bill for 150UKP. Sending such emails to my account will be deemed acceptance of these terms. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sat Feb 15 15:06:04 1997 From: Gavin Smith Organization: University of Ulster To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:10:22 GMT Subject: Re: I know who Samsboss is... X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <277B45A28CD@smserver1.ulst.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 274 Lines: 9 > On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Johnna Teare wrote: > > > It has been revealed who samsboss really is...but I don't know what > > FORMAT to write the answer in. > > Only got a choice of two... :) Is it just me or has Samboss been quiet these past few days? Can't think why...:) From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sat Feb 15 15:14:28 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <29633.199702151510@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: I know who Samsboss is... To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:10:32 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <277B45A28CD@smserver1.ulst.ac.uk> from "Gavin Smith" at Feb 15, 97 03:10:22 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 258 Lines: 8 > > > FORMAT to write the answer in. > > Only got a choice of two... :) > Is it just me or has Samboss been quiet these past few days? Can't > think why...:) Strange, isn't it? You almost think that he was ashamed of some of the things he wrote to you... From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sat Feb 15 15:17:04 1997 From: Gavin Smith Organization: University of Ulster To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:21:27 GMT Subject: Re: I know who Samsboss is... X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <277E3825218@smserver1.ulst.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 401 Lines: 10 > > > > FORMAT to write the answer in. > > > Only got a choice of two... :) > > Is it just me or has Samboss been quiet these past few days? Can't > > think why...:) > > Strange, isn't it? You almost think that he was ashamed of some of the > things he wrote to you... Oh Paul don't be daft! Sure, he's called Samsboss, and we have no idea whatsoever, who he is so why should he be ashamed...? :) From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sat Feb 15 15:19:49 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <86.199702151518@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: I know who Samsboss is... To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:18:33 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <277E3825218@smserver1.ulst.ac.uk> from "Gavin Smith" at Feb 15, 97 03:21:27 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 234 Lines: 7 > Oh Paul don't be daft! Sure, he's called Samsboss, and we have no > idea whatsoever, who he is so why should he be ashamed...? :) Well, telling someone to "burn in hell" isn't very nice, is it? What do the rest of you think...? From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sun Feb 16 17:34:00 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:30:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@blue.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970213093930_-1810270136@emout15.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 6255 Lines: 153 On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: [CUT: A quoted paragraph aboutpaging the ROM, which Bob didn't bother replyingto,but didn't bother to cut out either] > >> Oh I don't doubt that there will be problems, but look at it this way. If > >we > >> star from scratch then it will take a long time before we have anything > >that > >> is testable. > > > >Our survey said: Uh Uuhhh. > > Pardon? Perhaps the following will look familiar. XX XX XX XX XX XX XXX XX XX XX XX XX XX Then again, perhaps you spend too much time posting to newsgroups to watch much TV. I found some of your early messages on places like alt.alien.visitors etc were most enlightening... What I mean to say is that if we star from scratch then it will NOT be a long time before we have anything that is testable. > >The following paragraph may seem familiar, because I have said it before. > >Twice. I've said that before too. You might like to read it this time. > > > >If we start from scratch, we can write about half a K of vital sysadmin > >code, and be able to load applications. Meanwhile the coders can be > >writing their BASIC bit by bit; we _DO *!*NOT*!* NEED_ TO HAVE WRITTEN A > >LARGE AMOUNT OF SOFTWARE BEFORE THERE IS A $*SALEABLE*$ PRODUCT. The thing is, I get the impression that you paid no attention whatsoever to the previous paragraph. Perhaps I didn't put in enough highlighting characters. So, for now the fourth time: WE DO *_*_*_*_* N O T *_*_*_*_* NEED TO HAVE WRITTEN A FULL OPERATING SYSTEM BEFORE THE PRODUCT CAN BE SOLD. > The problem is I don't think we have either the time or the expertise > available to conside a complete rewrite for scratch. Having evaluated that > line of approach it has been abandoned. Abandoned? Who by! You and Samsboss? Don't be so arrogant. We have the time. A system which boots off disk will take up about half a K and take about half an hour to write. A command line Dos, along the lines of CPM would take a matter of days to bring into a usable state. The fancy bells and whistles, GUIs, and languages, can ALL be done later when the boards have started to be sold. As for having the ability, you can speak for yourself, mate. > >Not to mention all the sections, eg calculator routines (I think..) which > >get copied into a RAM buffer before they're run because they're compiled > >into the wrong addresses in the ROM... Yes this can all get sorted out on > >the SRAM, but it would be a NIGHTMARE I'm telling you. > > Aha, no argument there then. > >> The intergration stage, trying to merge HDOS+MasterDos+other bit, may not > >be > >> so hard once we get a feel for what Andy has done in the ROM. > > > >Will the Z80 be able to page the SRAM in sections? Because if not, we > >could be looking at a 64K ROM which never gets chance to access RAM for > >anything. > Yes, 16k pages just like the real rom. Well, okay, but paged memory isn't the ideal architecture for an OS. Just look at the problems the PC has compared to the Mac, or the QL for that matter. > > And have you tried to get hold of the manuals yet like you said you > > would? > I do have copies of the Z380 manuals, and I currently trying to agree a price > with Zilog to order 25 more copies. However, this is not the point. The first > step has to be the SRAM because without that it is going to be very difficult > to develop the code to drive the Z380. Please listen for a change. WE CAN WRITE CODE TO RUN ON A Z380 WITH OUR CURRENT HARDWARE SETUP (as opposed to the Z80B running from SRAM). But to test and develop the code we might just need to attach a Z380. And a manual will help in the design stage of software development, to establish just exactly what is or is not possible. So I don't think I was going off topic. You see, while I'm waiting for the hardware to come along, I'm trying to do my bit to help by planning how the programs might run. That's a bit difficult when you're a bit hazy on the processor's specifications. NB I'm NOT saying that we don't need the SRAM, merely that we DO need the Z380 too. > In some parts, yes. But what we get is a usable operating system for the Z80 > based machine in the process. If we go direct into the Z380 route, and then > find we can't do it, we have lost everything. The chosen way will give us > something that is worth having at each step forward. We already HAVE a usable operating system for the Z80 (Why do I have to make my points three times each before you take any notice?). Okay so it's not perfect, but neither will a hacked up version of it. SRAM on an otherwise unexpanded Sam will not be a great improvement. A Z380 on the other hand has immediate selling power. Depending on the exact hardware setup, the existing OS and existing programs may be able to run without modification, but faster. Whatever happens, there is no reason that we might "lose everything" > >> Its just that I feel we know the Z80 and that is why we need to do things > >> first using the Z80. > > > >If we don't start using the Z380 then we'll never get to know it at all. > >And who are "we" anyway? Do you volunteer your services for this enviable > >task of hacking the ROM to bits? > > Yep, it is something I am really looking forward to. We'll see... > >There are several people on this list who would be counted as hardware > >experts. Nev is one. Andrew Chandler is probably one. Simon Cooke is one, > >even if he says otherwise. Ian might be one. And there are others. > > > >I have the grace not to count myself among that group; I am a programmer. > > > >What say you, Bob? > > > >Andrew > > Bob. Apparently he says nothing. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sun Feb 16 18:31:53 1997 From: Gavin Smith Organization: University of Ulster To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 18:35:28 GMT Subject: Sam World X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <29320424446@smserver1.ulst.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 2332 Lines: 45 While the list is relatively quiet, I thought I would use this opportunity to tell you a little bit about Sam World magazine. It will probably cost 50p or 1 quid and will be published bi-montly. The mag will be in the A4 format, probably containing 20 pages (including advertising space which is yet to be finalised). Adverts in the first and second issues will be free, because I don't believe companies would gain enough custom that would make paying worthwhile for them. As advert space is obviously limited, free adverts will be given to companies who either can't afford adverts in other mags, who have written an article for Sam World or who have product(s) for sale that are high quality, but haven't had enough coverage elsewhere. >From issue 3 (if readership is high enough, and therefore companies would gain enough custom), there will be a small charge for adverts - for the time being, most of this money will go back into the magazine in some way. At the moment everything is going according to plan, and if this continues then the first issue should either be the May/June or June/July one. The mag has three main aims - 1. To cover and support *all* Sam companies who have released products or are soon to be releasing them (obviously some sort of evidence will have to be produced - "vapourware" will not be covered) 2. To teach people all aspects of Sam (I have a great deal to learn myself, especially on Machine Code were I am quite franky crap :) 3. To provide an enjoyable and friendly read about our favourite blue-footed friend. We have a number of writers but could do with more, especially someone who knows Machine Code pretty well, an artist, anyone who attends most of the shows and someone who is in the early stages (or planning) to write a new game soon (for a Diary of a Game type thing). We also have a list of features waiting to be written or you can choose your own. If you are interested in writing for the mag (even if you have no idea what you might like to write about) drop me a line and we can talk about it. I hope you will all take a look at Sam World when its released. If you don't like it, fair enough, it won't be to everyone's tastes, but at least take a look at it :) (Samsboss, send me your address and I'll send you a free copy mate ;) Gavin From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sun Feb 16 18:42:26 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 13:38:44 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970216133843_306044758@emout17.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: SAMSboss's Identity Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 777 Lines: 24 In a message dated 15/02/97 12:37:26, you write: >> >> hint: >> >> try looking a little further West. >> > >> >Wot, like in Gloucester?! >> > >> >> That's South, don't they teach Geography in school these days? >> > >Well, I live (or used to) in the West Country, and Gloucester >wasn't all that far away! But maybe it's south of BB8 - wherever >that is. Hold on! BB8?! BB-8?!! BB------------8?!!! BB?!!!!!!!! >-Andy I was born in Exeter, which is the South West (Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset). The West Country also includes the southern part of Gloucestershire, Hampshire and other bits. Gloucester marks the gateway to the Midlands (although lots of locals say it is west country). BB8 is the Bolton area, well NORTH of Gloucester, but East of Liverpool. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sun Feb 16 19:23:30 1997 Message-ID: <33075DF2.1612@ndirect.co.uk> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:20:18 +0000 From: Neville Young X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: SAMSboss's Identity References: <970216133843_306044758@emout17.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 88 Lines: 9 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > BB8 is the Bolton area BB = BlackBurn ackserly HTH Nev. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sun Feb 16 21:28:32 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:26:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@navy.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: SAMSboss's Identity In-Reply-To: <970216133843_306044758@emout17.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 787 Lines: 19 On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > BB8 is the Bolton area, well NORTH of Gloucester, but East of Liverpool. > > BoB. My home address is in Bolton, which is, of course, why the postcode is BL3. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sun Feb 16 22:26:08 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:24:01 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970216172103_-905665509@emout12.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 710 Lines: 21 In a message dated 15/02/97 14:57:55, you write: >> > I feel that once the project is underway we will stand a much better >chance >> > of seeing what lays ahead for the possible Z380 system - although it is >> > that I don't see that being written in assembler. > >Any particular reason? I'd imagine that assembler would be needed both for >speed and size reasons. > >Paul Well, put simply, it is too big a job. It took Andy Wright about 18 man-months to get the ROM+SAMDOS working, say another 6 man-months for the conversion of SAMDOS into MasterDOS. The route I would like to take is to use a syntax definition language, processed to produce code that can then be (where needed) hand optimized. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sun Feb 16 22:29:11 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:25:33 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970216172114_619370908@emout18.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 8461 Lines: 233 In a message dated 16/02/97 17:31:56, you write: >[CUT: A quoted paragraph aboutpaging the ROM, which Bob didn't bother >replyingto,but didn't bother to cut out either] > >> >> Oh I don't doubt that there will be problems, but look at it this way. >If >> >we >> >> star from scratch then it will take a long time before we have anything >> >that >> >> is testable. >> > >> >Our survey said: Uh Uuhhh. >> >> Pardon? > >Perhaps the following will look familiar. > >XX XX >XX XX > XX XX > XXX > XX XX >XX XX >XX XX Pardon??????????? > >Then again, perhaps you spend too much time posting to newsgroups to watch >much TV. I found some of your early messages on places like >alt.alien.visitors etc were most enlightening... Pardon????????? > >What I mean to say is that if we star from scratch then it will NOT be a >long time before we have anything that is testable. Go on then. Look forward to seeing the result. > >> >The following paragraph may seem familiar, because I have said it before. >> >Twice. I've said that before too. You might like to read it this time. >> > >> >If we start from scratch, we can write about half a K of vital sysadmin >> >code, and be able to load applications. Meanwhile the coders can be >> >writing their BASIC bit by bit; we _DO *!*NOT*!* NEED_ TO HAVE WRITTEN A >> >LARGE AMOUNT OF SOFTWARE BEFORE THERE IS A $*SALEABLE*$ PRODUCT. I beg to disagree with that statement, based on personal experience and the experience of others. > >The thing is, I get the impression that you paid no attention whatsoever >to the previous paragraph. Perhaps I didn't put in enough highlighting >characters. So, for now the fourth time: > >WE DO *_*_*_*_* N O T *_*_*_*_* NEED TO HAVE WRITTEN A FULL >OPERATING SYSTEM BEFORE THE PRODUCT CAN BE SOLD. Pardon? Did not quite hear that :) Seriously, have you considered that you are talking rubbish? > >> The problem is I don't think we have either the time or the expertise >> available to conside a complete rewrite for scratch. Having evaluated that >> line of approach it has been abandoned. > >Abandoned? Who by! You and Samsboss? Don't be so arrogant. By those who have taken the time to consider the idea objectively, from a point of view based on a knowledge of what is required. > >We have the time. A system which boots off disk will take up about half a >K and take about half an hour to write. A command line Dos, along the >lines of CPM would take a matter of days to bring into a usable state. When estimating how long a project will take, those with knowladge of the problem will always over estimate the timescale involved, while those who do not understand the problem will always under estimate the time involved. By all means, if you have the know-how, please go ahead and produce the code. The calendar is running.... >The fancy bells and whistles, GUIs, and languages, can ALL be done later when >the boards have started to be sold. >As for having the ability, you can speak for yourself, mate. Who talked of ability? Without the expertise to guide things, ability counts for nothing. > >> >Not to mention all the sections, eg calculator routines (I think..) which >> >get copied into a RAM buffer before they're run because they're compiled >> >into the wrong addresses in the ROM... Yes this can all get sorted out on >> >the SRAM, but it would be a NIGHTMARE I'm telling you. >> > > >Aha, no argument there then. I'm sorry, but you cannot expect a reply to such a long winded email to be based on a detailed 'line-by-line' analysis of what you have written. Because I for one have better thing to do with my time. Like helping this project move forward. What I try to do is to answer emails in such a way as to get the answers across to those who care to read them. > >> >> The intergration stage, trying to merge HDOS+MasterDos+other bit, may not >> >>be so hard once we get a feel for what Andy has done in the ROM. >> > >> >Will the Z80 be able to page the SRAM in sections? Because if not, we >> >could be looking at a 64K ROM which never gets chance to access RAM for >> >anything. >> Yes, 16k pages just like the real rom. > >Well, okay, but paged memory isn't the ideal architecture for an OS. Just >look at the problems the PC has compared to the Mac, or the QL for that >matter. We are looking at SAM, which has - since its very inception, had a paged ROM/RAM system. We are simply extending that existing idea. Please bear that in mind. > >> > And have you tried to get hold of the manuals yet like you said you >> > would? >> I do have copies of the Z380 manuals, and I currently trying to agree a >price >> with Zilog to order 25 more copies. However, this is not the point. The >first >> step has to be the SRAM because without that it is going to be very >difficult >> to develop the code to drive the Z380. > >Please listen for a change. WE CAN WRITE CODE TO RUN ON A Z380 WITH OUR >CURRENT HARDWARE SETUP (as opposed to the Z80B running from SRAM). But to >test and develop the code we might just need to attach a Z380. And a >manual will help in the design stage of software development, to establish >just exactly what is or is not possible. So I don't think I was going off >topic. You see, while I'm waiting for the hardware to come along, I'm >trying to do my bit to help by planning how the programs might run. That's >a bit difficult when you're a bit hazy on the processor's specifications. Have today emailed Zilog again. As soon as I have news I will post it. Again though, the Z380 has nothing to do with the SRAM project, and the SRAM project is the one at the top of the list, so could we please target our efforts at the SRAM for the moment. It is far to early to consider things like "how the programs might run". > >NB I'm NOT saying that we don't need the SRAM, merely that we DO need the >Z380 too. And I'm not saying that we don't need the Z380, it is just a little further down the priority list for the reasons that I keep giving, but that you seem to ignore. > >> In some parts, yes. But what we get is a usable operating system for the >Z80 >> based machine in the process. If we go direct into the Z380 route, and then >> find we can't do it, we have lost everything. The chosen way will give us >> something that is worth having at each step forward. > >We already HAVE a usable operating system for the Z80 (Why do I have to >make my points three times each before you take any notice?). Because you comments have been read, considered, and rejected. > Okay so it's >not perfect, but neither will a hacked up version of it. SRAM on an >otherwise unexpanded Sam will not be a great improvement. What we will be doing is LEARNING while developing the SRAM project. There are, as far as I know, only two people on this list who have worked on a project to write a ROM or operating system (sorry three, I've just remembered one other) and it is not as easy as you think. So, lets get on and start learning about what we have, while at the same time correcting some of the bugs and taking advantage of the fact that we will be able to reload the SRAM anytime we like and with whatever we like. > >A Z380 on the other hand has immediate selling power. I would like to see your market research figures. >Depending on the >exact hardware setup, the existing OS and existing programs may be able to >run without modification, but faster. Whatever happens, there is no reason >that we might "lose everything" There is if you never get the thing to work. > >> >> Its just that I feel we know the Z80 and that is why we need to do >things >> >> first using the Z80. >> > >> >If we don't start using the Z380 then we'll never get to know it at all. >> >And who are "we" anyway? Do you volunteer your services for this enviable >> >task of hacking the ROM to bits? >> >> Yep, it is something I am really looking forward to. > >We'll see... See what? > >> >There are several people on this list who would be counted as hardware >> >experts. Nev is one. Andrew Chandler is probably one. Simon Cooke is one, >> >even if he says otherwise. Ian might be one. And there are others. >> > >> >I have the grace not to count myself among that group; I am a programmer. >> > >> >What say you, Bob? >> > >> >Andrew >> >> Bob. > >Apparently he says nothing. I refer the gentleman to the reply I gave earlier. > > >Andrew Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sun Feb 16 22:29:11 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:26:45 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970216172107_138309788@emout15.