fujidude

I never had the opportunity to experience CoCo2 1st hand, but after absorbing information about over the years (mostly from AtariAge), it really does seem like it might have been underrated a bit in it's day.

Yeah it kind of does, but how/why I wonder. Looks like it should work to me anyway.

I'm making a new batch file for use with 4.49C (listing follows), but as I go to test it I get an error 137 truncated record. The manual says this is basically a buffer overrun on CIO input, but that SDX does it differently. I can't figure out what could be wrong. echo on ; TKUPDATE.BAT ; Toolkit Update by FujiDude 2018-02-19 ; This script requires the use of ENV.SYS and the PHD.COM ; & PLD utilities to be in the syetm path. PROC info echo .This updater recursively goes through the source and echo .copies all .MAN .TXT .DOC files it finds to the MAN echo .directory of the target path. Likewise it does the echo .same for .SYS files but to the DRIVERS directory, and echo .finally .COM .EXE .XEX .BAT .OVL to the BIN directory. echo . echo . USAGE: -$_11$ TOOLKIT-SOURCE-PATH [TARGET PATH] echo . Source path is required, target path is optional echo . and will be current directory unless provided. echo . RETURN proc task copy *.sys $dp$>drivers copy *.com $dp$>bin copy *.exe $dp$>bin copy *.ovl $dp$>bin copy *.ini $dp$>bin copy *.bat $dp$>bat copy *.man $dp$>man copy *.txt $dp$>man copy *.doc $dp$>man for %a in -s *.arc /n ;ARC lets you combine these but the CL would be too long probably. arc x %a $dp$>drivers>*.sys arc x %a $dp$>bin>*.com arc x %a $dp$>bin>*.exe arc x %a $dp$>bin>*.xex arc x %a $dp$>bin>*.ovl arc x %a $dp$>bin>*.bat arc x %a $dp$>man>*.man arc x %a $dp$>man>*.txt arc x %a $dp$>man>*.doc next %a return proc walkdir gosub task if exists +s *.* for %d in +s *.* cd $%d gosub walkdir cd < next %d fi return ;Main program load command.com seterrno 0 echo . echo .SDX Toolkit Updater by FujiDude ver. 2018-02-19. echo .Requires the use of ENV.SYS and the PHD & PLD echo .utilities to be in the system path. echo . ; Is a source specified? if _11 if _11=="/H" OR _11=="-H" gosub info exit fi else gosub info exit 156 fi ;Does specified source exist? if exists +s $_11$ set sp=$_11$ else exit 150 fi ;Was a target specified? if _21 ;Does specified target exist? if exists $_21$ set dp=$_21$ else exit 150 fi else set dp=. fi phd chdir $sp$ echo .Processing... gosub walkdir echo . echo .Updated. echo . pld set sp set dp load

I'm of the belief that the reason the C64 took off so well at that critical time was largely do to it being more affordable. I think a lot of the purchasers back then (early 80s) largely saw many of the computers offered as largely equivalent due to a lack of understanding. As an example, my parents got me a 600XL for Christmas. Sure they knew it had 16K and not 64K, but had no clue just how crippling a 16K limit was. Besides, the C64 did compare favorably capability wise; but it was cheaper.

Does anyone know of a way for a batch program to check for the presence of a particular driver? Specifically at the moment I'm interested in having a script check if ENV.SYS is engaged and proceed accordingly to the result.

I modified the OVL files to be hidden in the image and reflashed it to the U1MB. It works now. Thank you.

Thanks for the info. I'll give it a try. Is there a SDX beta thread that I haven't found or something?

Astute observation. I just ran into something else now. I can't load FDISK. I get an error loading FDISK0.OVL. Using the FDISK from the CAR: in the SDX 4.49C rev. Also, using Altirra 3.00 and doing so under WINE. Have CPU type set to 65C816 21MHz, but I tested with 6502/6502C 1.79MHz as well with same result.

