Was GPL a mistake?

[Willsy]

The TI is unique amongst it's peers for a number of reasons (the 16-bit TMS9900 processor being one of them), not least the use of GPL (graphics programming language) as a key part of it's ROM.

 

GPL programs are themselves interpreted by an interpreter. The origins of GPL, and the reasoning behind its use are shrouded in mystery to this day.

 

Because GPL code is executed by an interpreter, BASIC programs are double interpreted, one of the reasons for it's legendary slowness.

 

Whilst admittedly technically innovative, was the use of GPL on a home machine a mistake, and did the machine's slowness (due to GPL) play a part in the death of the TI-99/4A in the home computer wars of 1983?

Edited June 4, 2010 by Willsy

[The Codex]

While I'm a big fan of abstraction, it's an architectural conceit more suited to powerful machines that can support that kind of layering. Early home computers really needed speed, and I think the lethargy of the TI's BASIC may have hurt it somewhat, especially when compared against the (relatively) nippy BASIC on the C64 et al. Certainly TI BASIC was accessible and powerful in the right hands, as seen in the latest competitions, and the ability to invoke assembly from it helps a good deal, but think how much better it would have been had the language run directly on the metal.

[matthew180]

I wanted to vote a mix of the 1st and 2nd choice. GLP is a cool idea, but more than just handicapping, it should *not* have been implemented on the 99/4A at all. IMO. I think the TI engineers were too used to making mini computers, so we got a slow flexible machine instead of a fast responsive machine.

 

Matthew

Edited June 4, 2010 by matthew180

[+batari]

We knew even back then that GPL was a mistake. Users wanted to know why their 16-bit machine had a CPU rivaling that of the IBM PC but with capable graphics and sound chips, but yet had a slower BASIC than just about any other home computer on the market. I remember reading about GPL in a magazine back then and the opinions expressed were not positive.

[marc.hull]

one of many ideas that turned out bad for TI but.... it was an unknown field back then and some one had to do it.....

[Tursi]

I've spent a fair bit of time in the GPL interpreter recently as part of some debugging I was doing... it's surprisingly inefficient. For instance, it fetches the data from target addresses, whether it needs to or not. I suspect if we actually sat down with the stuff we know today, we could make GPL snappy enough to resolve a lot of those BASIC woes. (I don't intend to, but it looks feasible ).

 

That said, I definately believe it hurt the machine. TI BASIC was all you could do with the unexpanded console, and as its performance was miserable, the entire machine gained a reputation for being very slow, when in truth it kept pace with and outclassed many of its competitors (I remember my Apple 2 friend being so jealous of how fast the TI could load a bitmap image - and that's with us loading 12k and the Apple only loading 6.5k! Not to mention his jealousy of sprites...)

 

Anyway. I haven't seen anything authoritative, but GPL really looks like it was a stopgap to allow development of the system software before the CPU was ready. The loss of the originally planned 8 bit CPU is well documented, it's possible that GPL was forced into larger service than was intended due to the delays... (theory, not fact!) Of course, since the CPU couldn't run from GROM, it's also probable that GPL was a big part of TI's marketing decision to control their market.

[+retroclouds]

Rumors have it that TI originally planned a "GPL processor" as CPU for the TI-99/4A.

hhhmm, makes one wonder if with todays FPGA possibilities such project would be possible.

 

Kyle has an interesting GPL document up for sale on ebay. Check out here: eBay Auction -- Item Number: 150447363604

 

I considered buying it, but it's a bit too expensive. If someone is interested in a group buy. I'm willing to contribute 20 EURO

[Opry99er]

It's interesting that Willsy has written/is writing a completely legit language in just about 100% AL. How is it that BASIC was not written in 9900 assembly in a more direct fashion? Seems that a console BASIC written in the native architecture makes Lot more sense. That speaks to what Tursi was saying. Perhaps they had to write BASIC before the CPU was ready? That would make it Understandable that they would use an intermediary format so they could simply implement the interpretation post-BASIC.

[matthew180]

Well, they knew something about the CPU when the 99/4A was being designed. They didn't start making a computer that didn't have an intended CPU. Also, are plenty of cross compilers and it was *very* common back then to develop on a platform that is different from the target. Last, TI didn't write TI-BASIC, Microsoft did.

 

IMO, not having the CPU ready and in production early on would have little to do with what they wrote BASIC in.

 

Matthew

[rocky007]

Rumors have it that TI originally planned a "GPL processor" as CPU for the TI-99/4A.

hhhmm, makes one wonder if with todays FPGA possibilities such project would be possible.

 

Kyle has an interesting GPL document up for sale on ebay. Check out here: eBay Auction -- Item Number: 150447363604

 

I considered buying it, but it's a bit too expensive. If someone is interested in a group buy. I'm willing to contribute 20 EURO

 

i u want, i agree for pay half with you. I just bought 3 cardridge from him, i can add this

[matthew180]

Rumors have it that TI originally planned a "GPL processor" as CPU for the TI-99/4A.

hhhmm, makes one wonder if with todays FPGA possibilities such project would be possible.

