Jump to content
MrFish

Assembly Language Programming for the Atari Computers

Recommended Posts

As I said, I've bookmarked the entire manual (extensively -- it was sparsely bookmarked before). But there is one other annoyance I fixed too. The original would revert to "full page" view, no matter what you set the view to, every time you clicked on any of the bookmarks. Of course now it will always return to my view settings when you click on a bookmark. But I highly prefer "page width" view, since you can get a closer zoom, especially when used with a wide-screen monitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bookmarked this puppy. Thanks to ThumpNugget -- who I believe did the original scan. Bon appétit!

 

Assembly Language Programming for the Atari Computers

 

attachicon.gifAtari Assembly.png

I interpreted "Bookmarked" as I found this on the web (like scribd.com) and saved the URL...

 

As I said, I've bookmarked the entire manual (extensively -- it was sparsely bookmarked before). But there is one other annoyance I fixed too. The original would revert to "full page" view, no matter what you set the view to, every time you clicked on any of the bookmarks. Of course now it will always return to my view settings when you click on a bookmark. But I highly prefer "page width" view, since you can get a closer zoom, especially when used with a wide-screen monitor.

And with this explanation, it's more clear what you did. Thank you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I interpreted "Bookmarked" as I found this on the web (like scribd.com) and saved the URL...

 

And with this explanation, it's more clear what you did. Thank you icon_smile.gif

 

Yeah, I'm basically trying to make some of these PDF'ed books and manuals a little bit more useable. It's a lot easier to skip around and read the stuff you want/need to with a decent set of organized bookmarks. I went the extra mile with this one and even bookmarked each individual 6502 instruction from a section in the index, which is a rather extensive section that comprises over 60 pages of the book.

Edited by MrFish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks MrFish for the bookmarks. I downloaded your version to replace the local copy I already had.

 

I didn't find any bookmarks in your edition when I opened it in Preview on the Mac, but they do show up fine in Adobe Reader. I would have thought Adobe Reader and Preview could read each other's bookmarks, but apparently not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't find any bookmarks in your edition when I opened it in Preview on the Mac, but they do show up fine in Adobe Reader. I would have thought Adobe Reader and Preview could read each other's bookmarks, but apparently not.

 

They show up fine on my Mac. Make sure at the bottom of the sidebar of the Preview window you have selected "Table of Contents" -- otherwise you'd maybe just see thumbnails. And of course you need to have the sidebar open...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Preview keeps me from installing Adobe Reader on my Mac. The only thing I see that I don't like there is that all the standard PDF view options aren't supported, and thus I can't get "Zoom to Width", which I like. Also the bookmarks seem to be collapsed by default. But it's easy enough to expand them all, via menu command or key command.

Edited by MrFish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the effort MrFish, much easier to thumb through this now.

 

I prefer Apple's Preview app over Adobe Reader as well. I'm not sure what the deal is but the Mac version of Adobe Reader has kinda sucked for the last few years. Not that the Windows version fares much better these days. The Windows version is brutal slow these days too.

 

It's bad that we live in an age where a simple document viewer can eat 2GB of RAM and drag a 64-bit multicore machine to its knees while flipping pages.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's bad that we live in an age where a simple document viewer can eat 2GB of RAM and drag a 64-bit multicore machine to its knees while flipping pages.

I use Acrobat Pro XI running on 32bit Windows XP Pro on my Acer Core2 Duo 1.5Ghz laptop with no problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Acrobat Pro XI running on 32bit Windows XP Pro on my Acer Core2 Duo 1.5Ghz laptop with no problems.

 

It works but isn't near as fast as it could be. Especially on larger image-heavy PDF's. I've seen many 3rd party PDF viewers absolutely run circles around recent Adobe Reader versions. It really has become bloated and half the program seems like an ad for their online PDF converters and other services.