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 341 Lines: 12 In a message dated 15/02/97 14:59:43, you write: >> day.. And to say it was running slowly was an understatement, even >> for win '95. It took 26 MINUTES to log me in and load it! ARGHH! > >See, Bob - this is what you get if you don't use assembler... ;) > > No, WIN '95 is what you get when the system is written by committee. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sun Feb 16 22:35:06 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:32:21 +0000 (GMT) From: Dave To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970216172107_138309788@emout15.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 888 Lines: 26 I beg to differ, Win 95 is not poor due to a programming commitee - surely it is more to do with backward compatibility? Most decent software is written in this way nowadays, UNIX for example. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Fulton (D.A.Fulton@durham.ac.uk) Trevelyan College, University of Durham. PGP public key available on request. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 15/02/97 14:59:43, you write: > > >> day.. And to say it was running slowly was an understatement, even > >> for win '95. It took 26 MINUTES to log me in and load it! ARGHH! > > > >See, Bob - this is what you get if you don't use assembler... ;) > > > > > > No, WIN '95 is what you get when the system is written by committee. > > Bob. > From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Sun Feb 16 23:08:00 1997 Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:59:28 GMT Message-Id: <199702162259.WAA26360@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. From: brenchleydp@uk.pipeline.com (Darren Brenchley) X-PipeUser: brenchleydp X-PipeHub: uk.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Darren Brenchley) X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 83 Lines: 3 Sorry, but the truth about SAMSBOSS will not be found south of Birmingham. Bye. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 00:36:02 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:33:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@puce.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970216172107_138309788@emout15.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1108 Lines: 25 On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >> day.. And to say it was running slowly was an understatement, even > >> for win '95. It took 26 MINUTES to log me in and load it! ARGHH! > > > >See, Bob - this is what you get if you don't use assembler... ;) > > > No, WIN '95 is what you get when the system is written by committee. So the Z80 SRAM project would be written by a committee of sam-users on this list, but with a very major contribution from an absent member who wrote undocumented code several years ago. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 01:05:43 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 01:02:55 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@navy.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970216172114_619370908@emout18.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 793 Lines: 18 On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >As for having the ability, you can speak for yourself, mate. > > Who talked of ability? Without the expertise to guide things, ability counts > for nothing. Pardon??????? +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 01:13:24 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 01:11:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@navy.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970216172114_619370908@emout18.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1547 Lines: 32 On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >> >The following paragraph may seem familiar, because I have said it before. > >> >Twice. I've said that before too. You might like to read it this time. > >> > > >> >If we start from scratch, we can write about half a K of vital sysadmin > >> >code, and be able to load applications. Meanwhile the coders can be > >> >writing their BASIC bit by bit; we _DO *!*NOT*!* NEED_ TO HAVE WRITTEN A > >> >LARGE AMOUNT OF SOFTWARE BEFORE THERE IS A $*SALEABLE*$ PRODUCT. > > I beg to disagree with that statement, based on personal experience and the > experience of others. I might remind you that I have written code to read and write files on a Sam disk independantly of Rom code. (See SamMines and the various SamBoot files on NVG) which, for the system I'd described in some detail is all that is immediately needed. If you can boot a disk then most users will be happy until something more substantial is sorted out. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 01:22:33 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 01:19:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@navy.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970216172114_619370908@emout18.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1637 Lines: 44 On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >WE DO *_*_*_*_* N O T *_*_*_*_* NEED TO HAVE WRITTEN A FULL > >OPERATING SYSTEM BEFORE THE PRODUCT CAN BE SOLD. > > Pardon? Did not quite hear that :) > > Seriously, have you considered that you are talking rubbish? Oh, why's that then? > >> The problem is I don't think we have either the time or the expertise > >> available to conside a complete rewrite for scratch. Having evaluated that > >> line of approach it has been abandoned. > > > >Abandoned? Who by! You and Samsboss? Don't be so arrogant. > > By those who have taken the time to consider the idea objectively, from a > point of view based on a knowledge of what is required. Aha. You and Samsboss then. (Funny you always seem to agree) > By all means, if you have the know-how, please go ahead and produce the code. > The calendar is running.... Send me a manual, and I'll keep writing the Z380 assembler. Then, and once the hardware exists, anyone could write you the "it'll do for now" disk manager. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 01:30:22 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 01:28:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@navy.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970216172114_619370908@emout18.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1968 Lines: 45 On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >> >Not to mention all the sections, eg calculator routines (I think..) which > >> >get copied into a RAM buffer before they're run because they're compiled > >> >into the wrong addresses in the ROM... Yes this can all get sorted out on > >> >the SRAM, but it would be a NIGHTMARE I'm telling you. > > > >Aha, no argument there then. > > I'm sorry, but you cannot expect a reply to such a long winded email to be > based on a detailed 'line-by-line' analysis of what you have written. Because > I for one have better thing to do with my time. Like helping this project > move forward. > > What I try to do is to answer emails in such a way as to get the answers > across to those who care to read them. Long? Yes. Long winded? You may well think that but I couldn't possibly comment. I hope that several short mails is more convenient to you than one long one. I do expect you to answer my points if you want me to think you've even got an answer. I really don't think you realise just how complex Andy Wright's code actually is. And yes, I have tried looking through it on several occasions. One of these was during work on MNEMOdemo2, when I wanted an efficient algorithm for drawing straight lines. I borrowed the Rom routine, having optimised it to run nearly twice as quickly (but at the cost of being a much larger routine) Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 01:36:38 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 01:35:09 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@navy.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970216172114_619370908@emout18.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1600 Lines: 36 On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >> >Will the Z80 be able to page the SRAM in sections? Because if not, we > >> >could be looking at a 64K ROM which never gets chance to access RAM for > >> >anything. > >> Yes, 16k pages just like the real rom. > > > >Well, okay, but paged memory isn't the ideal architecture for an OS. Just > >look at the problems the PC has compared to the Mac, or the QL for that > >matter. > > We are looking at SAM, which has - since its very inception, had a paged > ROM/RAM system. We are simply extending that existing idea. Please bear that > in mind. I'm not sure why you see this to be important. On a Z80B there is possibly no other way to do it, but on a Z380 a paged system it would merely get in the way. The paging only exists because the Z80 can only access 64K, but the Z380 can access over 4 Gigs so there is no need to implement that system except for backward compatability (a problem which may be solved anyway, depending on exactly how the Z380 board works) Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 01:52:24 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 01:49:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@navy.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970216172114_619370908@emout18.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1932 Lines: 41 On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > Again though, the Z380 has nothing to do with the SRAM project, and the SRAM > project is the one at the top of the list, so could we please target our > efforts at the SRAM for the moment. It is far to early to consider things > like "how the programs might run". I am not a hardware bod. There is nothing I can do for the SRAM board, so yes I am looking forward to the next step. However I do not think it is too early to do so, because the Z380 is not totally separate. These are all part of the ongoing Samson project. All I ask is that the SRAM board is designed in such a way that a Z380 can be attached easily, ie without modifying the SRAM board. > >NB I'm NOT saying that we don't need the SRAM, merely that we DO need the > >Z380 too. > > And I'm not saying that we don't need the Z380, it is just a little further > down the priority list for the reasons that I keep giving, but that you seem > to ignore. Read, considered, and rejected; not ignored. To hack the ROM onto the SRAM would be neither easy nor particularly useful. Excepting bug-fixes (of which few are available) almost all of the suggested changes to ROM and DOS are either totally impractical or purely cosmetic. Only a complete rewrite would allow some of the alterations which you in particular have been discussing. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 02:00:10 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 01:57:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@navy.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970216172114_619370908@emout18.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 926 Lines: 23 > >A Z380 on the other hand has immediate selling power. > > I would like to see your market research figures. Oh come on, think about it! You say to a Sam user: "For xxUKP you can make your Sam software run about ten times faster, with the future possibility of specially written games and applications" and see what sort of a reply you get. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 02:05:52 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 02:04:10 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@navy.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970216172114_619370908@emout18.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1222 Lines: 29 On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >Depending on the > >exact hardware setup, the existing OS and existing programs may be able to > >run without modification, but faster. Whatever happens, there is no reason > >that we might "lose everything" > > There is if you never get the thing to work. This thing's been prototyped (well nearly; a Z80C and had nothing to dowith SRAM - which as Simon has said, ran Lemmings at 50 fps). It's all a matter of fine tuning now. And what actually would we have lost except time? Its not as if the SRAM card alone will sell Sam to a bigger audience; only the completed SamSon will do that. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 08:42:26 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:38:13 +0100 From: ft@edh.ericsson.se (Frode Tenneboe) Message-Id: <9702170838.AA09853@asmal.edh-net> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: SimCoupe at nvg X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 482 Lines: 15 > On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:12:36 +0100, Frode Tenneboe said: > > It's compiled with MIT-SHM. Perhaps that's the problem? > > What release of X is it compiled with? > > (We have X11R5 on our SunOS machines and X11R6.1 on our Solaris machines. > Ho hum...) Have you got problems too? It's compiled with Solaris 2.4, X11R5, MIT-SHM, XPM......shouldn't be a problem. Though, it seems to be rather difficult to compile a static release only with the time I've got available. -Frode From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 09:04:25 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:01:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Justin Skists X-Sender: c93js1@napier.cms.dmu.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: SimCoupe at nvg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1120 Lines: 30 On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Tim Paveley wrote: > On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Justin Skists wrote: > > I've just uploaded the HPUX 9.0.5 compiled SimCoupe upto nvg in the > > /pub/sam-coupe/incoming directory. > > > > Since I've never uploaded anything to a public FTP server before, I hope I > > did it right... > > So, who wants to tell him about the difference between binary and text > transfers then ;) A-hum.. Excuse me????? I used NCFTP which automatically (or it should so) set itself to binary mode before transfer! > (This is of course assuming he's previously downloaded with a web-browser > or something...) Urgh! Are you kidding? I hate useing Netscape for file-transfer??? Gimme a command line prompt anydays!!!! -- ============================================================================= |Justin Skists (c93js1@dmu.ac.uk) | Artificial Intelligence: | |BSc (Hons) Computer Science, Year 4 | Making computers behave like | |De Montfort University, Leicester, England | they do in the movies. | ============================================================================= From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 09:31:50 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:29:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Tim Wells <93tgw@eng.cam.ac.uk> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1207 Lines: 30 On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Andrew Collier wrote: > Oh come on, think about it! You say to a Sam user: > > "For xxUKP you can make your Sam software run about ten times faster, with > the future possibility of specially written games and applications" > > and see what sort of a reply you get. Via the Accelerator method, if I understand it correctly, you have to bodge your z380 to implement paging on the bottom 64K of its memory, in order that all current software can run. I.e. map 512K of memory into the first 64K section, and have the rest extend from there. In this case, the SRAM, in using the current paging system, will work fine on the z380. Via the other method that I've seen, the two processors run independently, and so you will need some SRAM on the z80 side to experiment with building a comm-link between the two. Either way, the SRAM board as currently designed is necessary. Now I've tried to look at the design - a friend has downloaded the sram2pcx files, with a view to printing them out for me, but tells me that the programs he has say the .pcx files are corrupt. I've asked if anyone will consider d/loading them and printing them out for me, but have had no response. Tim W. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 09:53:42 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:44:04 +0100 From: ft@edh.ericsson.se (Frode Tenneboe) Message-Id: <9702170944.AA09952@asmal.edh-net> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 2663 Lines: 58 You seem to view it all positively, and I all negatively. Woder why... :) > It is a problem, but not too much of one. Most patches will, at least in the > first instance, be jumps out of code to a patch routine. Once the fix is > tested, then it can be passed to a co-ordinator who can test it with the > other patched, if approved it goes out, if not approved it goes back to the > programmer for another try. With jumps out of code you can avoid the problem of mishmash between two versions unless one patch relies on bugs (not identified) currently there. However, such a scheme will eat memory like a Windows application. The administrative overhead will be enormous for the co-ordinator. The cost will be quite high too, unless all the patchers, testers and the co-ordinator is on Internet. :/ > > At the same time the patches can be intergrated into the main source of the > ROM/DOS. At certain intervals the new source in distributed to all and we > start anew with that. Sometimes, it could be possible, that a fix can't be > left in because it does cause problems elsewhere (that are more major than > the problem the fix is fixing) but at least it points in the right direction > and no doubt can be intergrated at a later stage. Any voulenteers...? :) > > Now, one thing to bear in mind is that doing things at the moment would be > very difficult because we would need to blow eproms every other day. However, > with the SRAM we can give it a try and if it does not work we have not lost > anything except time. Time is money. > > I feel that once the project is underway we will stand a much better chance > of seeing what lays ahead for the possible Z380 system - although it is true > that I don't see that being written in assembler. Uhum...with all due respect, as somebody has said previously, the Z380 can be made bootable, provided the HW is working, in just a few hours work. And from then, all/most old software will be running instantly. The work needed to make a patched, semiworking, outdated and slow OS could then have been used in making a professional, modern and fast working OS. However, if you still insist in going along the SRAM lane, please ensure that it will be compatible with future upgrades. I will try to help you if I can. But mark my words, it will require a lot of work which will eventually not be productive. If you have a finished product, it is not a big deal to patch it to suit your needs. However, if you have a dynamic product which also other people are patching and modifying on. I know what I am speaking about, I've done both and I'm still doing the latter and it's pissing me off. -Frode From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 09:53:42 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:45:34 +0100 From: ft@edh.ericsson.se (Frode Tenneboe) Message-Id: <9702170945.AA09963@asmal.edh-net> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 259 Lines: 8 > Now I've tried to look at the design - a friend has downloaded the > sram2pcx files, with a view to printing them out for me, but tells me that > the programs he has say the .pcx files are corrupt. You are sure these are the right files? Nev???? -Frode From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 10:31:47 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:25:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@puce.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1975 Lines: 40 On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Tim Wells wrote: > Via the Accelerator method, if I understand it correctly, you have to > bodge your z380 to implement paging on the bottom 64K of its memory, in > order that all current software can run. I.e. map 512K of memory into the > first 64K section, and have the rest extend from there. In this case, the > SRAM, in using the current paging system, will work fine on the z380. That system would be included only for backwards compatability. The "real" SamSon operating system would be written for the flat memory model; ie it will all be there at once. > Via the other method that I've seen, the two processors run independently, > and so you will need some SRAM on the z80 side to experiment with building > a comm-link between the two. It will be difficult, if possible, to have the two processors working at the same time. And I don't see what the SRAM has to do with a comms link. > Either way, the SRAM board as currently designed is necessary. Fine, if it will work. It might. I don't know. I haven't said we don't need SRAM, but the design may well need modification. Is it not better to do this now, before the boards have been manufactured and sold? It seems unlikely that a Z380 would be able to access the SRAM properly, unless the SRAM board was designed with the Z380 in mind. If it isn't, I don't think the SRAM card is particularly useful. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 10:42:46 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:32:22 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970217053222_1946227252@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 297 Lines: 13 In a message dated 17/02/97 01:03:54, you write: >> >As for having the ability, you can speak for yourself, mate. >> >> Who talked of ability? Without the expertise to guide things, ability >counts >> for nothing. > >Pardon??????? Look up both words, ability does not require expertise. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 10:42:46 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:32:26 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970217053225_1979783732@emout20.