 

I don't see how a GPL "processor" would make things too much faster since GPL has to access parts of the system the same way as the 9900. For example, GPL is not magically faster at accessing memory, the VDP, sound, etc. It is simply more dense because a single GPL statement does more operations than, say, an assembly instruction. I don't think GPL is a good candidate to be a "language" that could be made into an actual processor since all of its instructions are multi-step are require interaction with major parts of the computer.

 

However, GPL could be made faster by making a 99/4A SoC (system on a chip) by using an FPGA.

 

Kyle has an interesting GPL document up for sale on ebay. Check out here: eBay Auction -- Item Number: 150447363604

 

I considered buying it, but it's a bit too expensive. If someone is interested in a group buy. I'm willing to contribute 20 EURO

 

I've seen this "Kyle" guy, he has a lot of TI stuff on ebay and a lot of it seems over priced IMO. Does anyone know who he is or if he participates in any of the forums? I've kind of decided I'm not going to buy or use TI stuff (hardware, emulators, software, etc.) from people who don't participate at least a little in the community. I'm not sure why really, I guess because I'd rather buy something from a person on the forum than from a stranger on ebay.

 

Matthew

[+retroclouds]

Rumors have it that TI originally planned a "GPL processor" as CPU for the TI-99/4A.

hhhmm, makes one wonder if with todays FPGA possibilities such project would be possible.

 

Kyle has an interesting GPL document up for sale on ebay. Check out here: eBay Auction -- Item Number: 150447363604

 

I considered buying it, but it's a bit too expensive. If someone is interested in a group buy. I'm willing to contribute 20 EURO

 

i u want, i agree for pay half with you. I just bought 3 cardridge from him, i can add this

 

ok, I'll send you a PM shortly

[Opry99er]

Kyleti994a. He is an eBay seller who typically has a bunch of stuff that nobody else has. I buy from him often. He is an okay dude man. I have never had a single issue with any dealings between us. He has always been friendly and courteous. I'm sure Filip will fill you in on his background. As for me--- anyone who still contributes by providing a product and a service for our community is okay by me. The CF7 creator is not a member of any forum either.

[+retroclouds]

I've seen this "Kyle" guy, he has a lot of TI stuff on ebay and a lot of it seems over priced IMO. Does anyone know who he is or if he participates in any of the forums? I've kind of decided I'm not going to buy or use TI stuff (hardware, emulators, software, etc.) from people who don't participate at least a little in the community. I'm not sure why really, I guess because I'd rather buy something from a person on the forum than from a stranger on ebay.

 

I've bought stuff from him several times in the past and can't complain. Delivery, packaging, etc. was all fine.

Yes, some of the stuff is expensive. But he does occasionaly have stuff up for sale that I haven't seen from any other sellers.

This especially goes for technical documents and the like.

[rocky007]

I've seen this "Kyle" guy, he has a lot of TI stuff on ebay and a lot of it seems over priced IMO. Does anyone know who he is or if he participates in any of the forums? I've kind of decided I'm not going to buy or use TI stuff (hardware, emulators, software, etc.) from people who don't participate at least a little in the community. I'm not sure why really, I guess because I'd rather buy something from a person on the forum than from a stranger on ebay.

 

I've bought stuff from him several times in the past and can't complain. Delivery, packaging, etc. was all fine.

Yes, some of the stuff is expensive. But he does occasionaly have stuff up for sale that I haven't seen from any other sellers.

This especially goes for technical documents and the like.

 

bah..i just bought him extended basic for 12$, 9 $ for slymoid and 12 $ for disk manager 2. It's not so expensive.

[marc.hull]

Rumors have it that TI originally planned a "GPL processor" as CPU for the TI-99/4A.

hhhmm, makes one wonder if with todays FPGA possibilities such project would be possible.

 

I don't see how a GPL "processor" would make things too much faster since GPL has to access parts of the system the same way as the 9900. For example, GPL is not magically faster at accessing memory, the VDP, sound, etc. It is simply more dense because a single GPL statement does more operations than, say, an assembly instruction. I don't think GPL is a good candidate to be a "language" that could be made into an actual processor since all of its instructions are multi-step are require interaction with major parts of the computer.

 

However, GPL could be made faster by making a 99/4A SoC (system on a chip) by using an FPGA.

