Re: Magic 5.x And AB040

From: Magnus Kollberg <>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:48:29 +0100


> > Has anyone tried this? I tried some old automation compilations.... with
> > various results. Isn't there a way to set STe compatibel "bus" or something
> > as well? Maybe a small program to set it could make it work even better.
> It's quite easy the control the bus-mode:

Well, maybe I will try it one day.... it's not very important.
> > Hohohohohhh.... so what does MiNT have that MagiC doesn't? Don't dig up the
> > old MiNT net argument as we have got STiNG for both which is esier and
> > almost as good.
> Hehe, I knew this would provoke Magnus ;-) Seriously, for my use MagiC
> is virtually unusable: It doesn't have a decent filesystem, and while
> it has a pretty good TCP/IP-stack (STinG) it doesn't have any usable
> internet-clients at all. They're all very unstable and unreliable,
> even the most basic MiNT-utilities like elm (e-mail) or plain ftp are
> miles ahead in terms of speed, reliability and features.

Bha! :-)

Filesystem. You have got VFAT. ;-)

Seriously, VFAT isn't that bad and what I don't undertand is why noone has
ported Minix to MagiC as it should be realy easy. MagiC does support
external filesystems as well and SPIN is available for both MagiC and
MiNT, so it can be done without to much problems. There is also a nice
RAMDISK for MagiC which installs as an external filesystem.

Regarding internet apps, I don't need any as I have no internet account
at home. ;-)

Also, STiNG is in the early development stages adn MiNT Net has been around
for years. There are also some nice internet clients for STiNG. Like MyMail
(a very promissing email client) and all the other clients for STiK. There must
be some decent FTP clients for STiK as well, or?
> And for STinG being easier than MiNTnet; I got MiNTnet up and running
> in a few minutes, and I have used it without problems for almost two
> years now. After over a week with experimentation STinG still doesn't
> work under MagiC here (TCP-related)...

Sure, but as I said, STiNG is very young and will get better and better
and is activily supported.
> A serious argument for using N.AES and not MagiC is compatibility.

Is is?

> One thing is that MagiC has serious problems on some Falcons, but
> apart from that MagiC does *not* comply to the AES 4.0/4.1 standard as
> defined by Atari in MultiTOS and used in N.AES, Geneva and oAESis (if
> it ever gets finished).

Well there are a few annoying things about the AES in MagiC, but the only
one I can come up with now is the lack of toolbars in windows, but noone
uses them anyway. MagiC supports most stuff found in AES 4.1.

Also, I have found MagiC to be as compatible as N.AES+MiNT, if not better
in some cases.

The most annoying thing with N.AES is how it looks. It looks just awfull
and clumsy like an elephant when you have got used to MagiC. :-)

//Magnus Kollberg
Received on to. nov. 13 1997 - 17:35:00 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : ti. nov. 03 2015 - 20:07:53 CET