read new nonstop follow
84172 19-DEC 02:31 General Information
     RE: ghostscript (Re: Msg 84160)
     From: REVWCP       To: TEDJAEGER (NR)

..And don't forget to attend your house of worship during this holy season.
(Well since everyone else was advertising who they work for...)
With all best wishes,
Brother Jeremy, CSJW

-*-

84179 19-DEC 10:28 General Information
     RE: ghostscript (Re: Msg 84149)
     From: JOHNREED     To: COLORSYSTEMS


 > Isn't this actually a feature of Ghostscript? I mean, that it is designed
 > to only process input files which are in Postscript format? Isn't that
 > the reason is exists?
 >

Absolutely right.  Ghostscript is a program for people who want
to print PostScript files and use the fantastic print control
available in the PostScript language, but do not own a PostScript
printer.  As the prices of PostScript printers continue to come
down (into the $500.00 range now) Ghostscript will become a
dinosaur (although the screen preview will still be handy).


 > IMHO, lout is overkill just to try an print an ASCII text file with
 > Ghostscript. I have a few postscript programs handy which take an ascii
 > file for input which should work OK. I will scrounge around here and
 > post one of them.
 >

Using Lout to print a small ASCII file would be like loading up
a spreadsheet to add 2+2.  PSF, however is great for adding
little features, like 2-up printing, the usual
underline, bold, italics, change fonts and sizes, etc, and it
is small and quick.

 psf -2 -f 1 txtfile.txt ! gs -sDEVICE=djet500 -sOUTPUTFILE=/p -

Prints meeting minutes for a local group so their printer can
drop them right into their monthly newsletter pamphlet.



           John R. Wainwright

 <<CIS -- 72517,676>> <<DELPHI -- JOHNREED>>

 *********** InfoXpress ************

-*-

84180 19-DEC 10:28 General Information
     RE: ghostscript (Re: Msg 84155)
     From: JOHNREED     To: COLORSYSTEMS

 >
 > BEGIN POSTSCRIPT PROGRAM:
 > %!
 > %       pstext.ps
 > %

Lets see, hit the "s" (save) enter filename "zs_pstext.ps"
-- got it.

GRIN


           John R. Wainwright

 <<CIS -- 72517,676>> <<DELPHI -- JOHNREED>>

 *********** InfoXpress ************

-*-

84196 19-DEC 15:34 General Information
     RE: ghostscript (Re: Msg 84172)
     From: WOAY         To: REVWCP

Amen!

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

84173 19-DEC 02:34 System Modules (6809)
     SC-II y-cable
     From: RICHKOTTKE   To: ROYBUR


Roy,
  I had the same problem with my SC-II when I crammed it into a PC box.  The
solution was to shield the ribbon cable with copper foil and ground one
end of the foil to the CoCo and the other end to the SC-II.  You can get
copper foil at most hobby shops.  Brass foil would work also, but it's a
little harder to solder onto.  After I shielded the cable the SC-II worked
fine in no-halt mode.
   -Rich


-*-

84198 19-DEC 15:58 System Modules (6809)
     RE: SC-II y-cable (Re: Msg 84173)
     From: WOAY         To: ALL

Let me attempt to clear some air here wityth reference to the infamous Y cable,
as used by nearly anybody who doesn't have an mpi. The Y cables main problem
is NOT its length! I would wager that I could make one 2 feet long that would
work just fine if only one item was attended to that even a 1 inch Y cable
doesn't handle very well. That item is the ground impedance represented by
haveing ONLY 1 wire in that whole cable used as a common ground. Please note
that inside the pluggin port of the coco, on each end of the card edge socket
there is a ground clip designed to grab the ears on the cartridge when one
is plugged in. Note also that very few cartridges (and I'm using the word
'cartridge' here to mean anything plugged into the side of the coco) are
built without a very solid amount of ground plane on both sides of card edge
pattern whose sole purpose is to be grabbed by those clips thereby furnishing
a solid, very low impedance ground connection to the item plugged into the
port. When a 'Y' cable is used, those connections are not made leaving the
circuitry out on the end of the cable to be grounded by that single wire in
the cable assigned to ground. In my own work, I have built the equivalent to
Y cables 18" long out of 30 gauge kynar wrapping wire and have had absolutly
no problems with how the completed modifaction worked, BUT the ground itself
was not part of that 30 gauge wire, it was usually a piece of the heaviest
'solder wick' I had handy, and 2 if I was not subject to time limits.
I do have a 'Y' cable here too, about 5 inches long. It doesn't work without
also running a good heavy ground connection for anything I've tried it on.
With the ground, the performance is flawless. So what I'm trying to say is
don't blame the y cable if it doesn't work (and there are no slot conflicts),
just hang a decent ground between them too. Solder Wick works great if sleeved
for adjacent short protection, 'specialy if its soldered on both ends.
Cheers, Gene