 

Kyle has an interesting GPL document up for sale on ebay. Check out here: eBay Auction -- Item Number: 150447363604

 

I considered buying it, but it's a bit too expensive. If someone is interested in a group buy. I'm willing to contribute 20 EURO

 

I've seen this "Kyle" guy, he has a lot of TI stuff on ebay and a lot of it seems over priced IMO. Does anyone know who he is or if he participates in any of the forums? I've kind of decided I'm not going to buy or use TI stuff (hardware, emulators, software, etc.) from people who don't participate at least a little in the community. I'm not sure why really, I guess because I'd rather buy something from a person on the forum than from a stranger on ebay.

 

Matthew

 

 

 

At the risk of stirring up old arguments......

 

1) Kyle ,in my opinion, has a lot of stuff that people tend to covet.

 

2) Kyle , again in my opinion, is an active software pirate and a thief.

 

3) People tend to overlook the latter because of the former. It's unfortunate.......

 

Marcus

[Opry99er]

Marc, you had an interesting experience with Never-Lander, didn't you?

[marc.hull]

Marc, you had an interesting experience with Never-Lander, didn't you?

 

Suffice it to say that I am surprised that the SSGC entries have not shown up in his Ebay store by now. I should not have posted that here but every time that clowns name comes up my eyes go red.... Sorry folks...

 

Marc...

[matthew180]

Marc, you had an interesting experience with Never-Lander, didn't you?

 

Suffice it to say that I am surprised that the SSGC entries have not shown up in his Ebay store by now. I should not have posted that here but every time that clowns name comes up my eyes go red.... Sorry folks...

 

Marc...

 

Although it sucks to have to post stuff like that, we need to protect our own. Other sections of this forum (A.A. that is) have a dedicated thread to report rip-off buyers and sellers. Maybe we should have our own here? It is also this kind of reason why I won't buy anything (classic computer related anyway) from someone who does not participate in a public forum.

 

I don't know why people in our community don't try to sell to each other first anyway? But everyone seems to put their stuff up on first ebay, then post their auction link. That sucks.

 

I currently have a huge stash of C64 stuff, and I won't be selling it on ebay. I don't care to get "top dollar", I care that someone gets it who loves the C64 and who will enjoy it and make good use of it.

 

We should also stop hijacking this thread and start an appropriate new one. IMO.

 

Matthew

[matthew180]

The poll results are very interesting to me. I was under the impression that most people liked GPL and thought it was a really cool thing. Yet there is not a single vote in favor of GPL.

 

Matthew

Edited June 6, 2010 by matthew180

[Opry99er]

Sorry... There just aren't enough eBay or online sellers for the TI. If we create some kind of TI "blacklist," then who are we gonna put on it? Kyle? Who else? It has been suggested over at one of the (lame) list servers that one of our own Atariage guys be on the big important official "TI Blacklist".... And that fella happens to be a friend of mine.

 

We're a tiny community. Growing--- at a pretty good pace, but still relatively small compared to, say, the Atari2600 guys. It's a tough thing--- but we all know there are necessary evils in this world.... One happens to be (for me) access to items on eBay. If there were a seller like Kyle who sold the same stuff, i'd buy from that person.... But for all the rare stuff I've got from Kyle over the years--- I've never had a business transaction problem..... Now of course, that leaves alot of questions.... For instance, my tax bill doesn't arrive late or mis-addressed. I still gotta pay it. Alot of people buy from this guy. He just has more stuff than anyone else.... That's all. marc's point is absolutely 100% legitimate,

by the way.... So is yours Matthew

[Willsy]

Here's my take on GPL on the TI. The TI is the 'deepest' home micro that I know of. It has layers of sophistication that are simply not found on other machines. From a software perspective, it's more like a mini-computer than a home computer. After all these years, I don't think the machine has given up all it's secrets. In fact, in terms of what is known about the machine, I think we may have gone backwards, as the 'superstars' from the 80's either left the TI scene, or moved on to something else.

 

For me, GPL is ultimately a mistake, in so far as it slows the machine down such that other, much less sophisticated machines looked 'better' by comparison. However, its many levels of sophistication is one of its endearing features IMO, and I look forward to getting to grips with GPL one of these days.

 

After all these years, when other machines have been understood to the point that they can be implemented on a single chip, we still have much to learn about the good old 4A!

 

Mark

Edited June 6, 2010 by Willsy

[Tursi]

Well, they knew something about the CPU when the 99/4A was being designed. They didn't start making a computer that didn't have an intended CPU. Also, are plenty of cross compilers and it was *very* common back then to develop on a platform that is different from the target. Last, TI didn't write TI-BASIC, Microsoft did.

 

IMO, not having the CPU ready and in production early on would have little to do with what they wrote BASIC in.

 

Matthew

 

I dunno, I think it would influence the decision some. If they thought tweaking up the emulator would be less work than the entire OS, not to mention they could test it on another, existing machine, it might seem like the path to take.

