mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) (09/07/89)
Can Apple provide developers with detailed documentation for designing custom FSTs for GS/OS? It seems to me that it might be possible for a 3rd party to develop something like a MINIX FST for the IIGS. Also, can an SCSI drive be partitioned into multiple areas that are governed by more than one FST? (In other words, could you have a ProDOS, CP/M, Mac HFS, and similar FST-based partitions on a single drive?) UUCP: crash!pnet01!pro-sol!mdavis ProLine: mdavis@pro-sol ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-sol!mdavis@nosc.mil MCI Mail: 137-6036 INET: mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com ALPE|BIX: mdavis
dlyons@Apple.COM (David Lyons) (09/08/89)
In article <8909071802.AA25320@trout.nosc.mil> mdavis@pro-sol.cts.com (Morgan Davis) writes: >Can Apple provide developers with detailed documentation for designing custom >FSTs for GS/OS? [...] (Warning: Strange approach angle.) Device drivers are a long-standing and fairly traditional concept. Their implementation in GS/OS is stable, so that any properly-written device driver will continue to work with future versions of the System Software. Device drivers interact with the system in permanently-defined ways (the implementation can be *extended*, but it can't ever change radically). File System Translators aren't quite like that. With each System Software revision, changes may be required to any or all of the existing File System Translators, and other parts of the system may need to be revised to deal with a file system which previosly had no FST. Since defining for all time how FSTs work could limit the choices in designing any future versions of GS/OS, the policy on FSTs is that Apple writes them all. > [...] Also, can an SCSI drive be >partitioned into multiple areas that are governed by more than one FST? (In >other words, could you have a ProDOS, CP/M, Mac HFS, and similar FST-based >partitions on a single drive?) Yes, I believe you can, given appropriate FSTs. -- --Dave Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems AppleLink--Apple Edition: DAVE.LYONS | P.O. Box 875 AppleLink--Personal Edition: Dave Lyons | Cupertino, CA 95015-0875 GEnie: D.LYONS2 or DAVE.LYONS CompuServe: 72177,3233 Internet/BITNET: dlyons@apple.com UUCP: ...!ames!apple!dlyons My opinions are my own, not Apple's.
lhaider@pro-sol.cts.com (Lawrence Haider) (09/10/89)
Network Comment: to #10844 by dlyons@apple.com
>the policy on FSTs is that Apple writes them all. (Dave Lyons)
If Apple must write all of the FSTs, why are they so slow in providing a
decent collection of FSTs that would be useful for their end users. Just the
basics for MS-DOS and Mac file system translation would be more than useful
for anyone (like me) who must use more than just the //gs in their day to day
business and personal lives.
Why not let third parties develope FSTs, even if they may become incompatible?
It seems to me that even Apple's FSTs currently provided would need to be
re-written should an OS update be released; why not allow third party
developer to write, update, and improve their own FSTs. It all sound like
twisted logic and a need to "control" the market on Apple's part.
Let's either get Apple to provide some decent FSTs to the users or let the
users make it themselves. BTW, Morgan Davis (the one who brought up the
question) is VERY knowledgable about Apple IIs (in case you didn't know), and
is one of the few programmers who I feel would be responsible enough to
support any FSTs he writes, and imaginative enough to make something that's
USEFUL.