-*-

84201 19-DEC 17:53 System Modules (6809)
     RE: SC-II y-cable (Re: Msg 84173)
     From: ROYBUR       To: RICHKOTTKE (NR)

 this is excellent news! thanks VERY much. 8*)...........roy

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

84174 19-DEC 03:15 New Uploads
     RE: GWINDOWS available for the MM1 (Re: Msg 84145)
     From: PAGAN        To: ALL

 I saw the message from FHL and want to add my two cents worth.

 As an 'outsider' (an MM/1 non-owner :-) it seems to me the one of the
 recurring problem with K-Windows is that support for it is sporadic.  I do
 know that Dave Graham (NIMITZ) is working to remedy that but buying into an
 _unsupported_ GUI would only make matters worse.

 I don't know how much work has gone into the tc70 version but I do know that
 Ed Gresick spent a lot of time optimizing the original C code to assembler.
 From conversations I've had with Ed about application development under
 G-Windows I think I can say that his port is probably about as fast as the
 hardware will allow.

 I've used G-Windows on the System IV for several months both for my own
 amusement and for serious development and I can attest to the solidity of
 the port and the professional level of support Delmar has provided me.

 Stephen (PAGAN)

-*-

84189 19-DEC 12:42 New Uploads
     RE: GWINDOWS available for the MM1 (Re: Msg 84174)
     From: NIMITZ       To: PAGAN

Stephen, the support for KWindows is GOING to improve.  I have committment
forom Kevin Darling right now to provide me with the source to BGFX and a
committment from a programmer to provide fulltime support of it.  I intend to
work on the same type of arra
ngement with KWindows itself.  By the way, Kevins program for KWindows , if
implemented the way he wanted to do it, would be quite comprehensive, and
continuous.  Unfortunately, his primary income comes from his job, and they
don't cooperate.   Wherefore o
ur new arrangements.   Now, I just need to sell  some more MM/1's to finance
all this support!

            David M. Graham
            BlackHawk Enterprises, Inc.


-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

84175 19-DEC 07:22 Games & Graphics
     JPEG files
     From: ALWAGNER     To: EDDIEKUNS (NR)

I just spent slightly under 2 hours downloading the JPEG files from the
database.
When I attempted to unpack them I get an error indicating that it is a bad
archive.  I downloaded the exe's a second time choosing them because that is
the smaller of
the two files.  Again the file is corrupted somehow.  I tried both lha211b and
LHArc.  Yeah I know, why is a guy with a 6809 downloading OSK stuff?  First
I wanted to see if I could get the source to compile and fly on a 6809.
 Second I have a friend that has an MM/1 and I thought I'd grab it for him.
Anyway I can't get either archive to open, even for a directory.  Any help you
can send my way would be appreciated.

-*-

84186 19-DEC 12:06 Games & Graphics
     RE: JPEG files (Re: Msg 84175)
     From: WRHAMBLEN    To: ALWAGNER (NR)

Al,

It seems that since I'm the guilty party I should fill you in.  The JPEG
software is archived with Carl Kreider's AR program.  Use AR version 1.2
to burst the archive.  I guess I should have made it clear in the
description.  I used AR because it seems to be the most common OSK
archiver.  It should run on a CoCo it you can get it to fit.  The
Independent JPEG Group did a very good job of writing portable code.

