CompuServe Thread

New 3000

22 messages in this thread
#113499From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Jul 18, 1990 12:30 AM
To All, I have just gotten my 3000 with the 1950 monitor. Wow! What an experience after five years with stock 68000 machines (1000 and 2000's)and standard monitors. Right now I'm just playing with it to get a feel for the operating system. Has anybody gotten Word Perfect to work on 2.0? Very flakey. Fragmented characters all over the screen. Unpredictable responses to the function keys. And more. Is this a problem with 2.0 or WP or both? WP customer support will not even comment on a OS 2.0 version. I know that OS 1.3 is loaded onto the hard drive, but where is it? Can't find it with info or dir. Are there hidden files as in MSDOS? The 2.0 C directory has far fewer files than in 1.3. There is no 'run' command yet 'run' works. Anybody know where 'run' is? In Kickstart? Therefore 'internal?' Drive Work: has 73 buffers, drive System2.0: has 51 buffers. There are no addbuffers commands in startup-sequence for these drives. Where does this take place? The manuals are silent on these kinds of things. Will the 'final release' ROM version of 2.0 handle things differently? I'm sure there are lots of other operational changes which are not yet firm and therefore not fully documented. Just curious if anyone is familiar with these things. What a great machine! I can look at the screen for hours without getting eye irritation! 8) Rich
#113552From: Salomon FarinJul 18, 1990 10:53 AM
I don't have Word Perfect but I can help you on the other questions. The partion for 1.3 is hidden by the beta os, to select the os you want to use for you session push both mouse buttons at bootup. After that (if you selected in 2.0) pushing both mouse buttons when you reset will allow you to select which drive the computer will boot from and what devices are available. When I list the files in the 2.0 C directory I get more than what in the 1.3 C directory, I don't mean to be condesent but did you type your DIR correctly? "DIR C:"? When you boot up beta 2.0 loads preforms its own internal start-up sequence where it loads up things that should be in rom, it may also be adding buffers to the hard drive according to size or from some hidden autoconfigurating of the hard drive (I'm just guessing). BTW: how do you find out many buffers a drive has? Salomon Farin (73737,2421) Miami Beach, FL
#113561From: Matthew J. W. RatcliffJul 18, 1990 12:21 PM
run, and some other commands are internal to the shell now, like alias was/is under 1.3.
#113827From: Salomon FarinJul 19, 1990 10:18 PM
OOOPS, sorry, my mistake. I just checked, and your right. Salomon Farin (73737,2421) Miami Beach, FL
#113585From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Jul 18, 1990 4:33 PM
Salomon, My 2.0 C directory has far fewer commands than its 1.3 counterpart. As you have said, some commands are 'interna'l now. The addbuffers command now gives the number of buffers assigned to a drive. Typing Adbuffers System2.0: results in the message System2.0 has 1 buffers Work: comes up with 28 buffers. The manual suggests more than 1 buffer for any drive. I have usually used 100 on my seagate 251-1 in my 2000. I wonder why they didn't assign more than 1 buffer as a default? I can't really see a performance difference by adding buffers (yet). Rich
#113697From: Harry ManolopoulosJul 18, 1990 10:07 PM
You must hold down the mouse button on power up, not just bootup. BTW, the system remembers 1.3 or 2.0 when rebooted. HarryM
#113929From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Jul 21, 1990 2:06 AM
Harry, Everyone misunderstood my complaint that I could not 'find' the 1.3 OS on the 3000's hard drive. I meant that I could not access it via 'dir' or 'list' or 'info' or any other command used to display the contents of the disk. It's a 'hidden set of files. Rich
#113828From: Salomon FarinJul 19, 1990 10:18 PM
Yep, there internal I forgot about all those programs I added to the c: directory, sorry. I've heard that adding buffers slows down hard drives, but the quantum drives inside the a3000 are MUCH faster than the seagate I own. Salomon Farin (73737,2421) Miami Beach, FL
#113930From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Jul 21, 1990 2:06 AM
Salomon, The Quantum/3000 controller is indeed a fast combo. Much faster than the Seagate 251-1/2090A controller combination in my 2000. Adding buffers to the hard drive should not slow down anything – unless you are low on memory in the first place and the memory allocated to the drives is starving otherwise needed ram. Rich
#113597From: Bob RakoskyJul 18, 1990 6:41 PM