(Stepping down from the soapbox)
LaernicholaA@moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) (09/10/89)
>>the policy on FSTs is that Apple writes them all. (Dave Lyons) > If Apple must write all of the FSTs, why are they so slow in providing a > decent collection of FSTs that would be useful for their end users. Just the > basics for MS-DOS and Mac file system translation would be more than useful > for anyone (like me) who must use more than just the //gs in their day to day > business and personal lives. That might be true, but Apple has to support many more end users than you realize, and from what I have understood the gs/os team to say, writing FSTs is not such a trivial matter. Parts of the gs/os kernel usually have to be rewritten to support a new FST, meaning that a new release of the OS is needed every time we get a new FST. What happens if we get third party developers to write FSTs? If we get 5 new FSTs in a year, does that mean we'd also get 5 new release of the OS? Like System 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 all within 12 months? Egad, let's hope not. 1 release of new OS software in a year is very confusing for end users, let alone 5 or so times as much. > Why not let third parties develope FSTs, even if they may become incompatible? Because quite frankly I do *NOT* want to develop for anything that's not going to be as transparent as possible to my application or possibly break it because it's incompatible with the rules. > It seems to me that even Apple's FSTs currently provided would need to be > re-written should an OS update be released; why not allow third party > developer to write, update, and improve their own FSTs. It all sound like > twisted logic and a need to "control" the market on Apple's part. Why not let third party developers write FSTs? Apple is in a position to support what they write. Morgan Davis is not. Do you have any kind of comprehension of how *MANY* people might potentially use any given FST? It's many more people than a small developer could potentially support. To that I suppose you could say that a third party developer could only developer his/her MS-DOS FST for a small "niche" market... but what good is it then? What good does hiding something obviously wonderful like that do? You'd *HAVE* to let everyone see it, and know about it -- which brings us back to square <1> for which one wonders how to support it. > Let's either get Apple to provide some decent FSTs to the users or let the > users make it themselves. BTW, Morgan Davis (the one who brought up the > question) is VERY knowledgable about Apple IIs (in case you didn't know), and > is one of the few programmers who I feel would be responsible enough to > support any FSTs he writes, and imaginative enough to make something that's > USEFUL. I agree. Morgan is definitely capable of writing an FST. He's also probably very capable of supporting it... to an extent. He just couldn't provide the type of support that Apple is capable of giving developers (who are the first ones to get frustrated by a new toy like an FST). I'm sure we'll have plenty off FSTs in the future -- but you also have to give the existing products a chance to catch up. Look at the AppleShare FST apple just released. Has most of the software been updated or written to at least keep that FST in mind? Name a few packages you know... I can't. > Laer andy
fadden@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Andy McFadden) (09/11/89)
In article <8909092140.AA18977@trout.nosc.mil> lhaider@pro-sol.cts.com (Lawrence Haider) writes: >Network Comment: to #10844 by dlyons@apple.com > >>the policy on FSTs is that Apple writes them all. (Dave Lyons) > >If Apple must write all of the FSTs, why are they so slow in providing a >decent collection of FSTs that would be useful for their end users. Just the >basics for MS-DOS and Mac file system translation would be more than useful >for anyone (like me) who must use more than just the //gs in their day to day >business and personal lives. The Apple //gs is very low in priority for most of Apple, and FSTs are low priority among Apple developers. We should either have FSTs or something like that File Exchange program for the Mac, but this continues the MPW tradition of requiring a Macintosh to do an serious development work for the Apple //gs. >Let's either get Apple to provide some decent FSTs to the users or let the >users make it themselves. Somebody wanted to do this, but was told in no uncertain terms that not only would he not be able to get information, but that it was not advisable to do so. I'm beginning to care very little about what Apple considers advisable. If somebody out there can figure out how to write a DOS 3.3 or Mac HFS FST, DO IT. I'm tired of empty promises. If there's some problem with compatibility later on, we can probably deal with it. Distribute them with the disclaimer that use of these may cause problems later on, but *distribute them*!!! > Laer -- fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) ...!ucbvax!cory!fadden
dlyons@Apple.COM (David Lyons) (09/12/89)
In article <8909092140.AA18977@trout.nosc.mil> lhaider@pro-sol.cts.com (Lawrence Haider) writes: >Network Comment: to #10844 by dlyons@apple.com > >>the policy on FSTs is that Apple writes them all. (Dave Lyons) > >If Apple must write all of the FSTs, why are they so slow in providing a >decent collection of FSTs that would be useful for their end users. Just the >basics for MS-DOS and Mac file system translation would be more than useful >for anyone (like me) who must use more than just the //gs in their day to day >business and personal lives. I'm in the somewhat frustrating position of having to defend a policy that I didn't invent, without being able to say much beyond "I can't discuss any unannounced products we may or may not be working on." (By the way, which hardware out there can physically read MS-DOS disks on a GS? Can GS software read them through the PC Transporter? Is there anything else that can?) >Why not let third parties develope FSTs, even if they may become incompatible? For one thing, there's more to it than that. It's perfectly conceivable that if FST information were available, 3rd parties actually trying to write them would find that changes were required to GS/OS itself (and/or parts of the toolbox, Finder, etc), to allow for the peculiarities of the new file system. FSTs *look* like they're as self-contained as device drivers are, but they aren't. > [...] It all sound like >twisted logic and a need to "control" the market on Apple's part. Yes, it's a conspiracy. APPLE WRITES OWN SYSTEM SOFTWARE! AREA RESIDENTS FLEE IN TERROR! :-) > [...] BTW, Morgan Davis (the one who brought up the >question) is VERY knowledgable about Apple IIs (in case you didn't know), and >is one of the few programmers who I feel would be responsible enough [...] Yes, I know Morgan--his intelligence and responsibility aren't in question. In an ideal future, FSTs would become more self-contained and more permanently defined, the way device drivers are now. I have no idea when or whether this will happen. -- --Dave Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems AppleLink--Apple Edition: DAVE.LYONS | P.O. Box 875 AppleLink--Personal Edition: Dave Lyons | Cupertino, CA 95015-0875 GEnie: D.LYONS2 or DAVE.LYONS CompuServe: 72177,3233 Internet/BITNET: dlyons@apple.com UUCP: ...!ames!apple!dlyons My opinions are my own, not Apple's.