I did read the man page, and now the manual (which has the same wording) but did not interpret it to mean that usage was limited to the specific example given. The documentation prior to that states that a filespec of *.* is assumed unless unless one is provided. Nowhere does it say that use of the /R switch disallows a filespec other than *.* from being used. And as FJC pointed out, if a filespec is meant to be ignored when the /R is present, then you would expect it to act the same as not providing one and copy everything. But anyway, I thought I would bring it forth as Konrad had been asking for feedback. I would guess it's probably something he might want to address, but if not it might be helpful for the dox to clarify that /R is meant to be used on all files and directories and a user supplied one is excluded in that use case.

Hello. I ran into something unexpected (by me anyway). I wanted to copy all the .COM files located in all directories and sub-directories from drive B: to a folder on I: called BIN. I used the following command to try this: COPY /R B:\*.COM I:\BIN\ There are plenty of come files on B: (it's the toolkit with all ARCs expanded). There is no error. The command just finishes quickly but nothing is done. Ideas? Using SDX 4.49c.

Do you mean if the Linux file which is actively being used as a disk image by Altirra is modified by Linux, WINE doesn't inform Altirra? If so that sounds like a scenario I might not run into much. If you mean something else can you elaborate a bit more?

I'll have to make sure I remember not to ever bring that particular idea up again. that's for sure. And you're very right, we are spoiled rotten with the Windows version. I have it running in WINE and seems fine so far, though I haven't gotten real exotic with it there yet. For any who are also interested in using the best A8 emulator under Linux: I'm using the "PlayOnLinux" environment to do so. It makes using WINE much more slick IMHO.

JHC! Guys... my comment "I would just say forget developing for Windows due to the way Microsoft is going, but that's not realistic..." was never ever meant to actually suggest dropping Windows support. What I was trying to say is that currently it is completely unrealistic not to support a Windows version, but if MS keeps going in the direction they are, then perhaps at some point it might be Windows that doesn't get a version. That's just my displeasure with Microsoft talking. It may not ever happen and is a long way off if it ever would. And no Keetah, liking Windows and wanting a Windows version doesn't make you a fan boy in my book by any means. If you were to say that it is bad for anyone to provide Microsoft competition for the desktop OS, then I might change my mind though.

Somehow this one escaped my attention. Great suggestion!

Even such a ghetto solution as that has a significant limitation: a renumber operation will blow it all up. Sure, you can try and manage to number things originally so that you can insert or move code where needed etc, but the reality is it can be a chore to manage and if a program is large or complex enough, a renumber operation becomes more a necessity than a luxury. Hehe LOL. Been there done that. Just one thing though, now instead of having to be bothered fixing line 1020 to correctly point to the "printout" subroutine, the chore has simply shifted to maintaining line 1010!

Thank you for your polite and well reasoned response. I have little idea how hard the task of porting the UI to a cross-platform toolkit would be. My understanding though is that once it is, the effort to publish versions for different platforms is not too terribly painful. Perhaps my understanding of that is misinformed though. And even with that bit of effort, I have seen many examples where software is primarily developed (or at least tested) for one platform by the author, and the creation of binaries for other platforms is handled by volunteers. Usually such examples as I'm talking about would have some kind of notice or documentation that the author does not officially support on other platforms, but that folks can try their luck with them as they wish. But in any case, from the perspective of judging Avery on what he chooses to do with Altirra I want to be crystal clear: Regardless of how easy or hard it might be to accomplish z, y , or z feature, change, etc., I 100% respect his right to do as he sees fit in all aspects of Altirra and am not judging him in any way. I was just sharing my hopes and dreams.