Bud

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

84176 19-DEC 08:22 OSK Applications
     RE: 14.4 help (Re: Msg 84165)
     From: KEITHBAUER   To: RANDYKWILSON

 > Do a ati3 to the modem. If the version number comes as 1.xx, call Zoom
 > request the latest ROM set. Might help to mention you are also having
 > "connectivity" problems. I went through this a while ago, mainly connect
 > problems.
 > The Zoom folk are *very* helpful.

 Thanks, I did the ati3 and it said "V1.200-AS29 VFX14.4" so I guess I need
 to call Zoom. I added 's38=1' to my init string and that has helped the
 hang up problem.


 > BTW, why in the world are you disabling flow control???
 >
 Well because that seemed to be the only way that I could connect to the
 local BBS. I have since changed that to &K3 which enables RTS/CTS flow
 control and I can connect but I do not get a response from the BBS.
  If I have it set to &K4 I can connect and I do get a response.
 I can still download fine but I can not upload. Osterm just errors out.

 I could really use a few INIT strings from you or anyone else reading
 this. I am having the same problem when using the modem on my MSDOS
 machine. Downloads okay but no go on uploads.

 Thanks


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Keith Bauer

 CIS     :71102,317
 Delphi  :keithbauer
 Internet:kbauer@pids.com

 Via InfoXpress/OSK ver 1.01                     How 'bout them Cowboys!
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


-*-

84187 19-DEC 12:10 OSK Applications
     RE: 14.4 help (Re: Msg 84176)
     From: RANDYKWILSON To: KEITHBAUER (NR)

I used the Zoom as it came out of the box; no init string needed. However,
my previous modem was a 2400/MNP5, so I already well versed in and set up
for, hardware flow control.
 On the mm/1, you must use /t3 or /t4 for flow control. The first three ports
do not properly support it. On the *rare* occasions I use a clone, I use
Telix. A friend gave me this copy of Telix already configured for hardware;
I do not know what's involved in setting it up.

 As you can probably tell, I feel that hardware flow is the only way to go.
Software flow control gets in the way of file transfers. *No* flow control
can be made to work, but you have to disable a lot of the modem features.
To do this, you will have to disable all compression, and run DTE speed at
the same level as the carrier speed.


   Randy

-*-

84188 19-DEC 12:37 OSK Applications
     RE: 14.4 help (Re: Msg 84187)
     From: NIMITZ       To: RANDYKWILSON

Your note re flow control support on t0-t2 is well taken, though I must
not that this is NOT so on the MM/1A systems, which have hardware flow
control on all lines.


-*-

84192 19-DEC 12:53 OSK Applications
     RE: 14.4 help (Re: Msg 84188)
     From: RANDYKWILSON To: NIMITZ

Hmmm, all the more reason for me to consider a 340 board (I assume that is the
mm/1a). But I am curious... how can a processor change affect the implimation
of the 68901 based serial ports? Maybe you should email me your latest
propag...  uh, product specs. :>

  Randy

-*-

84194 19-DEC 15:16 OSK Applications
     RE: 14.4 help (Re: Msg 84192)
     From: NIMITZ       To: RANDYKWILSON

Randy, the 68901's remain intact, on the I/O board.  but the 68070 based

port is replaced with a full serial port, and one more is added for a total
of 6 ports all capable of hardware handshaking in one way or another.
(The new ports don't yet do CD support, but do RTS/CTS stuff).

         David

-*-

84197 19-DEC 15:47 OSK Applications
     RE: 14.4 help (Re: Msg 84194)
     From: RANDYKWILSON To: NIMITZ

David, I'm a bit confused in what is included, and what is replaced, with the
340 kit. I've read Zack's post, copied into dat/gen by Marty, but it has
errors in the description of the serial ports. The original MM/1 has:

  /t0 - 68070 with a few control lines handled by m/b 68901
  /t1 - m/b 68901 with no control lines
  /t2 - i/o board 68901 with a few control lines handled by same
  /t3 - i/o board 68681, all control intact
  /t4 - ditto

Infering from your post, and Zack's info, I would guess the 340 has two serial
ports, one replacing /t0, the other as /t5. How does /t1 and /t2 gain
control lines from this? And how would additional control lines from the /t0
connecter make it to the 68340 chip (the current board sends them to 68901)?