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (09/12/89)
On Tue, 12 Sep 89 00:42:32 GMT you said: >(By the way, which hardware out there can physically read MS-DOS disks on >a GS? Can GS software read them through the PC Transporter? Is there >anything else that can?) Hmm... Apple HAS been developing (has developed?) an EXTERNAL SuperDrive. Rumor has it that the thing is engineered to work on a Mac+ so why not a IIgs? ON THE OTHER HAND (a little bird told me), I've been asked to "ask Apple how come they've CANCELLED plans to market the external SuperDrive" -- along with "if Mac+ (Mac 512, 512e, etc.) owners don't demand the device, they'll probably never get a chance to get one" <ain't FAX wunnerful?> Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] The opposite of artificial intelligence is genuine stupidity! -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)
mjohnson@Apple.COM (Mark B. Johnson) (09/12/89)
In article <8909112329.aa08586@SMOKE.BRL.MIL> SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) writes: > >Hmm... Apple HAS been developing (has developed?) an EXTERNAL SuperDrive. > >ON THE OTHER HAND (a little bird told me), I've been asked to "ask Apple >how come they've CANCELLED plans to market the external SuperDrive" -- along But the Apple External FDHD SuperDrive (TM) was on the July Price list. It is part number M0112 at SRP of $629.00 and works with the Macintosh SE/30 and Macintosh IIcx (the only two machines with both a SWIM chip and an external drive port). As far as I know, there are NO plans to remove it from the September price list. -- Mark B. Johnson AppleLink: mjohnson Developer Technical Support domain: mjohnson@Apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. UUCP: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!mjohnson "You gave your life to become the person you are right now. Was it worth it?" - Richard Bach, _One_
throoph@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Henry Throop) (09/12/89)
In article <34651@apple.Apple.COM> dlyons@Apple.COM (David Lyons) writes: >(By the way, which hardware out there can physically read MS-DOS disks on >a GS? Can GS software read them through the PC Transporter? Is there >anything else that can?) The PC Transporter will read 3.5" MS DOS disks on an Apple 3.5 drive, and 5.25" MS DOS on an IBM drive connected to the PC Transporter. I think there's some problem reading 3.5" disks on an IBM that were formatted on the Apple under MS DOS, though, but I'm not quite sure. ASKY, Inc. a few years ago had a $189 Envoy disk controller that let you access MS DOS 5.25" disks under ProDOS. I haven't heard anything about them recently, so I don't know if they're still around. > --Dave Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems --- Henry Throop Internet: throoph@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (09/12/89)
On Tue, 12 Sep 89 05:12:52 GMT you said: >But the Apple External FDHD SuperDrive (TM) was on the July Price list. >It is part number M0112 at SRP of $629.00 and works with the Macintosh SE/30 >and Macintosh IIcx (the only two machines with both a SWIM chip and an >external drive port). As far as I know, there are NO plans to remove it >from the September price list. The rumor is about version (upgrade) for OLDER Mac's (particularly the Plus as there an upgrade for the SE to SE-30 was <has been?> announced). Has Apple indicated an intention to offer SuperDrive technology for oldeer Macs and the IIgs in any form you can acknowledge (the ability to tranfer files between MS-DOS and Apples of all description without having to purchase MeSsy DOS hardware would be MUCH appreciated)? Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] The opposite of artificial intelligence is genuine stupidity! -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)
JDA@NIHCU.BITNET (Doug Ashbrook) (09/12/89)
> Yes, it's a conspiracy. APPLE WRITES OWN SYSTEM SOFTWARE! AREA RESIDENTS > FLEE IN TERROR! :-) > > --Dave Lyons, Apple Computer, Inc. | DAL Systems I love it! Glad to see that you still have a great sense of humor Dave. ==================================================================== J. Douglas Ashbrook (301) 496-5181 BITNET: JDA@NIHCU <-- preferred address INTERNET: JDA@CU.NIH.GOV or jda%nihcu.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu National Institutes of Health, Computer Center, Bethesda, MD 20892 -+- Remember. If some weirdo in a blue suit offers you some MS-DOS, JUST SAY NO!
