Mr. Compton, Help. After viewing the AAi X-10 video I find myself strongly compelled to write you this letter. However, I don't know what I may do or say that I may be heard by the right parties. The last half of this letter is for examples in regards to the V.I.C. AAi finally completed the X-10 video and I finally got to see what I missed. For all I know I may very well have been the first to offically buy a copy. I understand they were up till 4 am the night before finishing it. Very impressive tape! Very well done and all involved should be well recognized for their efforts. When it comes to promotion and information about the Amiga I personally know of nothing that even attempts to come close to it. VIScorp will no doubt recognize the value of the tape and it's value to the Amiga community and potential future Amiga users. Having been a long time Amiga user myself, I found the tape to be the first work that really pulls together so many facets of the Amiga, it's development, and applications where the Amiga did the job where others couldn't. Doing all this while adding the personal touch, a door open for the user to feel at home in that it was a user group responsible for pulling it all together. Mr. Compton this is comming from someone whom has a ten year lapse in his membership with AAi. My renewal was based somewhat on what AAi was accomplishing, not that I might feel I'm part of something happening, but that all happening was telling me such improvements have happened at AAi that I might get more use (information, support, etc.. the typical user group stuff) out of the user group. Well little has changed in this regards. Maybe I'm on their mailing list for the newsletter, maybe I'm not. Maybe I have better access to the BBS, maybe I don't, etc. The point is I don't know if it make a difference or not for me to be a member as to what I get out of the user group, But the X-10 video and all involved (including you) deserve a bit more than just an applause. Appriciation shown via making use of the video is what all involved deserve. I've got absolutely nothing to gain and was in no way involved in the Video, nor do I have any close relations with anyone involved, though there are those who know me from my membership long ago and crossing paths on the BBS or net. Maybe I'm just rambling on here or maybe I'm just trying to set up your receptiveness to what I want and need to say. I am sincere about all I have said above, I cannot say enough about the video. But what I want to say, I am concerned I'll not be heard. Perhaps I'm just not being diplomatic enough, but the fact is I'm just to tired and frustrated in dealing with the never ending BS. So this is to be no reflection on VIScorp, you, or anyone else sincerely working to advance the Amiga and it's technology. There is a place for the BS and a place for the reality. A place for smelling the roses and a place to work the garden to keep the roses smelling good. There is no question the Amiga has a better, in many ways, multi-tasking OS than other systems of it's size and price range. However there is also no question that it has been neglected for quite some time in it's evolutional time line. It should be alot better than it is, a great deal more stable than it is. All I hear is how stable and robust it is in comparison to... And I know this is true but so the f**k what! It really is a matter of weither to continue to lead or wait to follow. With all that has happen, or should I say not happened, the Amiga has been doing alot of waiting. Fact is, no matter how much I hear of how stable the system is, I all to often see the same amount of failure happening on the Amiga as I have on other systems. A different flavor perhaps but all with the same result, down-time and consumed time to get back up to where I was before going down. Now I've already written you and others at VIScorp about this and a couple other topics. Hardware packaging was one of them and after seeing the X-10 video I realize some of the things I communicated in my first letter to you where topics already being addressed or have been brought up. It accured to me, one, such as yourself could easily think I had previous access to such information and perspectives of which to base my letter on. From the X-10 tape I learned there are those looking back and getting the all important vision back again, of which I did say in my first letter to you, needed to be done. But I hadn't seen the tape until a few hours ago, wasn't at the banquet nor intouch with anyone who was. Clearly I'm not the only one thinking in this direction. This may present you with an important concept to consider. Although it was mentioned in the X-10 video, regarding the idea of producing an Amiga on a card that would be installable on a PC or Mac, that this was even suggested, or a topic on the net, and the rationallity you expressed as to why not to do it. The fact is, to my knowledge the only mention of such an idea on the net was a message I posted of which received little reponse, if any. Not to say there wasn't other messages, perhaps I just missed them altogether. Jason, Please do not take this personal. It is important to see past any illusion of ego (yours or mine) in order to see the faulty mechanics of falure to communicate. Without getting feedback I cannot know to respond with solutions or even a compromise that will work. Your responce was that of comparison to emulation boards for the Amiga, that this did not inspire you to go out and buy a system to replace the emulation. For myself I've been tempted to do so, however the deciding factor was this: for the additional benefit I'd receive from buying a dedicated system the additional expense was not in balance with what all I'd use it for. However, How many damn times have you heard or have said yourself something along the lines of the Amiga being an exceptional