Any light you can shed on this will be appriciated. Lots of good light may go
a long ways towards redirecting funds into the 340 account. :>

  Randy

-*-

84199 19-DEC 17:27 OSK Applications
     RE: 14.4 help (Re: Msg 84197)
     From: NIMITZ       To: RANDYKWILSON

Randy, I think the key to the change is in the top two lines of your list.

port /t0 is indeed the 68070 port that is replaced.   But, it you note the
next line stating that /t1 is on the 68901 (M/B) and the first line stateing
that the 68070 port uses the M/B 68901 for control lines, I think you see the
picture.  It would seem that the 68340 ports have there own control lines and
return the /t1's own controll lines to it's own use, via software somehow.
Sorry, I'm not real clea
r on this one, as I've not yet made enough on these things to buy one for
myself! ;)

             David

-*-

84200 19-DEC 17:41 OSK Applications
     RE: 14.4 help (Re: Msg 84199)
     From: RANDYKWILSON To: NIMITZ (NR)

Ah, but that is exactly my question. As far as I can tell, there is no way
for software to alter circuit board traces. For instance, ignoring the
level shifters wired in series, /t0's Rx and Tx lines go to the cpu socket.
the DTR and DCD lines go to the 68901. And RTS/CTS isn't connected to
anything. Assuming (as the write up said) that the 340 plugs only into the
CPU socket, I do not see how it can gain control of these other lines. Now,
if the daugther board has streamers that go to other places, such as the
689021 socket, then it would make more sense.

How soon til they're ready? (340 boards)

 Randy

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

84177 19-DEC 10:26 General Information
     RE: DED (Re: Msg 84169)
     From: PHILSCHERER  To: WOAY

Hi Gene--Merry Christmas to you too! I think that the bytes were the CRC.
After I did what I described, Iran it on a simple source code and it seemed
to work OK. I dont know how the CRC could have been different but it didn't
show any problems yet. <Phil>

-*-

84195 19-DEC 15:31 General Information
     RE: DED (Re: Msg 84177)
     From: WOAY         To: PHILSCHERER (NR)

Great! The other one should be visible as soon as Paul recovers from a
1300 mile round trip to go get a Sun workstation, 900 lbs of it according
to the msg I just got. Cheers, Gene

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

84178 19-DEC 10:27 General Information
     RE: MM/1 Production (Re: Msg 83739)
     From: CBJ          To: EDELMAR

You make many good points here especially about the UG not representing the
whole community.  I do feel the need to point out that in other areas it is
rapidly becoming the norm for Standards committes to begin working on a
standard that isn't even in production yet.  I would call that a most immature
market.  I don't think that the maturity of the market is what is important, I
think rather that knowing what the real market is and where it is headed is
much more important.  I don't think the UG is ready to start setting standards
just because we don't have a true representation of the true OS9 market.  This
is something we need to address.
 -Carl

-*-

84181 19-DEC 10:41 General Information
     RE: MM/1 Production (Re: Msg 83892)
     From: CBJ          To: NIMITZ

David,
     I haven't been following forum lately but am trying to catch up now.  I
think that perhaps we should slow this down a bit before it erupts into a full
blown war that will pit "us" against "them".  I have in the past stated that I
am in favor of a standards committee of some sort.  That is me as an individual
and not me as the President of the Users Group.  As the President I must abide
by the dictates of the board.  That is why I asked you to write up a proposal
and submit it along with how the committee would be structured and some sort of
a list of goals (objectives) and a proposed time table to accomplish those
goals.  To date I've not received that proposal.  Also please let me point out
that Ed and Mark are but two of five directors on the board.  All these
discussions here are bypassing at least two of the directors since they do not
have direct access to Delphi.  Our last board meeting had three members present
and it is conceivable that neither Ed nor Mark will be at the one that would be
deciding the fate of a "Standards committee".  Since that is the case it would
be advisable to work on that proposal and get it to me ASAP.
 Thanks,
 Carl