lhaider@pro-sol.cts.com (Lawrence Haider) (09/13/89)
Network Comment: to #10958 by agate!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!fadden@ucbvax.berkeley.edu >The Apple //gs is very low in priority for most of Apple, and FSTs are low >priority among Apple developers. We should either have FSTs or something >like that File Exchange program for the Mac, but this continues the MPW >tradition of requiring a Macintosh to do an serious development work for the >>Let's either get Apple to provide some decent FSTs to the users or let the >>users make it themselves. >Somebody wanted to do this, but was told in no uncertain terms that not only >would he not be able to get information, but that it was not advisable to do >so. I'm beginning to care very little about what Apple considers advisable. >If somebody out there can figure out how to write a DOS 3.3 or Mac HFS FST, >DO IT. I'm tired of empty promises. >If there's some problem with compatibility later on, we can probably deal >with it. Distribute them with the disclaimer that use of these may cause >problems later on, but *distribute them*!!! >> Laer >-- >fadden@cory.berkeley.edu (Andy McFadden) Although I don't expect an FST for 5.25" MS-DOS disks, since there are very few drives for the Apple that support them (like someone thought I meant, but I have a GS), I do expect (hope for) 3.5" MS-DOS support. AE has been able to do it with the PC-Transporter, why can't Apple do it with just GS/OS. Now that GS/OS handles resource forks, why can't Apple support reading HFS disks? I do get the feeling that the Apple II is VERY low priority to Apple. Boy that Concurrent DOS seems like a nice OS for the IBM and compatible '386 machines doesn't it. Hmmmm... Laer
sb@pro-generic.cts.com (Stephen Brown) (09/13/89)
Network Comment: to #4952 by lhaider@pro-sol.cts.com The excuse that a third-party written FST might become obsolete is a weak argument to justify Apple writing and releasing all FST's. Will Apple write all Drivers, and DA's as well? If Apple wants to reserve the right to write all FST's, then it should 'come up with the goods' or simply give up the right. BTW: If new FST's are all that Apple releases at AppleFest, it would only be a year late. UUCP: crash!pro-generic!sb ARPA: crash!pro-generic!sb@nosc.mil INET: sb@pro-generic.cts.com
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (09/14/89)
In article <8909101602.AA14971@batman.moravian.edu> nicholaA@moravian.EDU (Andy Nicholas) writes: >writing FSTs is not such a trivial matter. Parts of the gs/os kernel usually >have to be rewritten to support a new FST, meaning that a new release of the OS >is needed every time we get a new FST. Surely with the experience gained from vnodes/gnodes/whatever, by now it is well understood how to provide a uniform interface for a wide variety of file systems, well beyond what we've been talking about for GS/OS FSTs. All they need to do is do it right just once. >Look at the AppleShare FST apple just released. Has most of the >software been updated or written to at least keep that FST in mind? Apple failed to inform us in advance of the change in file naming; if they'd stuck with / separators instead of switching to : for general FST use, assuming the FSTs are doing their job existing programs would have already supported them. The whole POINT of FSTs is to provide a uniform application interface to a variety of file system types. Applications are not supposed to have to do ANYthing to "keep in mind" any particular FST.
joseph@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Seymour Joseph) (09/14/89)
As we all know, Apple's support to the end user isn't so hot anyhow. I know many third party vendors who do a MUCH better job than Apple. 90 Day Warranty??? No direct support phone number??? Give me a break. Seymour
lhaider@pro-sol.cts.com (Lawrence Haider) (09/14/89)
>(Old comments too numerouse to post)...
