3 ms·

It was only really possible by not using the OS. The main issue is that the OS did not have a way to request "chip RAM", thus software compatibility hell if ad

by snvzz 4y ago

It was only really possible by not using the OS. The main issue is that the OS did not have a way to request "chip RAM", thus software compatibility hell if added too late (never actually got added AIUI).

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Not that it mattered by that point but TOS 3 for the TT did? For what, I don't know, really. Maybe people running Calamus or something could use it? I think Atari Corp had a burst of engineering competence at the end after Tramiel Sr handed over the reigns to his sons. But it was too late, the market moved on. The Falcon is a lovely machine. The last TOS releases addressed some longstanding problems. Hiring Eric Smith to work on TOS/MuliTOS was a good, but late effort. Porting SystemV and trying to make a budget Unix workstation was a doomed but clever effort (I still remember the UnixWorld news clip box headline "Up from toyland"). I bought a 486 late 1992, put Linux 0.97 on it, and moved on.
cliffan 4y ago
Nah that’s not true. Mxalloc() takes fast/chip flags just like AllocVec() etc. Fastram support was available since TOS v2, 1988(89?).
- snvzz 4y ago
  >Fastram support was available since TOS v2, 1988(89?). Realize how late that is, relative to ST's release.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    There were no machines with any kind of fast RAM until then.
    - cliffan 4y ago
      There were OS support when fastram arrived (obviously). Since their chipset supported 4 megs of chipram (14 megs on later machines), they didn’t have to worry about slowram etc. So it wasn’t really an issue for them.
      - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
        I'd add that honestly people weren't really complaining about the ST's speed at the time it was current. It beat the Mac and PC for horsepower and price. While it was kind of a crappy games machine compared to the Amiga, it certainly was better than a PC or a Mac, and as an all around general home productivity computer was the best value for the $ out there at the time. Which I think was the Tramiel's aim.

by snvzz 4y ago

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

Not that it mattered by that point but TOS 3 for the TT did? For what, I don't know, really. Maybe people running Calamus or something could use it? I think Atari Corp had a burst of engineering competence at the end after Tramiel Sr handed over the reigns to his sons. But it was too late, the market moved on. The Falcon is a lovely machine. The last TOS releases addressed some longstanding problems. Hiring Eric Smith to work on TOS/MuliTOS was a good, but late effort. Porting SystemV and trying to make a budget Unix workstation was a doomed but clever effort (I still remember the UnixWorld news clip box headline "Up from toyland"). I bought a 486 late 1992, put Linux 0.97 on it, and moved on.

cliffan 4y ago

Nah that’s not true. Mxalloc() takes fast/chip flags just like AllocVec() etc. Fastram support was available since TOS v2, 1988(89?).

snvzz 4y ago
>Fastram support was available since TOS v2, 1988(89?). Realize how late that is, relative to ST's release.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  There were no machines with any kind of fast RAM until then.
  - cliffan 4y ago
    There were OS support when fastram arrived (obviously). Since their chipset supported 4 megs of chipram (14 megs on later machines), they didn’t have to worry about slowram etc. So it wasn’t really an issue for them.
    - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
      I'd add that honestly people weren't really complaining about the ST's speed at the time it was current. It beat the Mac and PC for horsepower and price. While it was kind of a crappy games machine compared to the Amiga, it certainly was better than a PC or a Mac, and as an all around general home productivity computer was the best value for the $ out there at the time. Which I think was the Tramiel's aim.