-*-

84182 19-DEC 10:49 General Information
     RE: MM/1 Production (Re: Msg 83912)
     From: CBJ          To: EDELMAR

Ed,
     Just a thought I'd like to toss out here...What would be wrong with a
standards committee that had sub committees to address each individual "problem"

as they are identified?  This is just a thought...The main committee could in
effect then identify problem areas and s
assess them. They could next solicit members that have the expertise to sit on
the specific subcommittee that they would be best suited for.  The main
committee would then only supervise the projects until they are complete and
when the are complete they could be submitted to the BOD for approval.  This is
probably the best way to set up any committee that will need to perform multiple

functions, all of which will require various areas of expertise.
Carl

-*-

84183 19-DEC 11:05 General Information
     RE: MM/1 Production (Re: Msg 83886)
     From: CBJ          To: EDELMAR

Ed,
     Re: despite all the talk... no one has defined the problems with OS-9

Not a direct quote...
 Anyway, you make a few valid points here but I will disagree that there are no
defined problems.  There are many.  the point is really that the proposed
standards committee hasn't defined which problems they want to start with and
which ones they want to ignore.
 -Carl

-*-

84190 19-DEC 12:49 General Information
     RE: MM/1 Production (Re: Msg 84181)
     From: NIMITZ       To: CBJ (NR)

Will do.

  BTW - working on a standard before it goes into production usually allows
you to anticipate problems and come up with a single approach that more
people can use.  I call it planned success.


-*-

84191 19-DEC 12:50 General Information
     RE: MM/1 Production (Re: Msg 84182)
     From: NIMITZ       To: CBJ (NR)

Nice note Carl, as that is a basic concept of my plan.


-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

84184 19-DEC 11:19 General Information
     RE: CD-I units identical? (Re: Msg 84168)
     From: JEJONES      To: JES68K (NR)

 > can someone verify if these two are indeed the exact same unit marketed
 > under different brandnames?  And that both have the embedded OS9/68000
 > operating system running them?

I don't know whether they are identical, but since they're both CD-i players,
they both have OS-9/68000 inside (with modules appropriate for CD-i).

Opinions herein are those of their respective authors, and not necessarily
those of any organization.

*** posted w/InfoXpress 1.1 ***

-*-

84185 19-DEC 11:38 General Information
     RE: CD-I units identical? (Re: Msg 84168)
     From: JOHNBAER     To: JES68K (NR)


 > My Christmas shopping brought me across the Philips CD-I unti at a Macy's
 > department store for $499 .... later at Service Merchandise I saw what
 > appeared to be the same unit with a Magnavox brand on it for $399 ...
 > can someone verify if these two are indeed the exact same unit marketed
 > under different brandnames?  And that both have the embedded OS9/68000
 > operating system running them?
 >
 > === Jesse ===
 >

   As for the operating system, YES - Both run RTOS (Real Time Operating
 System).  This is OS9/68K that has been optimized for CDi.

   As far as I know, both the Philips CDi 220 and the Magnavox CDi 200
 IS the same machine.  The `booklet' I'm reading from says:

   "Connects to any TV and plays all CDi and 5 inch CD-Audio discs.
 supplied with wireless remote Thumbstick Controller. Also operates with
 accessories listed below."  That's the `kids' Roller controller, Mouse,
 Touchpad, and Trackerball.

   Give Philips a call at 1 800 824 2567 and ask them. This number works
 Monday thru Saturday.  I myself would like to know if the Magnavox unit
 takes the Full Motion Video card... I believe it does but would like to
 hear it from Philips.

-
   John Baer
   johnbaer@delphi.com
   jbaer@pacs.pha.pa.us

   *** InfoXpress 1.01.00 ***

-*-

End of Thread.

-*-

84193 19-DEC 13:19 Telecom (6809)
     RE: hi speed modem CHEAP (Re: Msg 84164)
     From: WOLFDEN      To: THUNDERFNGRS (NR)

Thanks for support 09-Online Systems!

Jim

-*-


FORUM>Reply, Add, Read, "?" or Exit> 