Andy and Dave, OK! OK! I guess I was in a little over my head in this one and
have been flamed to a crispy crunch! I now understand there is more to an FST
than meets the more than casual eye, and do understand the implementation of
FSTs, even on the Mac, is difficult at best and less than ideal. Mine were
the comments of a frustrated user seeing a glimmer of hope when seeing the
interest of an accomplished developer in writing an FST.
BTW, glad to see you back Andy! You once mention writing ShrinkIt! for the
//gs native mode; any news? Faster compression and decompression sure would
be nice (grinning innocently).
Laer
INET: lhaider@pro-sol.cts.comRXBROWN@UALR.BITNET ("MR.FANTASTIC") (09/15/89)
I thought I might just through in my two cents worth into this FST bit. Personally I think an Ms-Trash, or a Mac FST would have been of more use to the majority of us users/programmers/maybe even developers. I'm not saying I don't care about the AppleTalk FST, but its not doing me any good right now. I could be using the Mac or the Ms-Trash FST right now. Robert Brown BITNET: RXBROWN@UALR ALPE: ROBPHD p.s. Why release the AppleTalk FST first???? :|
sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com (The RainForest BBS) (09/15/89)
Comment to message from: nicholaA%moravian.edu@relay.cs.net (Andy Nicholas) Andy... Just a quick note of THANKS for the evolution of ShrinkIt and the standard it has become. I hope the ruckus I started on GEnie concerning it had at least a small part in it's continued acceptance and success. While I know you are into IIgs programming with your new term program, etc, please don't forget those of us still happily pounding away on //e's... <grin> /steve ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider COMPU$ERVE : 75166,2544 | | ARPA: crash!pro-exchange!sschneider@nosc.mil GENIE : sschneider | | INET: sschneider@pro-exchange.cts.com * My son is a Georgia Tech freshman | | I work for Xerox Corporation for decent bucks but dream of Palto Alto RC | | The RainForest @ 305-434-4927 / PO Box 841422, Pembroke Pines, Fl, 33084 | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) (09/21/89)
Network Comment: to #5061 by jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU!throoph@cs.orst.edu By the way, do you know if the PC Transporter can access AppleTalk off the GS? Is there a reason that MCGA graphics couldn't be handled by the GS monitor? How many pixels does the monitor have?I've been trying to obtain an answer to this for months, along with a way to chat to a Mac over AppleTalk from a GS.Why the silence?
philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) (09/21/89)
Network Comment: to #5071 by SEWALL%UCONNVM.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Since you insist on using the "MeSsy DOS" expression, please note that
the DOS/OS-2/AIX world supports the high density drives.You wouldn't
have to be posting this message if you weren't using a computer that is
badly supported by a virtual monopoly. The GS has so much potential.
Its capabilities are somewhat dated.320x200 graphics-that went away a
long time ago. I really can appreciate its potential but could someone
from Apple explain why they continue to sell such a weak platform to
its loyal users. Either beef it up or junk it. Don't insult us. Why
can't I at least have readable text,a tektronics' emulation package,
decent printing capabilities(eg. to an HP Painjet or DeskWriter),...?
Philip
philip@utstat.toronto.edudseah@wpi.wpi.edu (David I Seah) (09/25/89)
In article <8909250518.AA28868@trout.nosc.mil> philip@pro-generic.cts.com (Philip McDunnough) writes: >Network Comment: to #5061 by jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU!throoph@cs.orst.edu > >By the way, do you know if the PC Transporter can access AppleTalk off the >GS? Is there a reason that MCGA graphics couldn't be handled by the GS >monitor? How many pixels does the monitor have? I'm sure that MCGA graphics (320x200x256/262144, I think) can be handled by the GS monitor. It isn't so much the monitor as it is the PC Transporter hardware. AE would have to engineer this video standard into the board along with writing some firmware to support it. I hope that they do implement some IBM graphics that are better than the currently supported CGA (yuck). Perhaps they will make an extended graphics board for the GS that would be supported by the PC Transporter as well...that would be interesting. -- Dave Seah | O M N I D Y N E S Y S T E M S - M | Internet: dseah@wpi.wpi.edu | User Friendly Killing Machines | America Online: AFC DaveS "MY GOD! I HAVE POCKETS!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! I HAVE POCKETS!!" - Tick