system. That it doesn't follow the rules, that it goes beyond what can be expected of other systems. The fact is, is that nobody knows what the result of producing an Amiga board would be, simply because no-one has done it. In compromise, working with your perspective, refer to the block/modular concept I have written you about (I do believe I did send you something with a photo). The key is to make such a board that can be removed from the PC or Mac and used in building an Amiga based system. Recall I mentioned three board types - The basic Amiga Board, the Abilities add/enable board, and the CPU board. For such a board set to be versatile enough to be also used in a mac or pc could only add to the balance scale of a user to evolving to an Amiga based system. Considering the advantages of the Block/modular design would only add to the scale in favor of the move to an Amiga. (Of course good ideas get used and the Block/modular design is such an idea the could be adopted by the macs and pcs, as I have learned the Aladdin system uses such a modular design). When it really gets down to it, it's not so much the packaging that sells a system (this might be clearer if there was an Amiga laptop - this way there would be no excuse to not see this packaging issue) but the electronics and software. And if the hardware and software is versatile enough, the money to make will be in selling the hardware and software while it only helps to make available versatile packaging (packaging is not the main issue but a support issue of the main issue). In support of Joe Torre's recognition of his experiences of there always being available power ports, that batteries are not needed, this is something to integrate into a versatile modular system. Though Joe's use doesn't allow for those in need of battery power. Instead of looking for reason why something won't work, especially when it is those ready to buy, suggesting it, Integrate it into the big picture of a versatile system. What is being sold is the technology in various forms, software, hardware, packaging... The more versatile it is the better it will sell, and if for any one reason it would be due a greater level of usability. The X-10 video gives me a very usable analogy. Also worth noting here is the stated need to do something with the Amiga that will again draw interest from many and various types of people/user. The analogy is this: (I believe it was R.J. Michael whom said something along these lines) we were not doing or using any special technology when we designed the Amiga. With this in mind, along with the need to do something to pull interest: There is nothing special about the functionality of the Virtual Interaction Core, the parts are all based on long known programming technology and concepts. *** The V.I.C. is mentioned and in some detail on the first disks I had sent you. What both of these have is the configuration of integration abilities. Mr. Compton, I know what the V.I.C. is and that there is no reason why it cannot be done or any reason for it to not be done. But I also know that it is important to have an solid multi-tasking OS as well as tool base that will allow users and developers to better evolve their multi-tasking mentality. The V.I.C. is certainly a tool base that will more than help evolve tasking mentality. I really would like to challange Mr. Bill Gates with his perspective about the direction of computer technology. Mr. Gates does not believe Artifical Intelligence will evolve much in his lifetime. That it will be quite some time before it is a threat. Such a statement is a loaded statement in that he cannot be wrong simply because as more is understood in the direction of A.I. and stabilizes then it becomes re-classified as something else other than A.I. But his error is the undercurrent statement of how and how much technology will evolve. Again the Amiga wasn't design using any special or advanced technology. Even the concept of anarchy was used to describe the development. Likewise the V.I.C. is such a tool not using any special or advanced technology and such a tool to allow many to clap in unison without a leader. Both are possible due their configuration integration abilities. I don't know what examples I might give you or anyone else as to what the V.I.C. can do. That is examples of which you can relate to and understand. Only through developing a feedback loop of communication will there be understanding of this vision of what is easily possible. All to often I find people determined to find an excuse not to do something, than to develop communication and understanding in order to accomplish something good. Many things can cause this lack of effort to do something good, sometimes there is an alterior motive which usually leads to some level of failure due not really understanding the concepts or the importance of team-work and the communication feedback loop. I don't have a college degree, though I have some education in electronics and programming. Not enough create the V.I.C. within my available free time, but enough to know it can be done. When I find myself compelled and have the time, I have been defining the functionality of the V.I.C. To use the V.I.C. I don't need to know anything about electronics and little about programming. My background has been such that I integrate things to improve productivity and figure out how to turn the complicated into to simple. How to make small changes that make big differences by seeing an integrated bigger picture that includes time. In closing I would like to again say that I see the value of the X-10 tape, value that it was clearly intended to give. I can only hope, wait and see if it will blosom into a good smelling rose. Also I hope I'm being heard on the issues I've presented to you and VIScorp. I don't know whom I might better direct these various issues specifically