 

I think the MacOS X port suffers from performance issues more than the Windows version but both have their issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adobe Reader's definitely been laggy for a while and the installer seems puzzlingly fat. Frequent slow downs on opening PDFs on a 2.2GHz Win 7 laptop with 3 gig of RAM, for instance. And no: downgrading to XP is not a viable suggestion. ;)

Edited by flashjazzcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PDF is the most absolute shit format ever conceived. If anybody needs a legitimate reason for this, PLEASE do the world a favour and search for "27c3-4221-en-omg_wtf_pdf.mp4" from the 27th annual Chaos Conference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It works but isn't near as fast as it could be. Especially on larger image-heavy PDF's. I've seen many 3rd party PDF viewers absolutely run circles around recent Adobe Reader versions. It really has become bloated and half the program seems like an ad for their online PDF converters and other services.

 

I think the MacOS X port suffers from performance issues more than the Windows version but both have their issues.

It is kind of big (which I don't like), but I have never seen any kind of ad in the Pro version. It runs fine for me. Maybe 32 bit doesn't suffer from the problem?

 

And, BTW I completely respect 99.999% of what FJC says, but, I consider Windows XP an UPGRADE over Win (Vista, 7, and especially 8. ) (referring to the above post) :)

 

XP doesn't suffer from all the DRM bloat and crap, and when set up properly and run on new, fast machines, it beats the snot out of Win 7. The gamers love it. :)

Edited by Kyle22
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I used to play games, I preferred Windows 98SE. Faster and leaner than XP. Why not install that? :)

 

I'm not sure how Kevin's post implies that XP is an upgrade over subsequent operating systems. What it asserts is that recent versions of Adobe Reader are slow and inefficiently implemented, regardless of the host OS. It may be that XP leaves more free RAM available for Adobe's bloated reader to stretch its legs, but the onus is still on Adobe Reader here. One solution is to use older versions of Adobe Reader, which is the exact same solution which will be required if and when Adobe drops support for XP in any future version of Adobe Reader. One is generally able to run older applications on a newer MS OS (since it's heavy with legacy support), but not always the other way around. :)

Edited by flashjazzcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could it be that the 64 bit version is slower? 64 bit programs are normally larger in bytes than their 32 bit counterparts. More data to crunch through the CPU = more time.

 

Just a thought. Mine really runs fine. I wouldn't say it's fast, but I wouldn't call it slow either.

 

As for 98se, I prefer NT5 OS. Win2K may be a little faster than XP, but I like the eye candy :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern MacOS X versions past 10.7 are 64-bit only but you can run older 32-bit binaries. Generally, 64-bit versions of software tend to perform slightly better but end up being slightly larger. Performance gains aren't extreme until you start playing with larger sets of data.

 

I don't really run Windows on my personal desktops anymore except through a VM occasionally. Even my PC runs OSX 10.9.

 

XP only beats 7 in performance on old hardware and running single-threaded apps. And even then it's only faster until it gets infected with something 20 minutes after obtaining an IP address. As soon as you load an AV package, your performance advantage is nil. Win2K and XP were a security nightmare from launch day to EOL, and I'm glad they're finally dying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the effort MrFish, much easier to thumb through this now.

 

I prefer Apple's Preview app over Adobe Reader as well. I'm not sure what the deal is but the Mac version of Adobe Reader has kinda sucked for the last few years. Not that the Windows version fares much better these days. The Windows version is brutal slow these days too.

 

It's bad that we live in an age where a simple document viewer can eat 2GB of RAM and drag a 64-bit multicore machine to its knees while flipping pages.

 

I've never used the Mac version, for the very reason that the Preview app seems to handle them well enough. In fact, for a reader, it allows you edit bookmarks, which you can't do with Adobe's Reader. Of course they want to encourage you to buy Acrobat. To be honest, in all the years I've been using Adobe Reader (used to be called Acrobat Reader), I've always thought is was poor performance-wise. And nothing was worse than trying to use it on the old PDA's and first gen smart phones.

 

It seems to run fine for me on Windows these days though. I'm running Win7 64-bit with 6 GB of RAM, on an old (by today's standards) 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo. But I guess as in most situations, even when you're talking about 2-D graphics, it's the whole system that matters, not just the Gigahertz on your CPU. I have a pretty well balanced system when it comes to graphic cards, hard drives, and network setup. And they all play a part, especially with Windows 7's interface eating up processing power everywhere. To be honest though, it's hardly unexpected since I consider PDF's to be the Java apps of the document world.