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 2192 Lines: 59 In a message dated 17/02/97 01:30:59, you write: >On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >> >> >Not to mention all the sections, eg calculator routines (I think..) >which >> >> >get copied into a RAM buffer before they're run because they're >compiled >> >> >into the wrong addresses in the ROM... Yes this can all get sorted out >on >> >> >the SRAM, but it would be a NIGHTMARE I'm telling you. >> > >> >Aha, no argument there then. >> >> I'm sorry, but you cannot expect a reply to such a long winded email to be >> based on a detailed 'line-by-line' analysis of what you have written. >Because >> I for one have better thing to do with my time. Like helping this project >> move forward. >> >> What I try to do is to answer emails in such a way as to get the answers >> across to those who care to read them. > >Long? Yes. >Long winded? You may well think that but I couldn't possibly comment. > >I hope that several short mails is more convenient to you than one long >one. Much easier. > >I do expect you to answer my points if you want me to think you've even >got an answer. I really don't think you realise just how complex Andy >Wright's code actually is. And yes, I have tried looking through it on >several occasions. Oh I do, remember I was there when he wrote it. > >One of these was during work on MNEMOdemo2, when I wanted an efficient >algorithm for drawing straight lines. I borrowed the Rom routine, having >optimised it to run nearly twice as quickly (but at the cost of being a >much larger routine) Good for you. When we start work on the Z380 ROM project I imagine there will be some routines that need to hand-coded. At that point I find the best approach is that which was taken in the Original Memotech MTX ROM (not the version that was shipped). There the system gave the identical routine to two different programmers. One had the task of writting the routine as SMALL as possible, the other the task of writing it to run as FAST as possible. As the ROM was then put together routines we selected according to a priority system, sometime a fast routine would be removed to make space for two or more small (but slow) routines. > > >Andrew Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 10:42:46 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:32:28 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970217053227_2094278580@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1897 Lines: 56 In a message dated 17/02/97 01:26:26, you write: >On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >> >WE DO *_*_*_*_* N O T *_*_*_*_* NEED TO HAVE WRITTEN A FULL >> >OPERATING SYSTEM BEFORE THE PRODUCT CAN BE SOLD. >> >> Pardon? Did not quite hear that :) >> >> Seriously, have you considered that you are talking rubbish? > >Oh, why's that then? I don't know why you do it, but you do at times. > >> >> The problem is I don't think we have either the time or the expertise >> >> available to conside a complete rewrite for scratch. Having evaluated >that >> >> line of approach it has been abandoned. >> > >> >Abandoned? Who by! You and Samsboss? Don't be so arrogant. >> >> By those who have taken the time to consider the idea objectively, from a >> point of view based on a knowledge of what is required. > >Aha. > >You and Samsboss then. (Funny you always seem to agree) I refer the gentleman to the original reply. > >> By all means, if you have the know-how, please go ahead and produce the >code. >> The calendar is running.... > >Send me a manual, and I'll keep writing the Z380 assembler. If you can think of a good enough excuse you should be able to get your own copy by going to the tech-lit pages on the WWW, start at http://www.zilog.com and you should find it - it took about three weeks for my copy to come through. As you have an educational email address I would think a claim that it is needed for a project should get you the book. Its called Z380 Microprocessor Unit Preliminary Product Specification. Its a bit hardware, but the instruction set is in there and some other useful information. If you are going to Wetherby then I should have my copy there. > >Then, and once the hardware exists, anyone could write you the "it'll do >for now" disk manager. Yes, but that 'when' is going to be some way down the road. > > >Andrew Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 10:42:47 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:32:30 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970217053230_-2110378316@emout02.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1201 Lines: 35 In a message dated 17/02/97 01:36:03, you write: >On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >> >> >Will the Z80 be able to page the SRAM in sections? Because if not, we >> >> >could be looking at a 64K ROM which never gets chance to access RAM for >> >> >anything. >> >> Yes, 16k pages just like the real rom. >> > >> >Well, okay, but paged memory isn't the ideal architecture for an OS. Just >> >look at the problems the PC has compared to the Mac, or the QL for that >> >matter. >> >> We are looking at SAM, which has - since its very inception, had a paged >> ROM/RAM system. We are simply extending that existing idea. Please bear >that >> in mind. > >I'm not sure why you see this to be important. On a Z80B there is possibly >no other way to do it, but on a Z380 a paged system it would merely get in >the way. > >The paging only exists because the Z80 can only access 64K, but the Z380 >can access over 4 Gigs so there is no need to implement that system except >for backward compatability (a problem which may be solved anyway, >depending on exactly how the Z380 board works) But we are talking about the SAM, not the Z380. The SRAM has nothing to do with the Z380. > > >Andrew From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 10:42:48 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:32:33 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970217053232_-2077260396@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1747 Lines: 47 In a message dated 17/02/97 01:50:26, you write: >On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >> Again though, the Z380 has nothing to do with the SRAM project, and the >SRAM >> project is the one at the top of the list, so could we please target our >> efforts at the SRAM for the moment. It is far to early to consider things >> like "how the programs might run". > >I am not a hardware bod. There is nothing I can do for the SRAM board, so >yes I am looking forward to the next step. However I do not think it is >too early to do so, because the Z380 is not totally separate. These are >all part of the ongoing Samson project. All I ask is that the SRAM board >is designed in such a way that a Z380 can be attached easily, ie without >modifying the SRAM board. You need to understand that the Z380 and the SRAM have nothing to do with each other. The SRAM card is to attach to the SAM to extend its ability. There is no connection with the Z380. > >> >NB I'm NOT saying that we don't need the SRAM, merely that we DO need the >> >Z380 too. >> >> And I'm not saying that we don't need the Z380, it is just a little further >> down the priority list for the reasons that I keep giving, but that you >seem >> to ignore. > >Read, considered, and rejected; not ignored. That is your right. But the priority list still stands. > >To hack the ROM onto the SRAM would be neither easy nor particularly >useful. Excepting bug-fixes (of which few are available) almost all of the >suggested changes to ROM and DOS are either totally impractical or purely >cosmetic. Only a complete rewrite would allow some of the alterations >which you in particular have been discussing. You may consider it totally impractical, I do not. > > >Andrew > Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 10:42:49 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:32:35 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970217053234_-2009943628@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 557 Lines: 20 In a message dated 17/02/97 02:00:40, you write: >> >A Z380 on the other hand has immediate selling power. >> >> I would like to see your market research figures. > >Oh come on, think about it! You say to a Sam user: > >"For xxUKP you can make your Sam software run about ten times faster, with >the future possibility of specially written games and applications" > >and see what sort of a reply you get. > > >Andrew In most cases I think I would get the reply "but my software runs at an acceptable speed now, otherwise I would not be using it". Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 10:42:49 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:32:37 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970217053236_-1976388300@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1023 Lines: 32 In a message dated 17/02/97 02:05:07, you write: > >On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >> >Depending on the >> >exact hardware setup, the existing OS and existing programs may be able to >> >run without modification, but faster. Whatever happens, there is no reason >> >that we might "lose everything" >> >> There is if you never get the thing to work. > >This thing's been prototyped (well nearly; a Z80C and had nothing to >dowith SRAM - which as Simon has said, ran Lemmings at 50 fps). It's all a >matter of fine tuning now. I think Simon would be the first to agree that there is a lot more work to be done than just fine-tuning to get to a sellable product. > >And what actually would we have lost except time? Its not as if the SRAM >card alone will sell Sam to a bigger audience; only the completed SamSon >will do that. Granted, the SRAM card is for existing users. The results gained from the project, in learning about the existing system, are the real benifit to the Samson. > >Andrew Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 10:59:35 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:52:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@puce.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970217053227_2094278580@emout01.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1809 Lines: 49 On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > > > >> >WE DO *_*_*_*_* N O T *_*_*_*_* NEED TO HAVE WRITTEN A FULL > >> >OPERATING SYSTEM BEFORE THE PRODUCT CAN BE SOLD. > >> > >> Seriously, have you considered that you are talking rubbish? > > I don't know why you do it, but you do at times. On what grounds do you disagree with that statement? > >> >> The problem is I don't think we have either the time or the expertise > >> >> available to conside a complete rewrite for scratch. Having evaluated > >that > >> >> line of approach it has been abandoned. > >> > > >> >Abandoned? Who by! You and Samsboss? Don't be so arrogant. > >> > >> By those who have taken the time to consider the idea objectively, from a > >> point of view based on a knowledge of what is required. > > > >Aha. > > > >You and Samsboss then. (Funny you always seem to agree) > > I refer the gentleman to the original reply. Any other programmers volunteer to agree with Bob? > >Then, and once the hardware exists, anyone could write you the "it'll > >do for now" disk manager. > > Yes, but that 'when' is going to be some way down the road. That's not my fault. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 11:01:54 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:58:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Justin Skists X-Sender: c93js1@damson.cms.dmu.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970217053234_-2009943628@emout04.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1164 Lines: 23 On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > In most cases I think I would get the reply "but my software runs at an > acceptable speed now, otherwise I would not be using it". Of course they would say that. There no software that isn't running at an unacceptable speed because at the moment, they don't need it. I'm forever getting peed off because the Z80B isn't running fast enough to run my code at an acceptable speed. Code super-duper-optimisation may be an answer, but I'm not a demo programmer... I think I'll wait until the Z380 comes out before I think aabout buying the SRAM if the SRAM isn't being designed to be used with the Z380. I don't want to waste my money if I'm going to end up buying another Z380-compatible-SRAM card in the future.. -- ============================================================================= |Justin Skists (c93js1@dmu.ac.uk) | Artificial Intelligence: | |BSc (Hons) Computer Science, Year 4 | Making computers behave like | |De Montfort University, Leicester, England | they do in the movies. | ============================================================================= From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 11:07:00 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:01:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@blue.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970217053225_1979783732@emout20.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1430 Lines: 36 On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >I do expect you to answer my points if you want me to think you've even > >got an answer. I really don't think you realise just how complex Andy > >Wright's code actually is. And yes, I have tried looking through it on > >several occasions. > > Oh I do, remember I was there when he wrote it. On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >To hack the ROM onto the SRAM would be neither easy nor particularly > >useful. Excepting bug-fixes (of which few are available) almost all of the > >suggested changes to ROM and DOS are either totally impractical or purely > >cosmetic. Only a complete rewrite would allow some of the alterations > >which you in particular have been discussing. > > You may consider it totally impractical, I do not. I consider those replies to be mutually exclusive. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 11:07:01 1997 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970217111204.00963cb4@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> X-Sender: scooke@nessie.mcc.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:12:04 +0000 To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no From: Simon Cooke Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 825 Lines: 20 At 09:29 17/02/97 +0000, you wrote: >Via the Accelerator method, if I understand it correctly, you have to >bodge your z380 to implement paging on the bottom 64K of its memory, in >order that all current software can run. I.e. map 512K of memory into the >first 64K section, and have the rest extend from there. In this case, the >SRAM, in using the current paging system, will work fine on the z380. That depends actually. >Via the other method that I've seen, the two processors run independently, >and so you will need some SRAM on the z80 side to experiment with building >a comm-link between the two. > >Either way, the SRAM board as currently designed is necessary. Nope - completely different design for the "two in parallel" design, namely because two separate processors have to be able to access it... Simon From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 11:32:35 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:23:22 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@blue.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 2585 Lines: 53 On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Justin Skists wrote: [Bob Brenchley quoted] > > In most cases I think I would get the reply "but my software runs at an > > acceptable speed now, otherwise I would not be using it". I beg to differ. Ask someone what he thought of Lemmings and (s)he'll probably say: Great game, great graphics, great music, but a bit too slow. And where's the two-player option? > Of course they would say that. There no software that isn't running at an > unacceptable speed because at the moment, they don't need it. I'm forever > getting peed off because the Z80B isn't running fast enough to run my > code at an acceptable speed. Code super-duper-optimisation may be an > answer, but I'm not a demo programmer... But optimisation can't quite work miracles. Most computers, for example, would not consider it a difficult task to scroll the screen at 50 fps. Demos currently stretch Sam to its limits - now you go and look at some decent PC demos (try http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/psychiclink) and say you think you could copy them on the Z80B. With the exception of a *really* big-named product like Lemmings, slow software just won't sell (don't muddy the issue by talking about Win95 please) - which is why Sam coders aren't so optimistic as to even try writing code which plainly doesn't run at a decent speed. The main candidates for the benefit of acceleration would be Basic programs and GamesMaster / SCADS games (which really can be slow at the moment). > I think I'll wait until the Z380 comes out before I think aabout buying the > SRAM if the SRAM isn't being designed to be used with the Z380. I don't > want to waste my money if I'm going to end up buying another > Z380-compatible-SRAM card in the future.. All I have asked is that we are able attach the Z380, at some point in time, to the SRAM board which is sold first. Bob, I don't see how you can maintain that the SRAM is completely seperate; if the SRAM can't support the Z380 then it does not support the Samson. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 11:45:56 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 11:39:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@blue.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970217053225_1979783732@emout20.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1740 Lines: 34 On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > When we start work on the Z380 ROM project I imagine there will be some > routines that need to hand-coded. At that point I find the best approach is > that which was taken in the Original Memotech MTX ROM (not the version that > was shipped). There the system gave the identical routine to two different > programmers. One had the task of writting the routine as SMALL as possible, > the other the task of writing it to run as FAST as possible. As the ROM was > then put together routines we selected according to a priority system, > sometime a fast routine would be removed to make space for two or more small > (but slow) routines. That does make sense, though space shouldn't be as much of a problem as usual given that the amount of space available is quite large; 128K or whatever. I think there are certain routines which will obviously be called very often, so in some cases they need only to be given to the "fast coder". I wouldn't especially like to be the coder who had his work thrown away; and especially since it is a big job, we ought to try to minimise the amount of work which is repeated. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 12:16:12 1997 From: James R Curry Organization: De Montfort University To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:11:55 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Next Step. References: <970216172114_619370908@emout18.mail.aol.com> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 325 Lines: 11 > If you can boot a disk then most users will be happy until something more > substantial is sorted out. I would be! :) -- James R Curry hc95jc@dmu.ac.uk "If you really want something in this life, you have to work for it. Now Quiet! They're about to announce the lottery numbers!" - Homer Simpson, the Simpsons. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 12:16:18 1997 From: James R Curry Organization: De Montfort University To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:16:48 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The Next Step. References: <970216172114_619370908@emout18.mail.aol.com> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50) Message-ID: Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 555 Lines: 16 > "For xxUKP you can make your Sam software run about ten times faster, with > the future possibility of specially written games and applications" > > and see what sort of a reply you get. "Point me in the direction of the bank, I've decided how to spend my student grant.." would be my reply... ;) Yeah, right, like I get much of a student grant. -- James R Curry hc95jc@dmu.ac.uk "If you really want something in this life, you have to work for it. Now Quiet! They're about to announce the lottery numbers!" - Homer Simpson, the Simpsons. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 12:37:45 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <1296.199702171229@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: The Next Step. To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:29:52 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: from "Andrew Collier" at Feb 17, 97 01:11:29 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 706 Lines: 16 > > >> >LARGE AMOUNT OF SOFTWARE BEFORE THERE IS A $*SALEABLE*$ PRODUCT. > > I beg to disagree with that statement, based on personal experience and the > I might remind you that I have written code to read and write files on a > Sam disk independantly of Rom code. (See SamMines and the various SamBoot Much as I hate to agree with Bob, this piece doesn't have any relevance. I can't see most people buying something that they don't see as having a "complete" system. > If you can boot a disk then most users will be happy until something more > substantial is sorted out. Most users...? Maybe the ones that "fiddle" with their Sam at the moment, but I doubt if any new ones would be attracted. Paul From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 12:37:46 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <1455.199702171231@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:31:28 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <199702162259.WAA26360@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> from "Darren Brenchley" at Feb 16, 97 10:59:28 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 430 Lines: 11 > Sorry, but the truth about SAMSBOSS will not be found south of Birmingham. I'm bored with this now. SamsBoss is either Bob Brenchley or (as your header indicated) a very close friend or relative. How do we know this? Because Gavin Smith found a posting, on DejaNews, where you kindly listed your name after the "from" field. Most generous. I have to say that I think your conduct in this is really, /really/ bad, Bob. Paul From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 12:37:46 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <1649.199702171232@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: The Next Step. To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:32:43 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <970216172107_138309788@emout15.mail.aol.com> from "BrenchleyR@aol.com" at Feb 16, 97 05:26:45 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 386 Lines: 10 > No, WIN '95 is what you get when the system is written by committee. Win '95 is what you get when people reuse old code - the core routines are all still 16-bit, for example. A /decent/ system would have rewritten those to take /full/ advantage of the protected mode architecture. Nothing to do with committee at all (and I'm not 100% what on earth you meant by that anyway). Paul From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 12:53:53 1997 From: Johnna Teare Organization: University of Central Lancashire To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:44:02 GMT+0 Subject: Student Grant X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <1C95D180D89@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 255 Lines: 13 > Yeah, right, like I get much of a student grant. Why, is he marriedor something? ;) > -- > James R Curry hc95jc@dmu.ac.uk Johnna Pig Teare (JohnnaPig@deathsdoor.com) JohnnaPig OnLine (www.yi.com/home/TeareJohnna) "They call me Mad The Swine." From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 13:09:38 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:58:31 GMT Message-Id: <199702171258.MAA29565@pipe1.uk.pipeline.