 

If you don't know your final hardware, but you have to build the OS code anyway, what do you do? (Remember, it's not just BASIC, the entire boot system for the console is written in GPL, right down to hardware initialization). The proposed CPU for the TI was based on the 9900 series but it was not the 9900 - all likelihood is that final specs were not available, especially since the prototype silicon didn't work. It's very likely that by the time Microsoft started the task, they already knew the CPU was in trouble and might not be the final one.

 

Microsoft at the time had a history of writing emulators, then writing their code in those emulators. So creating an emulator for a CPU very close to what they thought the CPU would be, wouldn't be out of line. One problem I have with my theories is I don't know who wrote GPL.

 

As for the GPL CPU, I've heard that rumor too.. but in looking at GPL, it would be an insanely complex piece of silicon. I have my doubts whether it could have been done at production costs back then. I suspect the dropped 8-bit CPU is the one that started that rumor.

[Gary from OPA]

Well I been reading this topic for a bit. -- I vote LOVE GPL!

 

Being most likely the only third-party developer that was licensed by TI to redo the OS, and I still have a complete set of the original complied operating system, with notes and shit. -- I think I can best answer this question.

 

Yes, the original plans to use the TMS9980 or similar 8bit 9900 style CPU for the original 99/4a design, except it was not totally working near the time for it to get into mass-production, so the machine was re-tooled to use the costly 16bit mainframe TMS9900 instead.

 

There was even a version of the 99/4a built by an TI engineer with the Z80 instead, but he got canned or transfer to another dept. and I am sure all the z80 hybirds got destoryed.

 

Here is the run-down of the main reasons for the GPL design:

 

#1: Yes, their was no firm computer design at the time, so the GPL processor was designed in software in 9900 code.

 

#2: As for as the notes go, I don't see any such thing of doing GPL ever in silicon processor, everything was based on 9900 software processor for executing GPL, with future ability to expand the GPL opcode library.

 

#3: One of the main reasons GPL was designed at the time, was to be able to GRAB existing THEN current tech-age programmers from other companies.

 

#4: The base 9900 assembly TI thought would be too hard for Atari, Coleco and various current programmers to handle learning, so GPL was designed to look more like 8bit CPU with STACK program branch logic, and easier control over the VDP device.

 

#5a: Another reason for GPL and the GROM was easier expansion of memory without major cost or user opening their machine, etc. -- True direct memory at the time was super-super costly. -- I remember paying $239.95 for my 32K card for the PE-BOX from Kmart and that was after the '83 crash, so it was discounted. -- When the Atari ST came out in '85/'86 it was the first computer with 1024k (1megabyte) and one of selling points it was less then $1 per Kilobyte, which was unhear of before then!

 

#5b: So with TI and GROM / GPL design in 1977, you could have a module of 6x6k GROM's and 2x8k ROM's for a total of 52k of memory which was unhear of the time also, plus the outside "GPL monitor" allow future mapping of up to 16 banks of this GROM memory for a total of 576k of GROM. (using only the original 6k chip design!) -- Wow! Think 1977!

 

#6: Second main reason GPL was designed. -- CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL -- GPL Programs would only work on 99/4a, TI could hide the main memory design, logic away from the programmers, and only give needed info for program to work. -- Piracy/Clone would be lower also, no dumping a GROM cart. and making it work on Tomy Tutor or other 9900/9918 machine.

 

#7: Control is primal reason for GPL and GROM, it stopped people from running off their own cart. runs, once companies started to reserve the true TI design, and produce stuff like the Atari, DigDug, PolePosition, etc. modules, TI quickly re-wrote the main Grom0 OS in later '82 consoles to stop modules to work without any GROM/GPL code in them.

 

To put GPL in today's world, you got to remember their was not really any "high-level" langs. out there like C++, etc. back in 1977, so GPL was designed to look like a CPU written in assembly type lang., as all the programmers out there in 1977 that is basically all they knew or used.

 

Today now, we have Apple doing basically the same thing that TI did back with GPL. -- CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL -- Apple takes C++ changes it over to their type of design, and controls the whole APP process, the programmers really have no clue how the real A4 CPU hardware works, they are stuck in Apple's sandbox world of their C++ and if they use outside tools or compliers to make their APP work, Apple throws it out and does not approve it for release.

 

It was basically the same back in 1977 with TI and GPL, you had to even write your module a certain way, menus had to look a certain way, prompts had to be a certain way, etc. - TI only approved programs that matched their "Look&Feel" they wanted.

 

There was no freedom until many years after TI left and people figured out the true hardware, then all the fighting and control started again by the various users groups, but that is another story and not for this topic.

 

Those are my thoughts on GPL for now. -- In the end, I still vote LOVE GPL. -- But I also love 9900, I think it is wonderful mixture, you can switch back and forth do the simple stuff in GPL and then leave the hardcode stuff in 9900.

[The Codex]

All this GPL talk has gotten me more curious about the language itself now. Is there a GPL development package anyone would recommend, either for the TI or for modern computers? It's never too late to pick up another language.