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't dictate what Avery does, nor would I ever expect whatever wishes I have for Altirra to be interpreted as anything more than just that. If by "...leave Avery to do..." you mean not to ever express any hopes or wishes for what he might do with Altirra, then I'll just have to respectfully disagree with your position. I know you're new around here, but perhaps you've noticed that this thread is chock full of feature requests and the like; probably a similar amount to bug reports etc. If you mean don't express any hopes or wishes that end up irritating Avery, then I agree with that. Keep in mind though that I didn't anticipate that reaction from him and would not deliberately do something to upset him. Historically my recollection is Avery usually being pretty open minded but at least always gracious when responding to feedback. You're entitled to your opinion about the merit of Linux of course, but keep in mind that's all it is. Certainly I agree that there are more Macintosh users than Linux users, but if you look back I promoted the idea of multi-platform including of course Mac. But even the amount of Mac users is negligible compared to Windows users. That's not really the point though. The point is that the number of Windows + Mac + Linux + etc. users outnumber just Windows users alone, and having multi-platform software helps keep at least some competitive pressure on MS. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks a little competition for MS is a bad thing, with the possible exception of course of those who have a financial stake in MS and the fanboys. Again, your opinion. It's hugely prejudicial as well to paint Linux users all with one brush. Also, if you use the label "geek" in a derogatory fashion, then it is a bit offensive too. I don't know if you meant it that way but the context might suggest it.

I didn't think I was being rude at all and am sorry you took it that way. I was just expressing a wish of mine and in no way was being critical of your efforts thus far. Quite the contrary; I'm very grateful and pleased with your efforts in Altirra. It should go without saying that I respect your prerogative to develop as you wish. If you took my mention of Atari800 being cross platform as any kind of slight, I want to assure you it definitely was not intended to be so. As to putting effort into making Atari800 more capable (not that it is any slouch at present): I would be happy to do so if I could. Unfortunately, I lack the knowledge and skills required. Believe me, I'm the kind of person who would much rather make the efforts than ask others to while I sit back. Again, sorry for any misunderstanding and know that I certainly appreciate all you do.

How is it they were able to sell so many to home users?

I apologize in advance if for whatever reason you are determined to use Advan, but I suggest using Turbo BASIC XL as a solution.

Disable all of the settings which involve computational resources (various kinds of signal processing). That's usually all a "game mode" option does anyway, is to let you disable all such stuff with one simple setting.

Especially with the small files typical of retro systems.

A wish that I have: Avery adopts non Microsoft centric development tools and is able to compile both Windows and native Linux (and Mac OS) binaries. I would just say forget developing for Windows due to the way Microsoft is going, but that's not realistic if you want Altirra to serve a larger number of people. So I think it would just be so cool if it could be multi-platform; much like Atari800 is. I rarely use Windows personally anymore. I "cut the cord" with pay TV and now I've also "moved out of the (Micrtosoft) house" and now use Linux Mint heavily. As Ozzy similarly said "Wine is fine, but native is quicker."

That is not certain at all. The only thing certain about it is that it is your opinion. In my opinion, if you know 10 people with Ataris and one of them had a failure, and you know 20 people with CBM and 6 of them had failures, you're going to correctly think in terms of 1 of my Atari acquaintances had a problem and 9 didn't, 6 of my CBM acquaintances had problems and 14 did not. Not that people will actually count them out, but the acquaintances with good luck will be in the consciousness too. But that's my opinion, and perhaps it's biased because I tend to think very analytically. If, for the sake of argument, we were to assume that typically people's thoughts have a larger emotional component than than do mine, I think it could be just as valid to make assumptions that the much higher level of popularity of CBM computers leads to a bias which tends to over-look shortcomings rather than over state them. The reason I say that is because people seem to tend to want to feel good about the purchase choices they make, and like validation from others on them. My idea is that people will then tend to have better proportionally better recall and memory of positive cases than of negative ones. Anyway, I would assume that that CBM and Atari kept stats on defect rates like most manufacturers do. I want to say that these numbers have been cited publicly before and that indeed; pre Tramiel Atari had a far better rate, but I cannot remember for sure. But anyway, that would be a better insight.

Right, simply avoid using GOTO as I mentioned previously. But still, many (most?) BASICs on home computers back in the day did not support named subroutines or labels; which are pretty integral to top down design and modular programming.