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. From: samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) Cc: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no X-PipeUser: samsboss X-PipeHub: uk.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 808 Lines: 26 On Feb 17, 1997 12:31:28, 'Mr P R Walker ' wrote: > >> Sorry, but the truth about SAMSBOSS will not be found south of Birmingham. > >I'm bored with this now. SamsBoss is either Bob Brenchley or (as your header >indicated) a very close friend or relative. How do we know this? Because >Gavin Smith found a posting, on DejaNews, where you kindly listed your name >after the "from" field. Most generous. > >I have to say that I think your conduct in this is really, /really/ bad, Bob. > >Paul -- WRONG (on all counts) as usual. Must admit, I'm surprised at the amount of time some people are prepared to waste just to try and uncover something that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. do you have nothing better to do with your time? Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 13:16:19 1997 To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. References: <970217053234_-2009943628@emout04.mail.aol.com> X-Mammoth-Status: Aware Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.89) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Lee Willis Date: 17 Feb 1997 13:13:46 +0000 In-Reply-To: BrenchleyR@aol.com's message of Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:32:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 916 Lines: 28 BrenchleyR@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 17/02/97 02:00:40, you write: > > >> >A Z380 on the other hand has immediate selling power. > >> I would like to see your market research figures. > >Oh come on, think about it! You say to a Sam user: > > > >"For xxUKP you can make your Sam software run about ten times faster, with > >the future possibility of specially written games and applications" > > > >and see what sort of a reply you get. > > > > Andrew. > > In most cases I think I would get the reply "but my software runs at an > acceptable speed now, otherwise I would not be using it". > > Bob. > This is a joke, please tell me it's a joke .... -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. [ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 13:28:37 1997 To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: Student Grant References: <1C95D180D89@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> X-Mammoth-Status: Aware Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.89) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Lee Willis Date: 17 Feb 1997 13:16:14 +0000 In-Reply-To: Johnna Teare's message of Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:44:02 GMT+0 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 626 Lines: 23 Johnna Teare writes: > > > Yeah, right, like I get much of a student grant. > > Why, is he marriedor something? > > ;) > > > -- > > James R Curry hc95jc@dmu.ac.uk > > Johnna Pig Teare (JohnnaPig@deathsdoor.com) > JohnnaPig OnLine (www.yi.com/home/TeareJohnna) > "They call me Mad The Swine." > Can someone explain this please ... Johnna ?? -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. [ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 13:28:37 1997 From: Johnna Teare Organization: University of Central Lancashire To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:18:16 GMT+0 Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <1C9DE1C72DD@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 2274 Lines: 59 > On Feb 17, 1997 12:31:28, 'Mr P R Walker ' wrote: > > > > > >> Sorry, but the truth about SAMSBOSS will not be found south of > Birmingham. > > > >I'm bored with this now. SamsBoss is either Bob Brenchley or (as your > header > >indicated) a very close friend or relative. How do we know this? Because > >Gavin Smith found a posting, on DejaNews, where you kindly listed your > name > >after the "from" field. Most generous. > > > >I have to say that I think your conduct in this is really, /really/ bad, > Bob. > > > >Paul > -- > WRONG (on all counts) as usual. > Must admit, I'm surprised at the amount of time some people are prepared to > waste just to try and uncover something that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. Why does it have nothing to do with us? You talk to us, sometimes address us by name, and seem to think that you can even insult some of us. So it is very much in our interests to find out who you are. We're not trying to do this out of a malicious interest in your life, just out of natural human curiosity as to who the hell you are. It's just such a shame that you can't come out of the closet, tell us who you are and let us all get on with doing something constructive with this list and the SAM's future. If you are not Bob Brenchley, why were you posting messages under his name. Does he know about it? And does he mind? Personally, i believe that you are him - all your opinions have mirrored his since I joined this list back in September. You stuck up for him over the 'Who is West Coast Computers?' argument, then over the SAM Elite (the game) is a cheap botch job situation, now over the SAM World argument and, checking Ian's archives, pretty much anything else that has come up here. There are tons of postings decorated across the Net with YOUR Email address, and the real name line saying Robert Brenchley. If you are posting to the list under two names, one has to suspect you are doing so for come kind of covert reason. So why not explain yourself? > > do you have nothing better to do with your time? > > Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com > Johnna Pig Teare (JohnnaPig@deathsdoor.com) JohnnaPig OnLine (www.yi.com/home/TeareJohnna) "They call me Mad The Swine." From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 13:28:38 1997 X-Authentication-Warning: dcsun4.comp.brad.ac.uk: lwillis set sender to Relaxed using -f To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. References: <970216172114_619370908@emout18.mail.aol.com> X-Mammoth-Status: Aware From: unknown Date: 17 Feb 1997 13:21:10 +0000 In-Reply-To: BrenchleyR@aol.com's message of Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:25:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 798 Lines: 22 BrenchleyR@aol.com writes: > > > >The thing is, I get the impression that you paid no attention whatsoever > >to the previous paragraph. Perhaps I didn't put in enough highlighting > >characters. So, for now the fourth time: > > > >WE DO *_*_*_*_* N O T *_*_*_*_* NEED TO HAVE WRITTEN A FULL > >OPERATING SYSTEM BEFORE THE PRODUCT CAN BE SOLD. > > Pardon? Did not quite hear that :) > > Seriously, have you considered that you are talking rubbish? Seriously have you considered that you ignore everyone's opinion but your own? -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. [ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 13:28:39 1997 X-Authentication-Warning: dcsun4.comp.brad.ac.uk: lwillis set sender to Relaxed using -f To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. References: X-Mammoth-Status: Aware From: unknown Date: 17 Feb 1997 13:22:28 +0000 In-Reply-To: Dave's message of Sun, 16 Feb 1997 22:32:21 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 658 Lines: 16 Dave writes: > > I beg to differ, Win 95 is not poor due to a programming commitee - surely > it is more to do with backward compatibility? Most decent software is > written in this way nowadays, UNIX for example. > Yep, but UNIX isn't c**p. The fact that Win 95 is so pathetic has NOTHING to do with trying to ensure backwards compatability, just laziness in writing new code. -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. [ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 13:31:20 1997 From: Johnna Teare Organization: University of Central Lancashire To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:27:07 GMT+0 Subject: Re: Student Grant X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <1CA08945D9D@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 930 Lines: 33 > Johnna Teare writes: > > > > > Yeah, right, like I get much of a student grant. > > > > Why, is he marriedor something? > > > > ;) > > > > > -- > > > James R Curry hc95jc@dmu.ac.uk > > > > Johnna Pig Teare (JohnnaPig@deathsdoor.com) > > JohnnaPig OnLine (www.yi.com/home/TeareJohnna) > > "They call me Mad The Swine." > > > > Can someone explain this please ... Johnna ?? pleased to meet your favourite student, Grant. sorry - crap joke (nobody is on my wave on this list...!) I'm retiring from comedy > > -- > With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not > a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, > and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. > [ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] > Johnna Pig Teare (JohnnaPig@deathsdoor.com) JohnnaPig OnLine (www.yi.com/home/TeareJohnna) "They call me Mad The Swine." From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 13:53:08 1997 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:58:31 GMT To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no From: samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 486 Lines: 18 By the way, you've all not ghot a *CLUE* who Iam. I'm really Renge Thronk Thripplewood Neek the Third. Mad as a brush and Daft as a Hatter I am. samsboss (really, I'm actually someone with an inflated opinion as to what my identity could do to the SAM world if revealed!) (I'm bruce gordon. honest.) (or am I alan miles?) (or Brent Stevens? Now that wuold be scary) Rant rant rant. --- BTW: This is a fakemail. Not really from samsboss. As you probably guessed already actually. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 13:53:12 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:40:51 +0000 (GMT) From: Tim Wells <93tgw@eng.cam.ac.uk> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1100 Lines: 24 On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Andrew Collier wrote: > It will be difficult, if possible, to have the two processors working at > the same time. And I don't see what the SRAM has to do with a comms link. It's not difficult, and I've seen it done on the Spectrum. However you're right on one thing, the SRAM was to do with how I was going to implement that control software for the link, not the link itself. > Fine, if it will work. It might. I don't know. I haven't said we don't > need SRAM, but the design may well need modification. Is it not better to > do this now, before the boards have been manufactured and sold? > > It seems unlikely that a Z380 would be able to access the SRAM properly, > unless the SRAM board was designed with the Z380 in mind. If it isn't, I > don't think the SRAM card is particularly useful. I'm not convinced of your argument here - remove the R from SRAM, and it becomes more obvious. The SRAM will work with the basic SAM, and its paging system. Since the z380 has to implement that paging system for backwards compatibility, I don't see the problem here. Tim W. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 13:53:13 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:44:33 +0000 (GMT) From: Tim Wells <93tgw@eng.cam.ac.uk> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970217111204.00963cb4@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 383 Lines: 11 On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Simon Cooke wrote: > Nope - completely different design for the "two in parallel" design, namely > because two separate processors have to be able to access it... Yes - I was using the SRAM for implementing the software for the link control on one side of the link - ie to be accessed by one processor. The link portion would be completely different. Tim W. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 13:53:13 1997 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970217134931.00932580@nessie.mcc.ac.uk> X-Sender: scooke@nessie.mcc.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 13:49:31 +0000 To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no From: Simon Cooke Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 858 Lines: 21 >WRONG (on all counts) as usual. >Must admit, I'm surprised at the amount of time some people are prepared to >waste just to try and uncover something that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. You post to this list, it becomes our business. There is no need to have any kind of anonymity on this list unless your contribution to the SAM has been along the lines of taking vast quantities of money from people and disappearing without a trace. For which you would probably be removed from the list anyway. > do you have nothing better to do with your time? Isn't multitasking great? This is all getting pathetic now. If I were in a darker frame of mind, I'd take votes on whether or not to remove Samsboss from the mailing list. Not that I want to -- morally, I reckon that's a very bad move. Personally, I couldn't handle the karma backlash. Simon From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 14:03:08 1997 X-Authentication-Warning: dcsun4.comp.brad.ac.uk: lwillis set sender to Relaxed using -f To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. References: X-Mammoth-Status: Aware From: unknown Date: 17 Feb 1997 13:55:59 +0000 In-Reply-To: samsboss@uk.pipeline.com's message of Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:58:31 GMT Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 517 Lines: 17 samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) writes: [Snipped rubbish!] > BTW: This is a fakemail. Not really from samsboss. As you probably guessed > already actually. > True, 'twas from our beloved simon, but you did get the talking rubbish bit right! -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. [ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 14:03:09 1997 From: Gavin Smith Organization: University of Ulster To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:04:28 GMT Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <2A69BE9596B@smserver1.ulst.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1012 Lines: 28 > >I'm bored with this now. SamsBoss is either Bob Brenchley or (as your > header > >indicated) a very close friend or relative. How do we know this? Because > >Gavin Smith found a posting, on DejaNews, where you kindly listed your > name > >after the "from" field. Most generous. It wasn't one posting, it was loads of them. Bob, if you aren't Samsboss, then do you mind him using your name? > >I have to say that I think your conduct in this is really, /really/ bad, > Bob. > > > >Paul > -- > WRONG (on all counts) as usual. > Must admit, I'm surprised at the amount of time some people are prepared to > waste just to try and uncover something that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. Do you have some kind of a problem with your shift key? It is every bit do to with me and the rest of us on the list. How dare you insult some of us, and then hide behind your stupid false name?? > do you have nothing better to do with your time? Plenty, so kindly leave us alone to get on with it. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 14:32:30 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:21:14 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970217091420_-1341027399@emout14.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 3155 Lines: 82 In a message dated 17/02/97 09:56:26, you write: [cut] >With jumps out of code you can avoid the problem of mishmash between >two versions unless one patch relies on bugs (not identified) currently >there. However, such a scheme will eat memory like a Windows application. This may be true in some cases, but what we learn in the process is, in my mind, invaluable. > >The administrative overhead will be enormous for the co-ordinator. The >cost will be quite high too, unless all the patchers, testers and >the co-ordinator is on Internet. :/ > I don't see why. >> >> At the same time the patches can be intergrated into the main source of the >> ROM/DOS. At certain intervals the new source in distributed to all and we >> start anew with that. Sometimes, it could be possible, that a fix can't be >> left in because it does cause problems elsewhere (that are more major than >> the problem the fix is fixing) but at least it points in the right >direction >> and no doubt can be intergrated at a later stage. > >Any voulenteers...? :) It would appear that much of the co-ordination will have to be done from here. > >> >> Now, one thing to bear in mind is that doing things at the moment would be >> very difficult because we would need to blow eproms every other day. >However, >> with the SRAM we can give it a try and if it does not work we have not lost >> anything except time. > >Time is money. > >> >> I feel that once the project is underway we will stand a much better chance >> of seeing what lays ahead for the possible Z380 system - although it is >true >> that I don't see that being written in assembler. > >Uhum...with all due respect, as somebody has said previously, the Z380 >can be made bootable, provided the HW is working, in just a few hours >work. And as I have already said to them, get on with it then. Lets face it, we don't even know where a Z380 assembler is going to come from yet - are we talking about going back to the dark ages of hand assembly? >And from then, all/most old software will be running instantly. >The work needed to make a patched, semiworking, outdated and slow >OS could then have been used in making a professional, modern and >fast working OS. > >However, if you still insist in going along the SRAM lane, please >ensure that it will be compatible with future upgrades. I will try >to help you if I can. But mark my words, it will require a lot of >work which will eventually not be productive. > >If you have a finished product, it is not a big deal to patch it to >suit your needs. However, if you have a dynamic product which also >other people are patching and modifying on. I know what I am speaking >about, I've done both and I'm still doing the latter and it's >pissing me off. > > -Frode > > My feeling is that there is not enough expertise in this group to even consider writing a new Basic for a Z380. What I hope is that, with co-operation, more people can gain that expertise by playing with something that already exists. If you have something that works and you mod it then you see the effects. It is much easier to learn by dissecting than by building from scratch. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 15:10:59 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 15:04:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Justin Skists X-Sender: c93js1@napier.cms.dmu.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970217091420_-1341027399@emout14.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1184 Lines: 30 On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > It would appear that much of the co-ordination will have to be done from > here. With all this bickering on this group, I'm not even sure if this working together is even possible. :( > And as I have already said to them, get on with it then. > Lets face it, we don't even know where a Z380 assembler is going to come from > yet - are we talking about going back to the dark ages of hand assembly? Ermm.. Not quite.. There are so many Z80 cross assemblers out there in C source. How difficult would it be to add a couple more instructions? I admit that this means that another machine (or SAM running CP/M) will be needed, but if that's so, so what? *EVERYONE* here has access to a PC, unix, or SAM/Pro-dos so it wouldn't matter. -- ============================================================================= |Justin Skists (c93js1@dmu.ac.uk) | Artificial Intelligence: | |BSc (Hons) Computer Science, Year 4 | Making computers behave like | |De Montfort University, Leicester, England | they do in the movies. | ============================================================================= From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 16:24:04 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <29562.199702171610@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:09:30 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <199702171258.MAA29565@pipe1.uk.pipeline.com> from "Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com" at Feb 17, 97 12:58:31 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1093 Lines: 26 > WRONG (on all counts) as usual. > Must admit, I'm surprised at the amount of time some people are prepared to > waste just to try and uncover something that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. Wrong (on all counts) as usual. a) It has something to do with me - you're posting to the list, you're insulting people I like, and you have a "holier than thou" attitude with no explaination. Why? b) In this case, please explain the "Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Robert Brenchley)" that Gavin found on DejaNews. Apparently you also wrote under this name to the list to start with, and then claimed it was a joke. I suspect it more likely that you just found out how to use your software properly. > do you have nothing better to do with your time? Yes - which is why I can just leave it running in it's own window, and check on it now and again. Doesn't take much time at all. Now - are you going to admit when you're outvoted? I would say in the wrong, but you never seem to be able to admit that. It's either this, or you get twitted. Twitted might not be a bad idea, actually... Paul From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 16:41:03 1997 X-Authentication-Warning: dcsun4.comp.brad.ac.uk: lwillis set sender to Relaxed using -f To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. References: <29562.199702171610@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> X-Mammoth-Status: Aware From: unknown Date: 17 Feb 1997 16:35:41 +0000 In-Reply-To: Mr P R Walker's message of Mon, 17 Feb 1997 16:09:30 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1518 Lines: 40 Mr P R Walker writes: > > Wrong (on all counts) as usual. > > a) It has something to do with me - you're posting to the list, you're > insulting people I like, and you have a "holier than thou" attitude with > no explaination. Why? > I'm with you on this one .... > b) In this case, please explain the "Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Robert > Brenchley)" that Gavin found on DejaNews. Apparently you also wrote under > this name to the list to start with, and then claimed it was a joke. I suspect > it more likely that you just found out how to use your software properly. > I wouldn't like to speculate, but this is beginning to seem more and more likely. > > do you have nothing better to do with your time? > Apart from abuse you samsboss? yes certainly, but this is _much_ more fun than going to lectures etc. plus it gives me a nice way of relieving tension, and getting all of my angst out of my system, and since you're the cause of most of it this seems the perfect solution. > > Now - are you going to admit when you're outvoted? I would say in the wrong, > but you never seem to be able to admit that. It's either this, or you get > twitted. Twitted might not be a bad idea, actually... Hmm. I agree once again. -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. [ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] From imc Mon Feb 17 17:22:45 1997 Subject: The Net tonight To: sam-users@nvg.unit.no Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:22:45 +0000 (GMT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 PGP6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 1194 Lines: 26 The following is an extract from "The Net" newsletter. It seems to indicate that tonight's programme (at 11.15pm on BBC2) *might* be worth watching for Sinclair enthusiasts (but then again, more than likely they will fail to mention Sinclair at all). imc > You would think from the way Americans go on that they invented the > computer - Bill Clinton certainly seems to think so judging by his recent > inaugural speech. In fact the first computer, the first electronic computer > and the first computer able to store a computer program were all built in > Britain. [snip] > And Dan O'Brien goes retro-gaming, asking just why our hearts skip a beat > when we hear once again the sounds of Space Invaders and Pac-Man? What on > earth makes grown men (mostly) build complex emulators on state-of-the art > machines so that they can once again bounce back those Asteroids? [obligatory notice] > You are welcome to send on or re-post this Newsletter, but *please* include > this identifying paragraph. THE NET is an Illuminations production for BBC > Education. The opinions expressed in it are those of the contributors and > not necessarily those of the BBC or Illuminations Television. From imc Mon Feb 17 17:26:04 1997 Subject: Archives To: sam-users@nvg.unit.no Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 17:26:04 +0000 (GMT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 PGP6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 240 Lines: 8 At long last I have updated my archives of this list up to last Friday... http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/users/ian.collier/Misc/sam-users/ su961116 is the first new one (most of it is old but there are a few extra ones on the end). imc From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 19:30:03 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:22:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@indigo.