Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!dptg!lzsc!hcj
From: hcj@lzsc.ATT.COM (HC Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Where can I get TOS 1.4 (disk version)?
Summary: yes its _illegal_
Message-ID: <1880@lzsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 15 Jun 90 15:12:22 GMT
References: <3651@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <2212@atari.UUCP> <707@hexagon.pkmab.se>
Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA
Lines: 34

In article <707@hexagon.pkmab.se>, daniel@hexagon.pkmab.se (Daniel Deimert) writes:
> In article <2212@atari.UUCP> towns@atari.UUCP (John Townsend) writes:
> 
> Did I hear you say that?  Is it _illegal_ to have TOS on disk?
> 
> Does indeed seem kinda' strange to me, that Atari would like to
> stop the spreading of their own TOS.  If so, why making a disk
> version in the first place??

TOS 1.0 came on disk because ROMS were not ready in 1985.
Beta releases of 1.4 were on disk for developers to test with.
They signed a release to not distribute these disks.

The last bug fixes were never distributed on disk, only burned into ROMS.

There are two ways to go with Operating System distribution.
1. RAM based.  PC's, Amigas (I believe, dont FLAME me), and MACs (almost)
   work this way.  The advantage is fast changes. The disadvantage is
	a. fast changes -- macs sometimes seem to have a fix per month --
		it implies (to me) not much testing before distribution.
	b. it sops up available RAM.  you never know from release to release
		how much will be available to the user.  This is Hell for
		developers.
2. ROM based. Atari.  The plus is considerable stability.  And considerable
	more testing.  The minus is there is no way to even have a perfect
	ROM, as the way people use the box changes even if the code was
	correct initially.

So, the result is stay with ATARI, and ROM bases OS or get another box.

Howard C. Johnson
ATT Bell Labs
att!lzsc!hcj
hcj@lzsc.att.com