to, that I may get some responce/feedback. Nor do I claim to be diplomatic in my communications, so it is you whom I write, that you may better direct these issues to the correct party, so that a feedback loop may evolve in order to accomplish something good, something needed. Thanks for reading, Timothy Rue timrue@mindspring.com *** The following may contain an example you can relate to in regards to the concept of the V.I.C.. Also to integrate the V.I.C. into the OS as a set of system tools (where a shell or other programs would access it from above, is really where the V.I.C. functionality would work best). Once the OS becomes solid and able to protect itself from faulty applications, then and only then does the concept of true multi-masking become viable and friendly at the consumer level and up. The true power of multi-tasking, on the Amiga and with all due respects, has been little more than what can and has been done on single tasking systems. At best it is an experimental base for those who toy with it. The Amiga has multi-tasking potential that is far beyond anything currently being done with it on a wide scale consumer level. In most cases it is simply the ability to allow applications to continue running while the user is interfacing with another application. If anything this is just a convience that allows some level (a give and take) of increased productivity. There are of course such applications that do make strong use of the multi-tasking abilities but these are usually dedicated or specifically designed configurations of which some programmer(s) have done for a short term application. Perhaps all this is due the evolution from single-tasking to multi-tasking, that is the single-tasking mentality of doing things in a multi-tasking environment via single-tasking methods. Clearly the hurdle to get over is that of changing tasking mentality. Education of multi-tasking mentality is needed. In all honesty, the true power of multi-tasking has only been toyed with in the form of running several single-tasking application with perhaps a communication port between them. Imagine for a moment the construction of a house. Using a single-tasking mentality either one of two things will happen. At best it will take a long time for the house to be built. At worst the house will not get built due to deterioration of what has been completed while waiting for enough progress to happen to protect it from such. As a real example, visit a construction site of a house over the progress of it's construction. At times you will find many and various craft-people all working at the same time and at times in co-ordination with each other. Complete houses (from foundation to handing the key over to the tenant) the have been built in less than a day. The Amiga accomplishes much of its power due the co-processing abilities of it's different processors. And it also has a robust Multi-tasking OS on top of it. Yet and for the most part it has those with single-tasking mentality using it. What is missing from the Amiga, that would help educate users and developers alike, is really nothing more than built-in system tools. Simple tools that would both remind and allows users/developers to better evolve their tasking mentality towards multi-tasking. Tools that may be used for single-tasking application concepts yet open to combining single-tasking parts into a multi-tasking capable application. It really is not so complicated or complex to define and make available such tools or use of. Much like so many whom have discovered the multi-tasking advantages of the Amiga vs. other consumer/small business systems, true multi-tasking power, once experienced, will be seen as something that is hard to imagine we were doing without. As it is difficult to imagine how we once input data via holes punched in cards. The first step towards true multi-tasking mentality is, of course, removing the mental block of the single-tasking mentality. Recognizing the importance of the single-tasking mental process of co-ordinating many processes/applications to function at or near the same time in order to accomplish a common goal. To define the various processes/applications is something to be done one by one, single- tasking. To apply the multi-tasking functionality is to co-ordinate all the processes/applications so that they may work together for a common goal. The co-ordinator itself is single-tasking in it's assignments and data passing to the processes or application but what is important is that the co-ordinator allows for and functions alongside the many running processes/applications. The co-ordinator, or any process/ application may be or become the current user interface awaiting user input. As an example of applying true multi-tasking, imagine application programs that represent the various craft-persons involved in the construction of a house. Also consider you will have more than one of any one type of craft-person. Now you are the main contractor program, now co-ordinate the construction. Answer the numerious questions the crafts-persons will have, obtain information from those who have the answers and give it to those who need it, etc.. As the main contractor you do not need to know all the details but do need to have an understanding of what the goal is in order to make proper decisions. If you are the buyer and are having the house built to meet your specs., you only need to know what the end goal is and have ability/user-interface to communicate it to the main contractor. If you can imagine how even some of this can happen then you will begin to see the true power of multi-tasking. To make this example a bit more intune with what the Amiga is known for, consider yourself a buyer of an animation of the construction of a house. You define the goal and true multi-tasking makes it happen. Instead of going into LightWave and creating a wall