Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!rutgers!orstcs!mist!hakanson
From: hakanson@mist.cs.orst.edu (Marion Hakanson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Changes/fixes to OS
Message-ID: <3048@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU>
Date: 3 Mar 88 17:36:28 GMT
References: <2597@crash.cts.com> <7499@apple.Apple.Com>
Sender: netnews@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU
Reply-To: hakanson%mist@cs.orst.edu (Marion Hakanson)
Organization: Oregon State University - CS - Corvallis, Oregon
Lines: 24

In article <7499@apple.Apple.Com> landon@Apple.COM (Landon Dyer) writes:
>. . .
>Nope.  The ST is pretty stuck in the mud with respect to the 68000, but for
>different reasons.  Moving to a 68020 will be painful for EVERYONE.

Just how painful is it?  I've been operating under this assumption for
quite awhile -- people on the net have been saying that GEM/TOS would
not work because of different sizes of exception frames, etc.  A fellow
here who didn't know any better put a 68020 in his 1040ST, and when I
asked him about it, he said it works just fine.  Runs all his TOS/GEM
programs just fine.  He said it even bombs normally.

Apparently he had to use some PAL's to do the trick, but since I'm not
a hardware hacker, I couldn't say exactly what was involved.  Certainly
it's not for the faint of heart.  This guy did his own 4M upgrade, too.

The speed isn't greater except for certain operations, he said (presumably
the loop mode, instruction cache, and longword operations would be better).
I assume that this is why Atari, et al, think the added expense is not
worth the while (I'll agree), but what's the REAL story here?

-- 
Marion Hakanson         Domain: hakanson@cs.orst.edu
                        CSNET : hakanson%cs.orst.edu@relay.cs.net
                        UUCP  : {hp-pcd,tektronix}!orstcs!hakanson