Rich, I don't have a 3000, so I'm basing some of this on "reliable hearsay", some on my knowledge from working with 2.0 (as a developer), and some on speculation. The 3000 (currently) gives you the option of booting either 1.3 or 2.0, but only when both mouse buttons are held down at COLD BOOT time (this doesn't work from a warm boot). Whichever OS you decide to boot, the _other_ OS partition is not mounted/visible. The 2.0 system does have some things built into it that were formerly separate commands. I know that "path" is one of them. Don't recall if "run" is or not (I'm not running 2.0 right now, so I can't easily check). As to where the buffer counts are coming from, I suspect that they are specified in the RigidDiskBlock on your hard disk, which is a special area of the hard disk (prior to any "partitioned" data) in which the "mountlist" equivalent information is stored (it is stored there to allow the partitions to be visible during the auto-boot process). These parameters should be available to you via the HDToolbox utility (I think that's what it's called – I don't have a C= HD controller, so my setup is different). Just be a little careful with that utility, 'cause it could cause you to lose your HD data if you blunder badly (although I suspect this is rather difficult to do). I'm pretty sure there's documentation for the HD support utilities in the 3000's manual. Hope this helps… …BobR White Wolf Productions
#113931From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Jul 21, 1990 2:07 AM
Bob, Thanks. Yes I know about the boot options. Please see my reply to Harry. There's a lot to 2.0 that is not explained in the manual (what else is new?) I know that everything is not finalized until the ROMS are released. I hope that then there will be a concise explanation of the new environment. Rich
#113724From: Ethan SolomitaJul 19, 1990 12:43 AM
I have wordperfect running under 2.0. The catch is that you must make all the font selections 8 point non-proportional fonts, i.e. topaz 8. If you do that and it still doesn't work, what I think it is is that I didn't get the bug fix that WP released a few months ago. Someone else reset all the fonts to topaz 8 and still had problems. I guess I'm just lucky! To get 1.3, you have to hold down both mouse buttons while turning the computer on (not on a warm boot). You can select there. That should be in the A3000 manual, but not in the System manual. — Ethan
#113932From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Jul 21, 1990 2:07 AM
Ethan, All my font selections are Topaz 8. WP still doesn't work. I have called WP customer support and they insist that there is no version later than Sept., 1989. They admit that WP does not run under 2.0 and that there is no official word on a version that will run on 2.0. Frankly I am disgusted with WP. The present release still has significant bugs. It is now 10 months old and no attempt has been made to correct the problems. They keep saying that they are working on it, but it really does appear that WP has abandoned Amiga. I could go on for pages here with flames about WP cheating those of us who have paid for their product, all their complaining about losing money on Amiga not-with-standing. But I won't. For now! Rich
#114240From: Ethan SolomitaJul 24, 1990 9:33 AM
Word Perfect should've made a public statement that they are working on 2.0 compatibility. They've also had quite a while to do it. I have the next-to-most-recent-version and apparently that makes the difference! — Ethan
#114374From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Jul 25, 1990 1:16 AM
Ethan, I talked to WP customer support again today. The fellow identified himself as Roger. He gave me much more information than I had ever been able to get from them re WP for 2.0. WP _is_ working on a 2.0 version (no real surprise). They, of course cannot announce anything or finalize anything because 2.0 is _still_ beta and the final version is not ready and apparently is taking longer than expected to reach ROM form (what else is new?). One thing that has really hurt the Amiga version of WP is the fact that WP views the typical (read overwhelming majority) of Amiga users as owners of machines with only 512K RAM. CBM's decision to sell A500's with 1M will help, but WP strongly believes that the Amiga market will not support a program that requires more than 512K. This is very unfortunate. WP limited to 512K can't do many of the things that are found in the 5.x versions (and even in 4.2) on MSDOS versions. In 512K there is not enough memory to allow WP to use RAM for its 'virtuals.' This means a very slow running program that makes productivity in a business environment impossible or a nightmare. As an example, I typically produce 'long' documents – 40 pages or more. WP in its present form is good for letters, memos, term papers and the like of just a few pages. If I find a mistake on pages 41, 48, 55, 63 of a 75 page document (not an unusual situation for me or for _many_ office environments), and want to reprint those pages with the errors corrected, Amiga WP does the following: Slooowly and laboriously climb through the document to page 41, to find all the formatting codes, then print page 41. Then go ALL THE WAY BACK to page 1, slooowly and laboriously climb through the document, reading all the codes to page 48. Print page 48. Then go ALL THE WAY BACK to page 1. Slooowly and laboriously climb through the document to page 55, reading all the codes. Print page 55. Go ALL THE WAY BACK to page 1 . . . well you get the idea. Try to put up with this just once. It will drive you nuts. Try to get some [ MORE ]