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <1296.199702171229@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 902 Lines: 22 On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Mr P R Walker wrote: > > If you can boot a disk then most users will be happy until something more > > substantial is sorted out. > > Most users...? Maybe the ones that "fiddle" with their Sam at the moment, but > I doubt if any new ones would be attracted. Why have games consoles caught on then? Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 20:01:00 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:52:43 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@indigo.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970217091420_-1341027399@emout14.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 2130 Lines: 43 On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >Uhum...with all due respect, as somebody has said previously, the Z380 > >can be made bootable, provided the HW is working, in just a few hours > >work. > And as I have already said to them, get on with it then. > Lets face it, we don't even know where a Z380 assembler is going to come from > yet - are we talking about going back to the dark ages of hand assembly? And as I have already said to you, I'm doing what I can to help the project along. I try to answer these emails in such a way that will provide answers to those who care to read them. As I have already said, I've started writing a fast text editor for the Sam, designed such that it can be used as the basis for a Z380 assembler. A manual might help, and I'll have a look at Zilog's URL when I get a bit of time. But please be a little more sensible; nobody can write the Z380 code until we have the Z380. So don't get on your high horse saying "well get on with it" because I see little action from yourself other than messing about with your petty arguments and generally throwing spanners into the works on this list. For example: > My feeling is that there is not enough expertise in this group to even > consider writing a new Basic for a Z380. What I hope is that, with > co-operation, more people can gain that expertise by playing with something > that already exists. If you have something that works and you mod it then you > see the effects. It is much easier to learn by dissecting than by building > from scratch. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 20:01:00 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:55:07 GMT Message-Id: <199702171955.TAA24594@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. From: samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) Cc: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no X-PipeUser: samsboss X-PipeHub: uk.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 640 Lines: 30 On Feb 17, 1997 19:22:41, 'Andrew Collier ' wrote: >On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Mr P R Walker wrote: > >> > If you can boot a disk then most users will be happy until something more >> > substantial is sorted out. >> >> Most users...? Maybe the ones that "fiddle" with their Sam at the moment, >but >> I doubt if any new ones would be attracted. > >Why have games consoles caught on then? > > Because they are /games/ machines for the poor people who have not yet discovered the joys of using a real computer. But may I ask what you are getting at? >Andrew -- Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 20:08:40 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:03:31 GMT Message-Id: <199702172003.UAA27472@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. From: samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) Cc: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no X-PipeUser: samsboss X-PipeHub: uk.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1540 Lines: 53 On Feb 17, 1997 14:04:28, '"Gavin Smith" ' wrote: >> >I'm bored with this now. SamsBoss is either Bob Brenchley or (as your >> header >> >indicated) a very close friend or relative. How do we know this? Because >> >Gavin Smith found a posting, on DejaNews, where you kindly listed your >> name >> >after the "from" field. Most generous. > >It wasn't one posting, it was loads of them. Bob, if you aren't >Samsboss, then do you mind him using your name? There are ways in which 2 + 2 does not make 3 you know. ....Restart program....Logic failier....Return to start.... > >> >I have to say that I think your conduct in this is really, /really/ bad, >> Bob. Oy, leave Bob out of this. >> > >> >Paul >> -- >> WRONG (on all counts) as usual. >> Must admit, I'm surprised at the amount of time some people are prepared to >> waste just to try and uncover something that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. > >Do you have some kind of a problem with your shift key? Not as much as some people on this list. >It is every >bit do to with me and the rest of us on the list. How dare you insult >some of us, and then hide behind your stupid false name?? How do we know your name is real? Get a life! > >> do you have nothing better to do with your time? > >Plenty, so kindly leave us alone to get on with it. All I have ever done on this list is to try my very best to save SAM from harm, sorry you can't say the same thing. > > -- Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 20:11:44 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:07:12 GMT Message-Id: <199702172007.UAA28749@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. From: samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) Cc: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no X-PipeUser: samsboss X-PipeHub: uk.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 807 Lines: 31 On Feb 17, 1997 12:58:31, 'samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com)' wrote: >By the way, you've all not ghot a *CLUE* who Iam. >I'm really Renge Thronk Thripplewood Neek the Third. > >Mad as a brush and Daft as a Hatter I am. > >samsboss (really, I'm actually someone with an inflated opinion as to what >my identity could do to the SAM world if revealed!) > >(I'm bruce gordon. honest.) >(or am I alan miles?) >(or Brent Stevens? Now that wuold be scary) > >Rant rant rant. > >--- > >BTW: This is a fakemail. Not really from samsboss. As you probably guessed >already actually. Could nearly have worked, but sorry, the headers let you down. Better luck next time. -- They seek him here, they seek him there, that damned elusive pimpernel. Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 20:23:56 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:18:21 GMT Message-Id: <199702172018.UAA03026@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. From: samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) Cc: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no X-PipeUser: samsboss X-PipeHub: uk.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 2610 Lines: 66 On Feb 17, 1997 13:18:16, 'Johnna Teare ' wrote: [cutty to savey spacey) >Why does it have nothing to do with us? You talk to us, sometimes >address us by name, and seem to think that you can even insult some >of us. So it is very much in our interests to find out who you are. >We're not trying to do this out of a malicious interest in your life, >just out of natural human curiosity as to who the hell you are. > >It's just such a shame that you can't come out of the closet, tell us >who you are and let us all get on with doing something constructive >with this list and the SAM's future. I am trying to do something constructive, or at least prevent something distructive. I can't understand why others are not helping through the list as I've had support through personal email (is it that some are scared of some of the others on the list?) > >If you are not Bob Brenchley, why were you posting messages under his >name. Does he know about it? And does he mind? RPN > >Personally, i believe that you are him - all your opinions have >mirrored his since I joined this list back in September. You stuck up >for him over the 'Who is West Coast Computers?' argument, then over >the SAM Elite (the game) is a cheap botch job situation, now over >the SAM World argument and, checking Ian's archives, pretty much >anything else that has come up here. Slow down there, do I claim that you are Andrew Collier just because your emails follow the same line as a lot of his - no, of course not. Well just because I happen to have views that are shared by some others, that does not make them me or me them. > >There are tons of postings decorated across the Net with YOUR Email >address, and the real name line saying Robert Brenchley. I think, if you check, you will find they are all within a limited period last year. Pipalinny got its needle stuck and woldn't let little me change it back. > >If you are posting to the list under two names, one has to suspect >you are doing so for come kind of covert reason. Look bud, if I went covert, you would know nothing about it. Zero, nout, bugger all. Stop looking for reds under the bed, they don't exist but can still keep you awake at night thinking about them. > >So why not explain yourself? Have done. >> >> do you have nothing better to do with your time? >> >> Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com >> > >Johnna Pig Teare (JohnnaPig@deathsdoor.com) >JohnnaPig OnLine (www.yi.com/home/TeareJohnna) >"They call me Mad The Swine." -- Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 20:58:55 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 14:26:06 +0100 From: ft@edh.ericsson.se (Frode Tenneboe) Message-Id: <9702171326.AA10459@asmal.edh-net> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 505 Lines: 16 > WRONG (on all counts) as usual. > Must admit, I'm surprised at the amount of time some people are prepared to > waste just to try and uncover something that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. Could you then _please_ explain this entry in WhoWhere? Robert Brenchley samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (click to send e-mail) Service Provider: The Pipeline > > do you have nothing better to do with your time? Yes, we have. -Frode From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 21:03:08 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:56:31 GMT Message-Id: <199702172056.UAA20331@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: stepper motor control using sam From: trevorashby@uk.pipeline.com (Trevor Ashby) X-PipeUser: trevorashby X-PipeHub: uk.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Trevor Ashby) X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 663 Lines: 13 --I am new to the Sam user group so I dont know if this is of interest to any one or not , I have a working system for a 3 axis stepper motor control suitable for use on a milling machine.The motors are driven by machine code routines with geometry input ,tool data offsets handled by BASIC. Origionally I developed the system on the Spectrum but moved onto the Sam later.If there is anyone interested in developing the project further , eg assisting with circuit board deign and manufacture , with a view to commercial distribution ,I would be interested to to talk to them. The current circuit is on a vero board by the way, with a Trevor Ashby From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 21:03:08 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:56:34 GMT Message-Id: <199702172056.UAA20352@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: stepper motor control using sam From: trevorashby@uk.pipeline.com (Trevor Ashby) X-PipeUser: trevorashby X-PipeHub: uk.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Trevor Ashby) X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 743 Lines: 13 --As a new comer to the sam users group I dont know if this will be of interest to anyone or not. If anyone is interested in using the sam to drive stepper motors for controling machine tools ( milling machines, lathes drills ), then I have a 3 axis control system using machine code for the motor drives with geometry ,tool data etc handled in BASIC . I am wanting to know if anyone is interested in marketing the system , also assisting with hardware development ie producing a professional standard of circuit board , as the current one is a vero board home brew . Any comments ? I would be quite happy to provide further specifications to interested parties, Thanks for reading this, Trevor Ashby From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 21:59:53 1997 Message-Id: <9702172057.AA6963@worldcom-59.worldcom.com> To: sam-users From: Stefan Drissen Date: 11 Feb 97 21:11:22 Subject: Re: A Future Problem.t Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1441 Lines: 45 > >Talking of which. You once said something about arrangements for > >forreigners. How is that part coming along? > > Stefan Drissen recently sent a cheque which apparently went down well with > Maria Rookyard... so if Stefan's listening, would he like to explain the > procedure/exactly what he *sent*? ;) I sent a Eurocheque. These things can be written out in whichever european currency you like - which in this case was GBP. :) Contact your bank for getting Eurocheques - there are no bank costs involved plus the exchange rate is very good. Stefan. **************************************** This document should only be read by those persons to whom it is addressed and is not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent written confirmation of its contents. Accordingly, Coopers & Lybrand disclaim all responsibility and accept no liability (including in negligence) for the consequences for any person acting, or refraining from acting, on such information prior to the receipt by those persons of subsequent written confirmation. If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone. Please also destroy and delete the message from your computer. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this E-mail message is strictly prohibited. **************************************** From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Mon Feb 17 22:40:52 1997 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 22:31:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Dave To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. In-Reply-To: <199702172007.UAA28749@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1382 Lines: 45 Am I the only one who is getting really fed up with this? Whoever it is is obviously someone who has nothing better to do with their time but get kicks out of being anonymous. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Fulton (D.A.Fulton@durham.ac.uk) Trevelyan College, University of Durham. PGP public key available on request. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com wrote: > On Feb 17, 1997 12:58:31, 'samsboss@uk.pipeline.com > (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com)' wrote: > > > >By the way, you've all not ghot a *CLUE* who Iam. > >I'm really Renge Thronk Thripplewood Neek the Third. > > > >Mad as a brush and Daft as a Hatter I am. > > > >samsboss (really, I'm actually someone with an inflated opinion as to what > > >my identity could do to the SAM world if revealed!) > > > >(I'm bruce gordon. honest.) > >(or am I alan miles?) > >(or Brent Stevens? Now that wuold be scary) > > > >Rant rant rant. > > > >--- > > > >BTW: This is a fakemail. Not really from samsboss. As you probably guessed > > >already actually. > > Could nearly have worked, but sorry, the headers let you down. Better luck > next time. > -- > They seek him here, they seek him there, that damned elusive pimpernel. > > Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com > From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 09:12:21 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:08:48 +0100 From: ft@edh.ericsson.se (Frode Tenneboe) Message-Id: <9702180908.AA11021@asmal.edh-net> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 3029 Lines: 66 > [cut] > >With jumps out of code you can avoid the problem of mishmash between > >two versions unless one patch relies on bugs (not identified) currently > >there. However, such a scheme will eat memory like a Windows application. > > This may be true in some cases, but what we learn in the process is, in my > mind, invaluable. You learn how the good doctor did his stuff. As far as I can see, his work is excellent, but it suffers from 1) too little time and 2) too little space. 1) is difficult to do anything with, but 2) we can now. And there are completely different critereas writing code when you have enough room and when you don't (Oh..I'm not saying that you can waste space as you like, but it's nice when you don't have to considere space whenever you write a mnemnonic). > > > >The administrative overhead will be enormous for the co-ordinator. The > >cost will be quite high too, unless all the patchers, testers and > >the co-ordinator is on Internet. :/ > > > I don't see why. You don't? Just think about the work this person will have in adding different coding styles into the source, in distributing disks or whatever to the partisipants, to keep track of what changes are done when. Then there is the different editors to consider not to mention IF something goes wrong, to track it down and identify when, where and who! > >> I feel that once the project is underway we will stand a much better > chance > >> of seeing what lays ahead for the possible Z380 system - although it is > >true > >> that I don't see that being written in assembler. > > > >Uhum...with all due respect, as somebody has said previously, the Z380 > >can be made bootable, provided the HW is working, in just a few hours > >work. > And as I have already said to them, get on with it then. > Lets face it, we don't even know where a Z380 assembler is going to come from > yet - are we talking about going back to the dark ages of hand assembly? A Z380 assempler could not that much of a problem. I would guess that a souped up Comet can be made in a couple of days provided the Z380 documentation. Then you would have to have the hardware to test it on... > My feeling is that there is not enough expertise in this group to even > consider writing a new Basic for a Z380. What I hope is that, with > co-operation, more people can gain that expertise by playing with something > that already exists. If you have something that works and you mod it then you > see the effects. It is much easier to learn by dissecting than by building > from scratch. I both agree and disagree. Most of the people on the list are either students in comp.science or professional programmes. Where is the lack of expertise? The idea of building on something that works is fine, but the result will never be better than what the original permits. Designing from scratch will give a better product, and not necessarily slower, but it will take more time before you can see the results. This might be what you are getting at perhaps? -Frode From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 09:24:15 1997 From: Johnna Teare Organization: University of Central Lancashire To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:21:55 GMT+0 Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <124E5F32DC@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 2787 Lines: 69 Here we go [again] > >It's just such a shame that you can't come out of the closet, tell us > >who you are and let us all get on with doing something constructive > >with this list and the SAM's future. > > I am trying to do something constructive, or at least prevent something > distructive. I can't understand why others are not helping through the list > as I've had support through personal email (is it that some are scared of > some of the others on the list?) In what way are they supporting you? In your views, or in your refusal to reveal your identity? > > > >If you are not Bob Brenchley, why were you posting messages under his > >name. Does he know about it? And does he mind? > > RPN AWTHITSTM [and what the hell is that supposed to mean] > > > >Personally, i believe that you are him - all your opinions have > >mirrored his since I joined this list back in September. You stuck up > >for him over the 'Who is West Coast Computers?' argument, then over > >the SAM Elite (the game) is a cheap botch job situation, now over > >the SAM World argument and, checking Ian's archives, pretty much > >anything else that has come up here. > > Slow down there, do I claim that you are Andrew Collier just because your > emails follow the same line as a lot of his - no, of course not. Well just > because I happen to have views that are shared by some others, that does > not make them me or me them. Things is, I have my own identity in the SAM World and most people know that I /couldn't/ be Andrew Collier. Look at my coding compared to his for starters! I've barely got a grasp of BASIC! I'm not saying you are not allowed to support Bob, merely that there are too many coincidences here to make this so easy to brush over. If you are not Bob Brenchley, and many people on this list now believe you are, then you have done uncalcuable damage to his name which is very unfair. > >There are tons of postings decorated across the Net with YOUR Email > >address, and the real name line saying Robert Brenchley. > > I think, if you check, you will find they are all within a limited period > last year. Pipalinny got its needle stuck and woldn't let little me change > it back. But why use the name in the first place? And did you ask Bob? And does he mind? > > > >If you are posting to the list under two names, one has to suspect > >you are doing so for come kind of covert reason. > > Look bud, if I went covert, you would know nothing about it. Zero, nout, > bugger all. Of course, I forgot that you are bloody superhuman compared to the rest of us aren't you... > Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com > Johnna Pig Teare (JohnnaPig@deathsdoor.com) JohnnaPig OnLine (www.yi.com/home/TeareJohnna) "They call me Mad The Swine." From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 09:29:43 1997 Message-Id: <9702181124.AA0681@worldcom-47.worldcom.com> To: sam-users From: Stefan Drissen Date: 18 Feb 97 0:04:49 EDT Subject: Various replies X-Lotus-Type: Internet memo Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 2425 Lines: 54 Just a couple of short replies to some of the messages that have been bouncing around SAM-users. Isn't it fun to have such a high volume rate again? 