9-16-96



 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