dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (09/18/86)
>Gack! Last I knew, WordStar STILL won't accept pathnames. IBM certainly >did NOT change from flat to hierarchical without any problems. In general, >you had to be in the same directory as your files to use them. And that >has persisted in many programs, even popular ones. >-Steve Dorner The point is that it was upwardly compatible... you could still give Wordstar non-path file names. -Matt
dorner@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (09/22/86)
>>Gack! Last I knew, WordStar STILL won't accept pathnames. IBM certainly >>did NOT change from flat to hierarchical without any problems. In general, >>you had to be in the same directory as your files to use them. And that >>has persisted in many programs, even popular ones. >>-Steve Dorner > > The point is that it was upwardly compatible... you could still give >Wordstar non-path file names. > > -Matt Actually, I think Apple did much better in this regard. Witness all the programs (MacWrite, MacPaint, MacDraw, Word, an anything else that ``follows the rules'') that worked quite well with HFS subdirectories when they came out. The programs that are broken are the ones that insisted on viewing a file name as volume:name (Aztec C1.06G, MDS Edit, ...), rather than using StdFile/FSOpen in the prescribed manner. And you can still use most of those programs, with the (albeit pretty rotten) limitation that the files not be in folders. So, while neither company performed a major architectural change on their filesystems without some problems, Apple's were less, in my humble opinion. Steve
jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (09/23/86)
In article <8609182052.AA24629@cory.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: +--------------- | >Gack! Last I knew, WordStar STILL won't accept pathnames. IBM certainly | >did NOT change from flat to hierarchical without any problems. In general, | >you had to be in the same directory as your files to use them. And that | >has persisted in many programs, even popular ones. | >-Steve Dorner | | The point is that it was upwardly compatible... you could still give | Wordstar non-path file names. | | -Matt +--------------- The point is that wordstar is in \ws. To edit autoexec.bat I have to copy it to \ws, edit it there, copy it back. There are MANY excellent PC programs which are STILL limited in this manner. Non-HFS programs on the Mac are just as compatible. Just leave everything in the root , not in folders, most still work. I used my non HFS c compiler for months after HFS this way. (The HFS version was available, but I'd lazed out on getting it.) I have many non-HFS programs I can still use in this manner. -- Jim Budler X X Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. X X (408) 749-5806 X Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4}!amdcad!jimb X X Compuserve: 72415,1200 X X Signature, what signature? I'll make my mark!!
hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan) (09/26/86)
In article <13112@amdcad.UUCP>, jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes: > In article <8609182052.AA24629@cory.Berkeley.EDU> (Matt Dillon) writes: > > | >Gack! Last I knew, WordStar STILL won't accept pathnames. IBM certainly > | >did NOT change from flat to hierarchical without any problems. > | >-Steve Dorner > | The point is that it was upwardly compatible... you could still give > | Wordstar non-path file names. > | -Matt > The point is that wordstar is in \ws. > To edit autoexec.bat I have to copy it to \ws, edit it there, copy it > back. There are MANY excellent PC programs which are STILL limited in this > manner. > > Jim Budler X X IBM 'fixed' this brain-damage with a brain-damaged solution: the 'subst' command in DOS 3.1 (I think that's the earliest...). This lets you use a drive designator (say, k:) to pinch-hit for a path (say, \ws\andy\memo). Unfortunately, this drive designator collides head on with the logical drive designators used by networks. There is no check for other, similar assignments. The DOS substitution overrides. This sucks, since you either wind up dumping network volumes or constantly re-substituting path-drive combos. Either one negates the advantage that 'subst' was supposed to create. As I understand it, Mac programs that were carefully designed from the start (that is, the designer(s) read and understood the fine print) needed no changes to work with HFS, although they may have found some to be desirable. I don't know of any early PC software that can make that claim. So since PC DOS *and* its solution are both still not too good, it seems to me that Apple did a much better job of it. Making compatibility possible on an expanding product line is very difficult. The big difference I see between IBM and Apple is that Apple tries, and IBM just says "well, NOW compatibility means this!" Of course, their relative market positions may have something to do with that. -- Notice how they do not so much fly, as plummet. {appropriate head movement} --Monty Python (Flying Sheep Sketch) Andy Hogan Rosemount, Inc. Mpls MN path: ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!hogan