1. Edwin Blink is still around - living in Groningen, The Netherlands. He has recently moved to a new address though - I've still to contact him. Phone number remains unchanged (+31-505425674). 2. The Z380 assembler question. Why do you automatically assume hand coding a Z380 assembler Bob? A Z380 assembler can easily be written in Z80. This should provide satisfactory results. With the Z380 assembler a Z380 assembler can be written in Z380 to make the most of the new processor. 3. The priorities as to SRAM/Z380. The whole "necessity" of the SRAM to be able to go on is not clear to me. That is essential to have a stable system to be able to continue with the rest of the devolpment does not require the SRAM board. The SRAM board as it is, without a Z380, is in my opinion totally uninteresting. One of the key arguments for getting the SRAM board up and running is that it will allow tinkering to the ROM/DOS etc. A stable ROM/DOS/HDOS system can be written on the SAM AS IS. Sure, it will take up a bit more memory by using RAM but a couple of pages less RAM use does not seem to be a good reason to buy the SRAM. The SRAM is in my opinion only viable when combined with the Z380 - allowing the operating system and utilities to nicely sit in the SRAM reducing the need to load various bits and bobs that you often use. l8r **************************************** This document should only be read by those persons to whom it is addressed and is not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent written confirmation of its contents. Accordingly, Coopers & Lybrand disclaim all responsibility and accept no liability (including in negligence) for the consequences for any person acting, or refraining from acting, on such information prior to the receipt by those persons of subsequent written confirmation. If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify us immediately by telephone. Please also destroy and delete the message from your computer. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this E-mail message is strictly prohibited. **************************************** From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 09:50:30 1997 X-Authentication-Warning: dcsun4.comp.brad.ac.uk: lwillis set sender to Relaxed using -f To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. References: <199702172018.UAA03026@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> X-Mammoth-Status: Aware From: unknown Date: 18 Feb 1997 09:45:39 +0000 In-Reply-To: samsboss@uk.pipeline.com's message of Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:18:21 GMT Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1119 Lines: 37 samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) writes: > > On Feb 17, 1997 13:18:16, 'Johnna Teare ' wrote: > > [cutty to savey spacey) Well aren't you considerate .... > > I am trying to do something constructive, or at least prevent something > distructive. I can't understand why others are not helping through the list > as I've had support through personal email (is it that some are scared of > some of the others on the list?) Why not bounce these messages to the list then (And I do mean bounce, not forward!), or ask the people involved to send them to the list ...? > > > >If you are not Bob Brenchley, why were you posting messages under his > >name. Does he know about it? And does he mind? > > RPN Hmm, obviously a well recognized abbreviation ...... > >So why not explain yourself? > > Have done. ??? -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. [ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 10:00:07 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:50:44 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970218045042_1778835412@emout01.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1489 Lines: 40 In a message dated 17/02/97 10:32:17, you write: >On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Tim Wells wrote: > [CUT] >That system would be included only for backwards compatability. The "real" >SamSon operating system would be written for the flat memory model; ie it >will all be there at once. Well, the real Z380 system will be. I see no reason to complicate the Z380 with paging or backward compatibility - that will be the job of the Z80. > >> Via the other method that I've seen, the two processors run independently, >> and so you will need some SRAM on the z80 side to experiment with building >> a comm-link between the two. > >It will be difficult, if possible, to have the two processors working at >the same time. And I don't see what the SRAM has to do with a comms link. Bad choice of word (comms) what he ment was a way fro the two processors to communicate with each other. No probs. > >> Either way, the SRAM board as currently designed is necessary. > >Fine, if it will work. It might. I don't know. I haven't said we don't >need SRAM, but the design may well need modification. Is it not better to >do this now, before the boards have been manufactured and sold? No, the SRAM is to work with the Z80, not the Z380, so there is no point in waiting. > >It seems unlikely that a Z380 would be able to access the SRAM properly, >unless the SRAM board was designed with the Z380 in mind. If it isn't, I >don't think the SRAM card is particularly useful. In /your/ opinion. > >Andrew Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 10:00:07 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:50:51 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970218045050_1979885908@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 504 Lines: 14 In a message dated 17/02/97 11:07:23, you write: >I consider those replies to be mutually exclusive. > >Andrew You consider what you like. I think I made myself clear, if I did not then, for the record - the move of the ROM+DOS+HDOS into the SRAM is a prerequisite for later stages of development. It also provides an ideal oportunity for some of the people on the list to learn a lot more about how SAM's Basic and DOS work, somehting we need to do before attempting to produce the Z380 board. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 10:00:07 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:50:55 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970218045052_2027268180@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 272 Lines: 11 In a message dated 17/02/97 11:07:23, you write: [cut] >Nope - completely different design for the "two in parallel" design, namely >because two separate processors have to be able to access it... > >Simon Not really, the two processors just need to communicate. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 10:00:08 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:50:51 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970218045048_1946329428@emout03.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1169 Lines: 28 In a message dated 17/02/97 11:02:21, you write: >On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >> In most cases I think I would get the reply "but my software runs at an >> acceptable speed now, otherwise I would not be using it". > >Of course they would say that. There no software that isn't running at an >unacceptable speed because at the moment, they don't need it. I'm forever >getting peed off because the Z80B isn't running fast enough to run my >code at an acceptable speed. Code super-duper-optimisation may be an >answer, but I'm not a demo programmer... A true point, but the big selling point according to Andrew was that it would run all existing software so much faster. > >I think I'll wait until the Z380 comes out before I think about buying the >SRAM if the SRAM isn't being designed to be used with the Z380. I don't >want to waste my money if I'm going to end up buying another >Z380-compatible-SRAM card in the future.. Two different parts, two different jobs, The SRAM will be needed (at least until quite late in development) as well as the extra processor card (which may or may not have its own SRAM on a separate card). Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 10:00:28 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:51:01 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970218045100_-2043397420@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 616 Lines: 21 In a message dated 17/02/97 12:35:13, you write: >> Sorry, but the truth about SAMSBOSS will not be found south of Birmingham. > >I'm bored with this now. SamsBoss is either Bob Brenchley or (as your header >indicated) a very close friend or relative. How do we know this? Because >Gavin Smith found a posting, on DejaNews, where you kindly listed your name >after the "from" field. Most generous. > >I have to say that I think your conduct in this is really, /really/ bad, Bob. > >Paul What have I done? Ok, I'm not prepared to breach a confidence, but I don't know what else I am supposed to have done. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 10:00:29 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:50:58 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970218045058_-2077199310@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 802 Lines: 24 In a message dated 17/02/97 11:46:40, you write: >That does make sense, though space shouldn't be as much of a problem as >usual given that the amount of space available is quite large; 128K or >whatever. That is what Andy first thought when he was told he had 32K. > >I think there are certain routines which will obviously be called very >often, so in some cases they need only to be given to the "fast coder". I >wouldn't especially like to be the coder who had his work thrown away; and >especially since it is a big job, we ought to try to minimise the amount >of work which is repeated. Quite right, athough I would hope that people would be grown up enough about it. And, as I've said, this is one of the reasons for the SRAM project, to provide a good learning curve. > > >Andrew > > Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 10:00:30 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:50:57 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970218045056_-2110275012@emout06.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 2595 Lines: 60 In a message dated 17/02/97 11:33:22, you write: >On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Justin Skists wrote: > >[Bob Brenchley quoted] >> > In most cases I think I would get the reply "but my software runs at an >> > acceptable speed now, otherwise I would not be using it". > >I beg to differ. Ask someone what he thought of Lemmings and (s)he'll >probably say: > >Great game, great graphics, great music, but a bit too slow. >And where's the two-player option? > Quite the reverse, I think most would conclude that the SAM version was as good as most and better than some. And what two player option? >> Of course they would say that. There no software that isn't running at an >> unacceptable speed because at the moment, they don't need it. I'm forever >> getting peed off because the Z80B isn't running fast enough to run my >> code at an acceptable speed. Code super-duper-optimisation may be an >> answer, but I'm not a demo programmer... > >But optimisation can't quite work miracles. Most computers, for example, >would not consider it a difficult task to scroll the screen at 50 fps. >Demos currently stretch Sam to its limits - now you go and look at some >decent PC demos (try http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/psychiclink) and say you >think you could copy them on the Z80B. Of course you can't. The PC is a totally different system. > >With the exception of a *really* big-named product like Lemmings, slow >software just won't sell (don't muddy the issue by talking about Win95 >please) - which is why Sam coders aren't so optimistic as to even try >writing code which plainly doesn't run at a decent speed. The main >candidates for the benefit of acceleration would be Basic programs and >GamesMaster / SCADS games (which really can be slow at the moment). > >> I think I'll wait until the Z380 comes out before I think aabout buying the > >> SRAM if the SRAM isn't being designed to be used with the Z380. I don't >> want to waste my money if I'm going to end up buying another >> Z380-compatible-SRAM card in the future.. > >All I have asked is that we are able attach the Z380, at some point in >time, to the SRAM board which is sold first. Bob, I don't see how you can >maintain that the SRAM is completely seperate; if the SRAM can't support >the Z380 then it does not support the Samson. Please remember that the Samson is a long way away at the end of the road. It will come about if we develope all the bits for the EXISTING SAM and then merge them together into a commercial product. To get there we have to take certain steps, the first of which is the SRAM card. > > >Andrew Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 10:00:31 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:51:03 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970218045102_-2009843884@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 446 Lines: 12 In a message dated 17/02/97 13:28:31, you write: >Seriously have you considered that you ignore everyone's opinion but >your own? Oh no, you can't lumber me with that one. I take very great care to get expert opinions, sift through the facts, look for the possible problems, test a few ideas, talk to everyone, try to work out why a person hold a certain opinion, and then (like a good judge) deside on the basis of the facts before me. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 10:08:53 1997 X-Authentication-Warning: dcsun4.comp.brad.ac.uk: lwillis set sender to Relaxed using -f To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. References: <970218045100_-2043397420@emout08.mail.aol.com> X-Mammoth-Status: Aware From: unknown Date: 18 Feb 1997 10:05:06 +0000 In-Reply-To: BrenchleyR@aol.com's message of Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:51:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 901 Lines: 28 BrenchleyR@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 17/02/97 12:35:13, you write: > > >I'm bored with this now. SamsBoss is either Bob Brenchley or (as your header > >indicated) a very close friend or relative. How do we know this? Because > >Gavin Smith found a posting, on DejaNews, where you kindly listed your name > >after the "from" field. Most generous. > > > >I have to say that I think your conduct in this is really, /really/ bad, > Bob. > > > >Paul > > What have I done? > > Ok, I'm not prepared to breach a confidence, but I don't know what else I am > supposed to have done. > I think this was on the basis that you _are_ samsboss. -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. [ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 10:21:37 1997 From: Johnna Teare Organization: University of Central Lancashire To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:15:22 GMT+0 Subject: Re: The Next Step. X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <1336B54F8C@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 979 Lines: 25 > >I beg to differ. Ask someone what he thought of Lemmings and (s)he'll > >probably say: > > > >Great game, great graphics, great music, but a bit too slow. > >And where's the two-player option? > > > Quite the reverse, I think most would conclude that the SAM version was as > good as most and better than some. And what two player option? > How can you comment on whether SAM Lemmings is better than other versions if you don't even know that the original version of Lemmings had a two-player option?! The SAM version wasn't bad. But I've got the same game on the Amiga and there is no question as to which one i'd load up if I wanted a game of Lemmings. By the time I'd got off the first level on the SAM I could be on level four on the Amiga. A faster processor is essential, and I would certainly invest in one, whereas a SRAM board... >Bob. Johnna Pig Teare (JohnnaPig@deathsdoor.com) JohnnaPig OnLine (www.yi.com/home/TeareJohnna) "They call me Mad The Swine." From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 10:24:24 1997 From: Johnna Teare Organization: University of Central Lancashire To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 10:19:13 GMT+0 Subject: Re: The Next Step. X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <134CA001E0@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 615 Lines: 19 > In a message dated 17/02/97 13:28:31, you write: > > >Seriously have you considered that you ignore everyone's opinion but > >your own? > > Oh no, you can't lumber me with that one. I take very great care to get > expert opinions, sift through the facts, look for the possible problems, test > a few ideas, talk to everyone, try to work out why a person hold a certain > opinion, and then (like a good judge) deside on the basis of the facts before > me. > **Johnna giggles** > Bob. > Johnna Pig Teare (JohnnaPig@deathsdoor.com) JohnnaPig OnLine (www.yi.com/home/TeareJohnna) "They call me Mad The Swine." From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 11:18:07 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 06:15:20 -0500 (EST) From: Gouranga@aol.com Message-ID: <970218061520_1381865884@emout19.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Life to the show required... Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 168 Lines: 7 A friend of mine, in Streatham London needs a lift to the show this weekend, is anybody travelling from anywhere close?? If so, give me a ring on 01382 535963 Colin From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 12:12:45 1997 X-Authentication-Warning: dcsun4.comp.brad.ac.uk: lwillis set sender to Relaxed using -f To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. References: <970218045056_-2110275012@emout06.mail.aol.com> X-Mammoth-Status: Aware From: unknown Date: 18 Feb 1997 12:07:52 +0000 In-Reply-To: BrenchleyR@aol.com's message of Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:50:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1364 Lines: 32 BrenchleyR@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 17/02/97 11:33:22, you write: > > >I beg to differ. Ask someone what he thought of Lemmings and (s)he'll > >probably say: > > > >Great game, great graphics, great music, but a bit too slow. > >And where's the two-player option? > > > Quite the reverse, I think most would conclude that the SAM version was as > good as most and better than some. And what two player option? > Frankly, this is just b#@@&$%^. SAM Lemmings was good, and very impressive considering the SAM's capabilities (And before you criticise me I _do_ not quite a bit about what can and can't be done ...!), but it was nowhere near as fast as the other versions, and hence not quite as hard or good. And if you didn't know the Amiga/PC Versions had a two player option though I'm not sure exactly how it worked ... (Anyone explain it ...) And yes most people would say they were happy with the speed that their software runs, but try asking them if they'd _prefer_ it if it was faster. SAMpaint is fast as is but if it was even faster it'd be instantaneous, the same with comet etc. etc. -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. [ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 12:18:22 1997 X-Authentication-Warning: dcsun4.comp.brad.ac.uk: lwillis set sender to Relaxed using -f To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. References: <970218045102_-2009843884@emout09.mail.aol.com> X-Mammoth-Status: Aware From: unknown Date: 18 Feb 1997 12:13:43 +0000 In-Reply-To: BrenchleyR@aol.com's message of Tue, 18 Feb 1997 04:51:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1684 Lines: 36 BrenchleyR@aol.com writes: > > In a message dated 17/02/97 13:28:31, you write: Can you please sort out your quoting so it gives some indication of who wrote it, saying you write is really no good on a mailing list ... > > >Seriously have you considered that you ignore everyone's opinion but > >your own? > > Oh no, you can't lumber me with that one. I take very great care to get > expert opinions, sift through the facts, look for the possible problems, test > a few ideas, talk to everyone, try to work out why a person hold a certain > opinion, and then (like a good judge) deside on the basis of the facts before > me. > But who has given you the right to be a judge? This is a mailing list of _individuals_ we do not work for you, and we are not subordinate to you or for that matter anyone else. What order we decide on doing things, and what things we do should be taken as a democratic decision, not simply one person bulldozing everyone elses opinions in favour of their own, in many cases simply rejecting or ignoring educated opinions. This will not get us anywhere. You have said that you listen to expert opinion, yet time and time again you have ignored suggestions made by members of this list who I would consider to be experts in their field, so how you can justify this