#114375From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Jul 25, 1990 1:16 AM
[ continuation ] work out the door and you will throw the damn program out the window. It's terrible. WP 5.0 on MSDOS seems to instantly go to each page and reprint them as it should. It has the information it needs in memory in the form of indexes and lists and whatever other data formats are necessary. And this doesn't even begin to address the need for a program more graphically sophisticated than the awfully obselete 4.1/4.2 version that we have. I suggested to Roger that WP give us a program that could be set up to run in more than 512K, user selectable – sort of a 'professional' option. Or just acknowlege that less than 1M on this machine is a silly limitation applicable to a game player mentality and be done with it. While _he_ agreed with me, he repeated that WP does not view its market in the same way. BTW, he also said that there is _no_ release of WP that will work on 2.0 at the present time. The latest version which he still insists is Sept., 1989 cannot address the '030 properly for a multitude of functions. If you have gotten a program that _does_ work on 2.0, it is an unofficial release that WP will not even acknowlege exists. Roger said that he cannot even get a release for himself to run on the 3000 which he has available to him. Rich
#114495From: Douglas BullardJul 25, 1990 11:59 PM
It won't address the '030? Strange, since my GVP board works just great with it. Must be something in the 3000.
#114536From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Jul 26, 1990 10:13 AM
Doug, The 'problem' is 2.0. WP runs well on the 3000 under 1.3 Rich
#114507From: Ethan SolomitaJul 26, 1990 1:13 AM
On the contrary! I am currently running Amiga WordPerfect 4.1.9 dated 8/10/88 and it runs FINE under 2.0. I simply decided it wasn't worth spending the $10 upgrade for something I don't use very extensively. I also work at a lab filled with tons of IBM clones running WordPerfect 5.1 and equipped with laser printers. However I do assure you that it works fine. Perhaps I should give Roger a call and let him know. Everything is 100% usable. The only things that are off are that the popup menus look slightly off, but there is no clipping of letters at all. On to the subject of 512K limitations: what per cent of their sales have been to 512K owners? That is the stupidest excuse I've ever heard of. First, at least in the U.S., most A500 owners have expanded to 1MB or will soon do so. It is a very cheap upgrade. Most people who only have 512K in their machines are teenagers who primarily play games and pirate software. I'd bet that no more than 15% of 512K A500 owners actually buy software, let alone something expensive like WordPerfect. Most will probably buy PenPal or ProWrite if anything. They are essentially insisting upon not leaving a market which doesn't exist. I guess I'll have to tell Roger about this too. — Ethan P.S. The statements about piracy are realism. I don't expect to get into any debates one way or the other about piracy. That wasn't the intention. Piracy is something that happens regularly among school age computer owners.
#113805From: Leslie T. BartiromoJul 19, 1990 6:24 PM
Rich, I envy your A3000/1950. I have read of your problems/concerns about WordPerfect. I don't know the specifics of your word processor needs but you might like to know that "excellence!" has been GREATLY improved. The speed is very fast even for a custom screen. I've heard reports on the Amiga fora and from MSS saying that excellence! works with AmigaDOS 2.0. The people at MSS told me that WordPerfect "broke a lot of rules" which is why (they say) WP doesn't work well on the new machine. Hope this helps you out. I envy your A3000/1950!
#113933From: Richard S. Rose,M.D.Jul 21, 1990 2:07 AM
Leslie, Well, I guess the 3000 is something to envy. It really is a nice piece of equipment. Hope you get one. I have been using Pro Write since WP doesn't work. I have the 2.5 version. Have to send for the 3.0 upgrade. It's a very nice program. But still does not have the power of WP that is needed in an office environment. I hadn't heard that excellence! (sic) had been improved. I have the original release and hate it. I'd rather not give any more money to MSS. My experience with their products has left a very sour taste. Rich
#113969From: Leslie T. BartiromoJul 21, 1990 1:42 PM
I understand. I was one of the first owners of excellence! and I wasn't too happy with it either. Version 2.0 really IS a LOT faster and excellence! has a lot of WordPerfect's formatting abilities. It may not hurt to give them a call.