Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!R_Tim_Coslet
From: R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: ST/STE ROMs
Message-ID: <24581@cup.portal.com>
Date: 30 Nov 89 05:40:07 GMT
References: <2307@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> <1814@atari.UUCP>
  <1820@atari.UUCP> <2109@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 21

>Why didn't Atari use large ROMs for the 1040 in the first place?

I don't know, but my GUESS is that Atari made the same "mistake" that
the company I work for frequently makes... they underestimated the size
of the code when they specified the amount of ROM space needed while designing
the hardware, by the time they realized that they needed more ROM the hardware
was "set in stone" and could not be changed... so they got an "expert code
compression" type programmer to try to squeeze every byte out that they could
thru ANY trick possible. This is probably also part of the reason the TOS
sources are so "disorganized" and difficult to read.

This happened on a machine that I worked on several years ago (and was
especially bad). The system spec called for 50% unused ROM... software
estimated the code could easilly fit in <2K, so the hardware was designed
with 4K of ROM... However the first COMPLETE version of the code needed 5K!!!
That took some VERY strange recodings to squeeze 5K of code into a 4K ROM.

                                        R. Tim Coslet

Usenet: R_Tim_Coslet@cup.portal.com
BIX:    r.tim_coslet