I'd love to know. You have every right to your opinion, but please don't try and enforce it without authority on the rest of this list. -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. [ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 12:18:23 1997 X-Authentication-Warning: dcsun4.comp.brad.ac.uk: lwillis set sender to Relaxed using -f To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Show details please .... X-Mammoth-Status: Aware From: unknown Date: 18 Feb 1997 12:15:41 +0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 507 Lines: 11 Just a thought. I've seen a few new names in the last week-ish. Would it be a good idea for someone to just bung up a quick post with all the details of this weeks show, as I for one have lost them, and there might be a couple of people who haven't heard. -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. [ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 12:28:32 1997 From: Johnna Teare Organization: University of Central Lancashire To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:18:10 GMT+0 Subject: Piece on Spectrums X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <140B02E51@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 388 Lines: 14 Hello, Does anybody fancy writing about 300 words on the value of the ZX Spectrum over the Commodore 64 in terms of the quality of games available for it during teh Eighties? Before the end of today? If so, please mail it to me for eternal gratitude... thank=x Johnna Pig Teare (JohnnaPig@deathsdoor.com) JohnnaPig OnLine (www.yi.com/home/TeareJohnna) "They call me Mad The Swine." From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 12:28:33 1997 From: Johnna Teare Organization: University of Central Lancashire To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:23:40 GMT+0 Subject: Kellogs Bran Flakes X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <155F144C2@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 2124 Lines: 47 Hellooooo, > > >Great game, great graphics, great music, but a bit too slow. > > >And where's the two-player option? > > > > > Quite the reverse, I think most would conclude that the SAM version was as > > good as most and better than some. And what two player option? > > > > Frankly, this is just b#@@&$%^. SAM Lemmings was good, and very > impressive considering the SAM's capabilities (And before you > criticise me I _do_ not quite a bit about what can and can't be done > ...!), but it was nowhere near as fast as the other versions, and > hence not quite as hard or good. And if you didn't know the Amiga/PC > Versions had a two player option though I'm not sure exactly how it > worked ... (Anyone explain it ...) The screen was split into two and the players competed against each other to see who could get the most Lemmings home. The levels were different as far as I could remember aswell. Course, this couldn't have worked on the SAM anyway, coz you'd need two mice. Unles you used the keyboard... > > And yes most people would say they were happy with the speed that > their software runs, but try asking them if they'd _prefer_ it if it > was faster. SAMpaint is fast as is but if it was even faster it'd be > instantaneous, the same with comet etc. etc. Suppose the final SAMSon will be this fast, but the question is - will there be a sAM scene left by the time the SAMSon is released. I mean, we're certainly not talking about this year are we and by then PC's will be so bloody cheap and Microsoft so bloody large and industry standard that we won't stand a cats chance in hell. If it is at all possible, we must do everything we can as soon as we can before we lose all interest outside of this list. > > -- > With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not > a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, > and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. > [ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] > Johnna Pig Teare (JohnnaPig@deathsdoor.com) JohnnaPig OnLine (www.yi.com/home/TeareJohnna) "They call me Mad The Swine." From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 13:11:38 1997 From: Gavin Smith Organization: University of Ulster To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 13:14:51 GMT Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <2BDC9624AD4@smserver1.ulst.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 926 Lines: 30 > >It wasn't one posting, it was loads of them. Bob, if you aren't > >Samsboss, then do you mind him using your name? > > There are ways in which 2 + 2 does not make 3 you know. > ....Restart program....Logic failier....Return to start.... What kind of a stupid reply is that? > > > >> >I have to say that I think your conduct in this is really, /really/ > bad, > >> Bob. > > Oy, leave Bob out of this. How can we leave him out if you have used his name many times on postings to newsgroups (and even a few here). > >It is every > >bit do to with me and the rest of us on the list. How dare you insult > >some of us, and then hide behind your stupid false name?? > > How do we know your name is real? Get a life! Why on earth would I fake the name Gavin Smith?!? Samboss, will you either deny that you are Bob, or apologise to him for using his name, which you have done massive damage to... From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 13:43:53 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:35:01 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970218083500_105726488@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 987 Lines: 32 In a message dated 17/02/97 15:11:32, you write: >On Mon, 17 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >> It would appear that much of the co-ordination will have to be done from >> here. > >With all this bickering on this group, I'm not even sure if this working >together is even possible. :( I know what you mean Justin :) > >> And as I have already said to them, get on with it then. >> Lets face it, we don't even know where a Z380 assembler is going to come >from >> yet - are we talking about going back to the dark ages of hand assembly? > >Ermm.. Not quite.. > >There are so many Z80 cross assemblers out there in C source. How >difficult would it be to add a couple more instructions? > >I admit that this means that another machine (or SAM running CP/M) will be >needed, but if that's so, so what? > >*EVERYONE* here has access to a PC, unix, or SAM/Pro-dos so it wouldn't >matter. Yes but only one person I know on the list has access to a Z80 cross compiler for C. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 13:43:53 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:35:07 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970218083507_1248227882@emout07.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 654 Lines: 23 In a message dated 17/02/97 20:56:11, you write: >> WRONG (on all counts) as usual. >> Must admit, I'm surprised at the amount of time some people are prepared to >> waste just to try and uncover something that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. > >Could you then _please_ explain this entry in WhoWhere? > > Robert Brenchley > samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (click to send e-mail) > Service Provider: The Pipeline > >> >> do you have nothing better to do with your time? > >Yes, we have. > > -Frode No nothing of this, what is the WhoWhere? Could you send me details Frode. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 13:43:53 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:35:12 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970218083512_1845685930@emout10.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: A Question Of Stability Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 812 Lines: 20 There seems to be a feeling that SAM, as it stands, has a stable enough Basic/DOS to allow the next phase of development to go ahead without the need for more work to be done on the system using the SRAM card. Could I just remind people that last year, I think before the talk of the SAMSON project was raised, there were quite a few messages going through this list that said exactly the opposite. There were complaints about SAM C. There were complaints about HDOS. There were complaints about bugs in the ROM. There were complaints about bugs in DOS. All of a sudden, everybody loves the ROM/DOS/HDOS??? I'm told, left, right, and centre, that there is no need to rework the SAM operating system, we can go on an do the Z380 with what we have. Would someone care to explain why the change of heart? Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 13:43:58 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:35:05 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970218083505_785929898@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1461 Lines: 34 In a message dated 17/02/97 16:13:04, you write: [cut] >b) In this case, please explain the "Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Robert >Brenchley)" that Gavin found on DejaNews. Apparently you also wrote under >this name to the list to start with, and then claimed it was a joke. I >suspect >it more likely that you just found out how to use your software properly. I think you will find that he used other names when he first posted, Bruce Gordon is on several that I still have on backup tape. > >> do you have nothing better to do with your time? > >Yes - which is why I can just leave it running in it's own window, and check >on it now and again. Doesn't take much time at all. > >Now - are you going to admit when you're outvoted? I would say in the wrong, >but you never seem to be able to admit that. It's either this, or you get >twitted. Twitted might not be a bad idea, actually... Sorry Paul, but I could not resist replying to this one, since when has this been a democracy? There is not voting here. You may believe he's wrong, that is your opinion based on your knowledge if the situation. You are entitled to that opinion and you are entitled to state that opinion. It does not make you right, anymore than a different opinion makes SAMSBOSS wrong. The truth of the matter is that anyone with any REAL WORLD experience will see the logic that SAMSBOSS put forward in his posting and will do well to heed the warning he gave. > >Paul Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 13:43:58 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 08:35:10 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970218083509_1514430890@emout08.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: A Future Problem.t Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 914 Lines: 24 In a message dated 17/02/97 22:01:08, you write: >> >Talking of which. You once said something about arrangements for >> >forreigners. How is that part coming along? >> >> Stefan Drissen recently sent a cheque which apparently went down well with >> Maria Rookyard... so if Stefan's listening, would he like to explain the >> procedure/exactly what he *sent*? ;) > >I sent a Eurocheque. These things can be written out in whichever >european currency you like - which in this case was GBP. :) > >Contact your bank for getting Eurocheques - there are no bank >costs involved plus the exchange rate is very good. > > >Stefan. Only one problem with Erocheques, many Building Socs won't accept them. Lloyds Bank credit them but with 14 days hold. Midland (who West Coast were with when they started) required them to be paid in on a special slip and they did not reach the account for 12 bank working days. Bob. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 14:27:02 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 09:12:46 -0500 (EST) From: BrenchleyR@aol.com Message-ID: <970218091242_-1240383329@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 2230 Lines: 57 In a message dated 18/02/97 12:14:50, you write: >BrenchleyR@aol.com writes: >> >> In a message dated 17/02/97 13:28:31, you write: > >Can you please sort out your quoting so it gives some indication of >who wrote it, saying you write is really no good on a mailing list ... Well its all you are getting because it is all that the software can do. > >> >> >Seriously have you considered that you ignore everyone's opinion but >> >your own? >> >> Oh no, you can't lumber me with that one. I take very great care to get >> expert opinions, sift through the facts, look for the possible problems, >test >> a few ideas, talk to everyone, try to work out why a person hold a certain >> opinion, and then (like a good judge) deside on the basis of the facts >before >> me. >> > >But who has given you the right to be a judge? This is a mailing list >of _individuals_ we do not work for you, and we are not subordinate to >you or for that matter anyone else. What order we decide on doing >things, and what things we do should be taken as a democratic >decision, not simply one person bulldozing everyone elses opinions in >favour of their own, in many cases simply rejecting or ignoring >educated opinions. I never ignore opinions, educated or not, but I may, in the light of other opinions and based on the knowledge of what is being talked about, decide to reject those opinions. >This will not get us anywhere. You have said that >you listen to expert opinion, yet time and time again you have ignored >suggestions made by members of this list who I would consider to be >experts in their field, so how you can justify this I'd love to know. I refer to my answer above. >You have every right to your opinion, but please don't try and enforce >it without authority on the rest of this list. > You cannot do something like this without someone making the decisions - if you do you end up with Windows 95. >-- >With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not >a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, >and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. >[ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] Like the V1 rockets, if they were overhead - you were safe. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 14:27:02 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:18:43 +0100 From: ft@edh.ericsson.se (Frode Tenneboe) Message-Id: <9702181418.AA11388@asmal.edh-net> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 221 Lines: 9 > No nothing of this, what is the WhoWhere? Could you send me details Frode. > Try this URL (one-liner if it splits): http://query1.whowhere.com/jwz/name.wsrch?name=samboss&org=uk.pipeline.com&match=inexact > Bob. > From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 14:56:01 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:48:49 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@navy.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970218091242_-1240383329@emout04.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1279 Lines: 28 On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > I never ignore opinions, educated or not, but I may, in the light of other > opinions and based on the knowledge of what is being talked about, decide to > reject those opinions. > > >This will not get us anywhere. You have said that > >you listen to expert opinion, yet time and time again you have ignored > >suggestions made by members of this list who I would consider to be > >experts in their field, so how you can justify this I'd love to know. > > I refer to my answer above. I cannot recall one single example of you ever changing your mind because of something anybody said, or of you ever apologising or admitting you were in the wrong. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 14:56:02 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:37:42 +0100 From: ft@edh.ericsson.se (Frode Tenneboe) Message-Id: <9702181437.AA11402@asmal.edh-net> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: A Question Of Stability X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1429 Lines: 37 > There seems to be a feeling that SAM, as it stands, has a stable enough > Basic/DOS to allow the next phase of development to go ahead without the need > for more work to be done on the system using the SRAM card. > > Could I just remind people that last year, I think before the talk of the > SAMSON project was raised, there were quite a few messages going through this > list that said exactly the opposite. > > There were complaints about SAM C. Has this relevance to the SRAM? The only complaint I've heard was that it's not a complete C. > There were complaints about HDOS. > There were complaints about bugs in the ROM. > There were complaints about bugs in DOS. > > All of a sudden, everybody loves the ROM/DOS/HDOS??? I'm told, left, right, > and centre, that there is no need to rework the SAM operating system, we can > go on an do the Z380 with what we have. > > Would someone care to explain why the change of heart? Indeed - they are buggy. I can only speak for myself, but I feel that we should not take an old product(s), already full of bugs, port it to a virtually new platform, with the danger of introducing new bugs in the processes. If we get a Z380 board (or whatever), I would like to keep the 'old' SAM compability mode and boot the old software. But on the new board I want something which is new, bugfree (:-), multitasking, etc, and is maintanable for the maintainers. -Frode > > Bob. > From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 14:56:02 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 14:45:41 +0000 (GMT) From: Andrew Collier X-Sender: asc25@navy.csi.cam.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: A Question Of Stability In-Reply-To: <970218083512_1845685930@emout10.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 2099 Lines: 51 On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > There seems to be a feeling that SAM, as it stands, has a stable enough > Basic/DOS to allow the next phase of development to go ahead without the need > for more work to be done on the system using the SRAM card. > > Could I just remind people that last year, I think before the talk of the > SAMSON project was raised, there were quite a few messages going through this > list that said exactly the opposite. > > There were complaints about SAM C. Who wants to write the SamSon OS in C? For a start it produces Sam Code, Not Samson code. > There were complaints about HDOS. It has an inconvenient syntax, as far as I know. But that doesn't make it unusable. > There were complaints about bugs in the ROM. > There were complaints about bugs in DOS. There are some obscure Basic bugs, and one or two Dos bugs, but they don't make the system unstable. Indeed, they're probably so well hidden that we'll never iron them out. > All of a sudden, everybody loves the ROM/DOS/HDOS??? I'm told, left, right, > and centre, that there is no need to rework the SAM operating system, we can > go on an do the Z380 with what we have. > > Would someone care to explain why the change of heart? No change of heart. The ROM/DOS/HDOSs aren't perfect, but a rewritten SamSon OS would not suffer as a result of their problems. On the other hand, to base the OS around hacked-up, old code for the wrong processor, would produce a limited system even less efficient than Win95. Andrew +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Opportunities are usually disguised | Andrew Collier, 1A NatSci | | as hard work, so most people don't | email asc25@hermes.cam.ac.uk | | recognise them -fortune | Selwyn College, Cambridge | +-------------------------------------+------------------------------+ | Construction work in progress at http://brain.sel.cam.ac.uk/~asc25 | | -= Enter at your own risk =- | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 15:30:09 1997 Message-Id: From: ee31ag@ee.surrey.ac.uk (Andrew M Gale) Subject: Re: Piece on Spectrums To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:22:52 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <140B02E51@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> from "Johnna Teare" at Feb 18, 97 12:18:10 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 343 Lines: 11 > Does anybody fancy writing about 300 words on the value of the ZX > Spectrum over the Commodore 64 in terms of the quality of games > available for it during teh Eighties? > Well, I might be able to if that was the truth, but we all know the C64 trounced the speccy. And I think it was a big mistake me saying that on this list....! -A From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 15:36:41 1997 From: Gavin Smith Organization: University of Ulster To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:38:05 GMT Subject: Re: Piece on Spectrums X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <2C02BE3220B@smserver1.ulst.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 757 Lines: 17 > > Does anybody fancy writing about 300 words on the value of the ZX > > Spectrum over the Commodore 64 in terms of the quality of games > > available for it during teh Eighties? > > > > Well, I might be able to if that was the truth, but we > all know the C64 trounced the speccy. And I think it > was a big mistake me saying that on this list....! *GASP!!!* :) He did say in the quality of the games though, so I assume he means gameplay and not graphics/sound etc...in which case, YES! The Speccy did have better quality games and more of them I had (and still have) both. Dunno if I could write 300 words about it though (read: Dunno if I could be arsed :) What's it for? If it is important I'm free for the next few hours and give it a go... From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 16:14:00 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:02:03 +0100 Message-Id: <97021816020374@morse.ntu.ac.uk> From: CC604050@ntu.ac.uk (ALLAN CLARKSON / NORTHERN SAM & SPECTRUM SHOW) To: SAM-USERS@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: The 2nd NSSS X-VMS-To: SAM-USERS@NVG.UNIT.NO Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1053 Lines: 47 The Second Northern SAM & Spectrum Show takes place this Saturday! Be there - in Wetherby, West Yorkshire (in between Leeds and York). Get a bus from Leeds or York or Harrogate - or some National Express coaches go through. Or take the A1 towards Leeds, and take the turn-off to Wetherby (the A1 is very close to Wetherby - you could walk from the A1 to Wetherby in five mins!) There'll be signposts in Wetherby, but if you get lost, the hall is on Bank Street, and it's just around the corner from the Town Hall. Doors open at 10:30am and close at 4:30pm - 1 pound 50 pence entry - under 10's get in free. For more details or last minute stand bookings email CC604050@ntu.ac.uk There's lots of stands there - Persona, Fred Publishing, Crashed, Format, SD Software, Spectrum Grupa (Holland), JRC Speccy Specials... AND MORE! So come along for a great day out. Looking forward to seeing you there! Allan... PS - Check out the NSSS on the Net! http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/sskardon/cind.html (It's beneath the Crashed stuff!) From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 17:18:00 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:12:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Justin Skists X-Sender: c93js1@napier.cms.dmu.