 

Having a quick look (with a couple of other fat apps open for comparison):

 

with a 70 mb PDF, 300 pages, with page images over top of OCR'ed text

 

post-6369-0-14584600-1413097338_thumb.png

 

 

with a 170 mb PDF, 358 pages, with page images over top of OCR'ed text

 

post-6369-0-24735500-1413097345_thumb.png

 

 

Both these performed about the same, with maybe a slight slower response time for the 170mb PDF. The memory used seems to coincide as expected. PDF's can be much smaller than this though, especially when they are composed of text alone (or even text with embedded graphics), rather than images superimposed on OCR'ed text, like the PDF's I was testing. The 170mb PDF had more images, and a smaller font, which would justify it's size and performance, considering it only has 58 more pages. When it comes to these old books, manuals, and magazines though, I'd much rather see the original pages, because that's part of the character of the literature, or any literature for that matter. So I'd always rather see the bloated version rather than the re-cycled versions, as long as the scanning and alignment job is done well, as is the case with these two done by Thump-nugget. Plus, there aren't many people willing to translate OCR'ed text for 300+ page documents.

 

 

I use Acrobat Pro XI running on 32bit Windows XP Pro on my Acer Core2 Duo 1.5Ghz laptop with no problems.

 

I don't have any XP system up and running right now (screen died on my old laptop recently). I do have an installation of Server 2003 running though. I'll have to check it out on there and see what differences I can notice.

 

 

I think the MacOS X port suffers from performance issues more than the Windows version but both have their issues.

 

Interesting. I have a Mac mini that I run 10.6.8 and Win 7 on (both 32-bit). I ought to check out PDF performance on both sides to get an equal comparison.

 

 

Win2K may be a little faster than XP, but I like the eye candy icon_smile.gif

 

Win 2000 is quite a bit faster than XP. A good OS for pre-1GHz machines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I used to play games, I preferred Windows 98SE. Faster and leaner than XP. Why not install that? icon_smile.gif

 

No multi-core or multi-processor support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No multi-core or multi-processor support.

 

In keeping with the retro theme of Atariage, I still have 3-4 old laptops mostly running Win 98SE. I have one system on a plate where I have my PB10 and a couple of floppies I used for recent ATR8000 CP/M jerking around.

 

I still play Rogue, been doing a fair amount of Diablo I this year.

 

I agree with most of the lamentations about the direction of OS. W98 was really a sweet spot: Better then the previous versions of Windows, still had option to boot in DOS mode, included good'nuff USB support and networking. The system on a plate has both PCI and ISA slots which means I can use most cards from the inception of the PC to PCI. I gave one of the old systems to my grand kids so they could play Doom!

 

The thing that upsets me most about the new OS is more general direction of what they are allowing. I read an article on ARS where the author found something like 120 tracking cookies/sites being reported to on his computer. Someone with a differing opinion then myself on a topic cited a web site. When I went to the web site, it turned out 85% of the page was advertising and they didn't divulge one of their advertisers would directly benefit from their advocacy/position. I make that at 100% BS.

 

Recently my cousin had her parents<my aunt and uncle> scammed. Bozo posing as my cousin's son phoned them asking for bail money. He had details obviously gleaned from FB.

 

Just too much pimping going on with your personal information and the default is people can crawl up your butt with a microscope. The new OS/browsers are all made to make it possible. I downloaded an apk to my cellphone that asked for access to my contact list. Next day, everyone on my contact list gets spammed with email that spoofs my email address and even signs it with my name! I got an email to myself signed myself. Letting someone have access to your contact list does not give them licence to impersonate you. This is a freaking nightmare. Remember when spam and advertising was illegal on the net? What difference is their from someone spamming your mailbox and a web page that dumps hundreds of megs of advertising on you? All the BS about how 'we have to track you to better serve you' is just that. Things are bad and getting worse. Anything to make a buck.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...