or installing the lights or painting the walls, you simply define the goal and answer questions to refine the goal. The crafts-persons/ applications already know their trained/programmed tasks. So where does all of this knowledge these crafts-persons/ applications come from? It comes from those whom have it. But it is thru the use of common system/OS tools that allow such various knowledge bases to be pulled together into a goal directed true multi-tasking application. Now here is the hard part, at least for me. Like the four minute mile, nobody could break it because nobody believed it could be broken. The individual whom had the most difficulty in breaking this barrier was the one whom broke it. Difficulty was not in doing it, for others quickly followed, but in overcomming the mental programming or belief the four minute mile could not be broken. Not only was it a personal mental challenge but a challenge of addressing the mentality of other runners and even the competition event. Likewise, I may know what the system/OS tools are or can be to accomplish the above but I also know I could spend a lifetime or two trying to convince others, addressing the insistant single-tasking mentality of so many. Even just addressing the question of weither or not I know what a bit is could take several lifetimes so long as those asking insist on having limitation of mentality (be it for what ever reason, perhaps something along the concept of con BS. The con BS of which is very very real and rather wide spread, otherwise the Amiga would certainly be alot further along than it is). Hot-tempered and/or negitive is not my intent. My effort is in honesty about reality. And with this, I know what the tools are, how they can be used, and the reality of knowing these tools are easily within our current technology. *** Also AWK originally was not intended to be used to the extent it now is. That is, full length (1000's of lines of script/code for a single AWK program). And in consideration of what has come about with AWK, the VIC is designed/defined to allow virtual configurability. How it may be used is up to users, but unlike AWK the constraints are left up to the user to define. The VIC configuration objective is to not have any inherent constraints which would constrain usability. I have no doubt I could show you examples of use, knowing others will come up with uses I haven't imagined. But again the problem is in seeing it work and this cannot be done without creating the VIC. And the VIC can be built and as defined! Within the world of programming where one can see in only one direction, even though through experience with different languages ones sight can become wider, one still has limited sight. But from the outside looking in one can see the whole, and with effort one can better determine the primary constants. Fortran is a good language for number crunching but the ICON programming language is better for non-numeric programming. The difference is in the built in or inherent constraints of each langauge. Each having it's up-side and it's down-side. Although it's possible to combine compiled code from different languages into one program, there are still constraints which require the programmer to fully understand the languages being used. But to have the ability to define constraints sets and change between sets in the sequencing of a process one is given the ability to control the constraints rather than the constraints controlling programming. The VIC allows for one to create and change the rules. It is not outside the VIC ability for constraints to be defined that allow it to compile C code or any other code. But its ability goes beyond programming and into application. The three levels of development, the VIC, the Alternating interface (internal as in VIC use as well as external or user interface), and the Knowledge Calculator that allows the user to work on a higher level with greater ease - built upon the AI (or defined constraint sets) which in turn is built upon (processed by) the VIC. When I began learning about programming I found examples that seemed to be pointless, made no sense, but as I learned more and looking back I understood. For any experienced programmer I'm sure the creation of the VIC would be fairly easy. For myself, I know I could create it, perhaps I will, but I've got to find the time to learn and do it in the multi-tasking environment of the Amiga (because it's the system I have and I want to take advantage of multi-tasking). I learned C on/in the environment of single tasking MSDOS. Big difference in environment. The C programming Language has "no functions". It is a definition of a langauge of which C compiler makers adhear to. There is a library of functions which have become standard and may be built- in to the compiler. But the function are not the "C programming language." Functions are built upon the C language definition. The C programming language is a set of constraints. A set that is likley never fully/completely used in any one program. A program contains, and makes use of, a subset of the full set. The VIC allows one to define the language(s) or constraint sets and to change between constraint sets. And sense the user/programmer is allowed to define the constraints and change them during processing, the user/programmer is not constrained by unchangeable constraints. And it is this that may be difficult for you and others to understand. I'm not setting any rules or constraints, I only identify and define the mechanics that will allow you to define the rules or constraint set(s). And I'm doing it on a command line level, as a primary interface level, so to not only allow versatility but anyone to make use of it (from kids to professional programmers and researchers of non-traditional-programming fields.)
Email: timrue@mindspring.com
Copyright © 1988, 1994, 1996 Timothy V. Rue