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: The Next Step. In-Reply-To: <970218083500_105726488@emout04.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1298 Lines: 33 On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > >*EVERYONE* here has access to a PC, unix, or SAM/Pro-dos so it wouldn't > >matter. > > Yes but only one person I know on the list has access to a Z80 cross compiler > for C. I have aswell.. And it's been mentioned on here before that there is CP/M Z80 C compiler. not quite 100% ANSI but close enough (and it's PD) . But it doesn't work with my version of Pro-DOS. But there's nothing wrong with using it with a PC CP/M emulator. I can't remember which emulator I use, but I can give you the name when I check it when I get home. The Z80 C Compiler for CP/M can be found at http://oak.oakland.edu/oak/cpm/hitech-c-pre.html which in in Oakland University's CP/M archive. The trouble is that the compiled programs only work in Pro-DOS and not native SAM. But you can always write the surrounding code and transport it across like I do.. -- ============================================================================= |Justin Skists (c93js1@dmu.ac.uk) | Artificial Intelligence: | |BSc (Hons) Computer Science, Year 4 | Making computers behave like | |De Montfort University, Leicester, England | they do in the movies. | ============================================================================= From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 19:03:11 1997 From: Johnna Teare Organization: University of Central Lancashire To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:53:08 GMT+0 Subject: Re: Piece on Spectrums X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Message-ID: <7D65B77C1@mail-gw.uclan.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1288 Lines: 31 > > > Does anybody fancy writing about 300 words on the value of the ZX > > > Spectrum over the Commodore 64 in terms of the quality of games > > > available for it during teh Eighties? > > > > > > > Well, I might be able to if that was the truth, but we > > all know the C64 trounced the speccy. And I think it > > was a big mistake me saying that on this list....! > > *GASP!!!* :) > He did say in the quality of the games though, so I assume he means > gameplay and not graphics/sound etc...in which case, YES! The Speccy > did have better quality games and more of them I had (and still > have) both. Dunno if I could write 300 words about it though (read: > Dunno if I could be arsed :) > What's it for? If it is important I'm free for the next few > hours and give it a go... Just for a mates website - he's got some stuff up on old computers, but underneath the speccy stuff he goes on about how ace th C64 is. And i didn't thin kthat that was very fair. So I offreed to rewrite it for him. Don't get me wrong, I owned a C64 as well (although not until AFTER my Speccy died) but apart from Invaderload it wasn't as good as teh Speccy IMHO. > Johnna Pig Teare (JohnnaPig@deathsdoor.com) JohnnaPig OnLine (www.yi.com/home/TeareJohnna) "They call me Mad The Swine." From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 19:22:55 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <4560.199702181919@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: The Next Step. To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:19:45 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <970218091242_-1240383329@emout04.mail.aol.com> from "BrenchleyR@aol.com" at Feb 18, 97 09:12:46 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 586 Lines: 19 > >who wrote it, saying you write is really no good on a mailing list ... > Well its all you are getting because it is all that the software can do. Hmm. Crap software. > opinions and based on the knowledge of what is being talked about, decide to > reject those opinions. Never seen you accept one yet... Not that I remember, anyway. > You cannot do something like this without someone making the decisions - if > you do you end up with Windows 95. Fine - but I don't remember anyone saying you would make the decisions. And you're /still/ wrong about why Win95 is slow. Paul From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 19:27:21 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:23:03 +0000 (GMT) From: Justin Skists X-Sender: c93js1@napier.cms.dmu.ac.uk To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: A Question Of Stability/etc In-Reply-To: <970218083512_1845685930@emout10.mail.aol.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 2500 Lines: 60 On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 BrenchleyR@aol.com wrote: > Would someone care to explain why the change of heart? Certainly, Bob. I can explain. The reason why everyone was complaining before is that we want the best out of our SAM. The best operating sytem possible. The best graphics library possible (oops, no-one's mentioned that). The best language possible. The someone thought up the idea of a Z380 card. We though 'WOW! GIMME GIMME GIMME!!!'. All the old ideas of SAMDOS/HDOS/ROM bug-fixes are, IMHO, no longer required. Just put all the effort into the Z380. All the ROM/DOS/HDOS/SAM-C/etc. Because, anyone on here who cared about bug-fixes WANT the Z380 and want the best best operating system etc for that! To tell you the truth, I can't see why we're bothering doing all this work for the Z80B when it'll be practically wasted when the Z380 board arrives. So. To summerise what I think in priority: 1) Z380 card. If this is not viable, then fair enough. If I buy any of these add-ons, this will be the one I'll buy. I want/need the extra speed/flat-memory. As I think most people on here agree. (Will it be possible for the Z380 to view the internal 512K as a flat model? - doubt it) Card should have slots to add memory cards, etc which the SRAM card should be one of them. (or built onto the main board) Possible memory structure:- ---------------------------------------- 0K : 64K Internal SAM RAM as seen by SAM. : : (paging as normal required) : ---------------------------------------- 64K : : : 128K SRAM : : : : : ---------------------------------------- 192K : : : The rest as add-on simm modules etc : : : 2) SRAM card. For the Z380. Built as an add-on for the Z380 to house code for ROM, OS, graphics routines, built especially for the Z380. 3) SAM ANSI C. Built for Z380 to compile Z380 specific compiled code with its flat memory model, etc. -- ============================================================================= |Justin Skists (c93js1@dmu.ac.uk) | Artificial Intelligence: | |BSc (Hons) Computer Science, Year 4 | Making computers behave like | |De Montfort University, Leicester, England | they do in the movies. | ============================================================================= From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 19:27:21 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <4793.199702181924@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:24:32 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <970218083505_785929898@emout05.mail.aol.com> from "BrenchleyR@aol.com" at Feb 18, 97 08:35:05 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1249 Lines: 29 > >it more likely that you just found out how to use your software properly. > I think you will find that he used other names when he first posted, Bruce > Gordon is on several that I still have on backup tape. Not sure about that.. but it doesn't really matter anyway, 'cos I won't see him again. :) > Sorry Paul, but I could not resist replying to this one, since when has this > been a democracy? There is not voting here. You may believe he's wrong, that Silly of me, I thought this was something we were doing all together. Suddenly it's a Bob Brenchley product? > that opinion and you are entitled to state that opinion. It does not make you > right, anymore than a different opinion makes SAMSBOSS wrong. Agreed. On the other hand, when everyone else thinks that you're wrong, it does tend to make you wonder. Well ... most normal people anyway. > The truth of the matter is that anyone with any REAL WORLD experience will > see the logic that SAMSBOSS put forward in his posting and will do well to Possibly, but I still think that some of the assumptions he made are wrong - no matter how good your logic, if the initial assumption is wrong the conclusions are wrong. Anyone else with "REAL WORLD" experience care to comment? Paul From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 19:32:41 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <4992.199702181927@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:27:40 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <970218045100_-2043397420@emout08.mail.aol.com> from "BrenchleyR@aol.com" at Feb 18, 97 04:51:01 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 290 Lines: 9 > What have I done? Ok, I'm not prepared to breach a confidence, but I don't > know what else I am supposed to have done. Not breaching a confidence is fine, but the message was written on the basis that you are samsboss - and I'm still not really convinced otherwise, I'm afraid. Paul From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 19:32:41 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <5018.199702181928@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: The Next Step. To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:28:45 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <970218045056_-2110275012@emout06.mail.aol.com> from "BrenchleyR@aol.com" at Feb 18, 97 04:50:57 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 287 Lines: 9 > Quite the reverse, I think most would conclude that the SAM version was as > good as most and better than some. And what two player option? Graphics were nice, but it played very slowly. "What two player option..." You have /played/ Lemmings on another computer, haven't you? Paul From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 19:45:00 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <5418.199702181936@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:36:07 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <199702172003.UAA27472@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> from "Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com" at Feb 17, 97 08:03:31 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 494 Lines: 20 > There are ways in which 2 + 2 does not make 3 you know. > ....Restart program....Logic failier....Return to start.... A reply that bears to resemblance to the question. Well done - although not that different to your normal ones. > Oy, leave Bob out of this. Why? > >some of us, and then hide behind your stupid false name?? > How do we know your name is real? Get a life! Even if it isn't, it's a bit less obvious than "samsboss", wouldn't you say? Bit less arrogant too. Paul From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 19:45:00 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <5431.199702181937@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: The Next Step. To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:37:06 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: from "Andrew Collier" at Feb 17, 97 07:22:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 274 Lines: 9 > > Most users...? Maybe the ones that "fiddle" with their Sam at the moment, but > > I doubt if any new ones would be attracted. > Why have games consoles caught on then? Completely different market, different approach - and far more power to do things with. Next? Paul From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 19:45:00 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <5595.199702181940@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:39:44 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: from "unknown" at Feb 17, 97 04:35:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 93 Lines: 6 > Hmm. I agree once again. Have to stop doing that - people will start talking... ;) Paul From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 19:45:00 1997 From: Mr P R Walker Message-Id: <5633.199702181940@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:40:34 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <2A69BE9596B@smserver1.ulst.ac.uk> from "Gavin Smith" at Feb 17, 97 02:04:28 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 152 Lines: 6 > It wasn't one posting, it was loads of them. Bob, if you aren't > Samsboss, then do you mind him using your name? Bob...? No answer so far... Paul From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 20:22:02 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:16:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Tim Wells <93tgw@eng.cam.ac.uk> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: A Question Of Stability/etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 315 Lines: 11 On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Justin Skists wrote: > To tell you the truth, I can't see why we're bothering doing all this > work for the Z80B when it'll be practically wasted when the Z380 board > arrives. Have a look back in Ian's archives - the reasons were all there when the project was first put forward. Tim W. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 21:34:05 1997 From: Stacey Witney To: Sam Users Subject: SAM Technical Manual Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:18:12 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <856300985.57432.0@huggable.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 188 Lines: 8 Does anybody know of a source of the Sam Technical Manual? Or perhaps could someone lend me their copy for a few days so I can copy it? I'll pay any reasonable price.... Thanks, Stacey From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 21:41:32 1997 From: Gavin Smith Organization: University of Ulster To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:42:45 GMT Subject: Re: SAM Technical Manual X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.23) Message-ID: <2C63FC378E7@smserver1.ulst.ac.uk> Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 264 Lines: 7 > Does anybody know of a source of the Sam Technical Manual? Or perhaps could > someone lend me their copy for a few days so I can copy it? > > I'll pay any reasonable price.... Bob at Formatpub@aol.com should be able to help you. I think its about 14/15 quid. From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 22:08:47 1997 Message-Id: From: ee31ag@ee.surrey.ac.uk (Andrew M Gale) Subject: SAM Hardware guide... To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:05:10 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <2C63FC378E7@smserver1.ulst.ac.uk> from "Gavin Smith" at Feb 18, 97 09:42:45 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 314 Lines: 10 Does anybody remember Adrian Parker's Hardware Course in the Newsdisk? Well, I was wondering about putting together a short book on designing hardware for the SAM - only a small thing, and probably not so much for the novice as Adrian's course. Would anybody be interested in such a thing for a few quid?! -ANdy From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 23:07:33 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:58:14 GMT Message-Id: <199702182258.WAA27002@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. From: samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) Cc: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no X-PipeUser: samsboss X-PipeHub: uk.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 3528 Lines: 110 On Feb 18, 1997 09:21:55, 'Johnna Teare ' wrote: >Here we go [again] > >> >It's just such a shame that you can't come out of the closet, tell us >> >who you are and let us all get on with doing something constructive >> >with this list and the SAM's future. >> >> I am trying to do something constructive, or at least prevent something >> distructive. I can't understand why others are not helping through the list >> as I've had support through personal email (is it that some are scared of >> some of the others on the list?) > >In what way are they supporting you? In your views, or in your >refusal to reveal your identity? >> > >> >If you are not Bob Brenchley, why were you posting messages under his >> >name. Does he know about it? And does he mind? >> >> RPN > >AWTHITSTM >[and what the hell is that supposed to mean] Reverse Polish Notation. In other words, when you finally admit your logic is wrong, try standing it on its head - you could be nearer the answer. >> > >> >Personally, i believe that you are him - all your opinions have >> >mirrored his since I joined this list back in September. Glory, glory, glory, to be compared with and mistaken for.... No, I am unfit to even mention the name of the great one. >> >You stuck up >> >for him over the 'Who is West Coast Computers?' argument. So? >> >then over >> >the SAM Elite (the game) is a cheap botch job situation, Good game, good game! (but no long chin) >> >now over >> >the SAM World argument and, I think you will find that he is sticking up for me on that one. >> >checking Ian's archives, pretty much >> >anything else that has come up here. >> > >Things is, I have my own identity in the SAM World and most people >know that I /couldn't/ be Andrew Collier. Look at my coding compared >to his for starters! I've barely got a grasp of BASIC! I'm not saying >you are not allowed to support Bob, merely that there are too many >coincidences here to make this so easy to brush over. Who is /most people/ I've asked the guy that sits next to me at work and he has never heard of you. Mind you, he had never heard of SAM until I came along, now he's got my spare to let his son have a go at Basic. > >If you are not Bob Brenchley, and many people on this list now >believe you are, then you have done uncalcuable damage to his name >which is very unfair. Who me? When? Where? Comeon, show me. > >> >There are tons of postings decorated across the Net with YOUR Email >> >address, and the real name line saying Robert Brenchley. >> >> I think, if you check, you will find they are all within a limited period >> last year. Pipalinny got its needle stuck and woldn't let little me change >> it back. > >But why use the name in the first place? And did you ask Bob? And >does he mind? Mind you own business. >> > >> >If you are posting to the list under two names, one has to suspect >> >you are doing so for come kind of covert reason. >> >> Look bud, if I went covert, you would know nothing about it. Zero, nout, >> bugger all. > >Of course, I forgot that you are bloody superhuman compared to the >rest of us aren't you... No, maybe not, but at least I use the brain I have. > >> Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com >> > >Johnna Pig Teare (JohnnaPig@deathsdoor.com) >JohnnaPig OnLine (www.yi.com/home/TeareJohnna) >"They call me Mad The Swine." -- Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 23:07:33 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:58:29 GMT Message-Id: <199702182258.WAA27083@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: Piece on Spectrums From: samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) Cc: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no X-PipeUser: samsboss X-PipeHub: uk.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 729 Lines: 23 On Feb 18, 1997 15:22:52, 'ee31ag@ee.surrey.ac.uk (Andrew M Gale)' wrote: >> Does anybody fancy writing about 300 words on the value of the ZX >> Spectrum over the Commodore 64 in terms of the quality of games >> available for it during teh Eighties? >> > >Well, I might be able to if that was the truth, but we >all know the C64 trounced the speccy. And I think it >was a big mistake me saying that on this list....! > >-A In the world at large maybe, but in the UK the Speccy outsold the 64 2 to 1 and on the software front it outsold it about 5 to 1. There were some very interesting figures in an old issue of Your Computer, around 1986/87 I think from memory. > -- Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 23:07:34 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:58:08 GMT Message-Id: <199702182258.WAA26977@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. From: samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) Cc: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no X-PipeUser: samsboss X-PipeHub: uk.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 588 Lines: 26 On Feb 17, 1997 14:26:06, 'ft@edh.ericsson.se (Frode Tenneboe)' wrote: >> WRONG (on all counts) as usual. >> Must admit, I'm surprised at the amount of time some people are prepared to >> waste just to try and uncover something that has NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. > >Could you then _please_ explain this entry in WhoWhere? > >Robert Brenchley >samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (click to send e-mail) >Service Provider: The Pipeline > No, can you? >> >> do you have nothing better to do with your time? > >Yes, we have. > >-Frode -- Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com From owner-sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Tue Feb 18 23:07:34 1997 Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:58:21 GMT Message-Id: <199702182258.WAA27044@pipe2.uk.pipeline.com> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Subject: Re: THE TRUTH IS NOT IN HERE. From: samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) Cc: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no X-PipeUser: samsboss X-PipeHub: uk.pipeline.com X-PipeGCOS: (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) X-Mailer: Pipeline v3.5.0 Reply-To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no Status: RO Content-Length: 1557 Lines: 56 On Feb 18, 1997 09:45:39, 'unknown ' wrote: >samsboss@uk.pipeline.com (Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com) writes: >> >> On Feb 17, 1997 13:18:16, 'Johnna Teare ' wrote: >> >> [cutty to savey spacey) > >Well aren't you considerate .... That's me folks! Considerate to the core. > >> >> I am trying to do something constructive, or at least prevent something >> distructive. I can't understand why others are not helping through the list >> as I've had support through personal email (is it that some are scared of >> some of the others on the list?) > >Why not bounce these messages to the list then (And I do mean bounce, >not forward!), or ask the people involved to send them to the list >....? Because that would be unethical, if people write to me it would not be write to post copies in such a public place. > >> > >> >If you are not Bob Brenchley, why were you posting messages under his >> >name. Does he know about it? And does he mind? >> >> RPN > >Hmm, obviously a well recognized abbreviation ...... Yes, look it up in any computer dictionary. > >> >So why not explain yourself? >> >> Have done. > >??? Yes, I've got a ? on my keyboard as well :) > >-- >With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not >a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, >and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. >[ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/rfc/rfc1925.txt.gz] -- Samsboss@uk.pipeline.com