CS656@OUACCVMB.BITNET (06/14/88)
Murphy Sewall writes, >However, as a user, I see little advantage other than the hierarchical >file structure makes it MUCH easier to keep things organized on large >(over 256K) storage devices. Sorry, but I really have to disagree. The more I learn about PRODOS the more I am impressed. This is not to confuse PRODOS with BASIC.SYSTEM. They are two different things. Programs like DAVEX are incredibly nice but could not be done without PRODOS (am I right Dave?). If APPLE would include the book BASIC PROGRAMMING WITH PRODOS with each computer, or better yet, a smaller version containing the first four chapters of the book, their would be a lot le ss trouble in making the transaction. Oh, and of course a new quit code. The only good thing about the old quit code is that it was not only written poorly but inefficiently giving us $300 bytes to modify. Bob Church CS656@OUACCVMB
shack@bucsb.UUCP (Randy Shackelford) (06/14/88)
terranova@vms.macc.wisc.edu writes: >What?!? ProDOS is close (anywhere near) a real OS? Since when? Have there been that many major changes to ProDOS from when I used >>to use it all the time (a couple years ago)? Sure, ProDOS is a >>>small<< step in the right direction, but it is meager, at best >(sorry, Apple). >Perhaps we don't agree as to what a real OS is. Let me enumerate: It seems we don't agree as to what ProDOS is. It is a collection of routines that hang out in your machine's language card memory and does the following: reads/writes disk blocks and files services interrupts caused by hardware creates/deletes/renames/sets access attributes of files reads date/time from a clock checks what volumes are available to the system These and similar things are ALL the ProDOS kernel does. What these routines do and how, when, and why they do it are determined by whatever system program is running at the given time. This is because ProDOS was designed to be a general purpose OS. This means it can do anything the author of a SYS program makes it do. > - multi-tasking (I guess this rules out most micros) It would be a good idea to have hardware capable of this first. > - I/O re-direction SYS programs exist (several of 'em in fact) which do this very thang in addition to many other UNIX-like stuff. > - device independence ProDOS has had this since day one. but since you seem not to know what ProDOS is, perhaps you did not notice this. > - piping (this can be done without m-t) See above. > - virtual memory (on a 6502? yea, right) Let's see - you bad-talk the hardware and don't like the software. What are/were you doing using an Apple II? >Anyone care to add to this list? We've heard enough ca-ca for the time being. >It is interesting to note that I believe all of the above (except >virtual memory) can be done on a //e/c. At one time (I'm talking >just a few weeks ago) I was half tempted to implement a shell to >overlay ProDOS and achieve most of the above. >Two things stopped me: > 1) I don't use a //c anymore (now it is my parent's) > 2) I hate assembly language > a. I have never seen any decent, cheap C/Pascal compilers This proves you have been hiding under a rock. What you wanted to do has been done several times already and good compilers DO exist for II's (IIgs anyway.) >Perhaps someone out there will pick up my fallen cause and get the job >done. (Personally, I'd rather waste my time programming a Mac than a That's YOUR problem. >// [sorry]). I would love to be able to type something like: > ls /bin>out | more >on a // and have it function as expected. Enough said. >Well, enough of my ranting and raving. If anyone out there decides to >give this a try, mail me. I'd love to share what I learned and give >any tips or hints that I think may help. Talk to the ones who did it. I'm sure Don Elton, Dave Lyons, et al will discuss with you how they did it. With the aid of their programs and others, us II users can sit there using our real OS and being happy. Randy Shackelford shack@bucsb.bu.edu "I want my UUCP"
elliott@glacier.steinmetz (06/14/88)
I just thought I'd add my two cents worth into the discussion about
the relative merits of DOS 3.3 and ProDOS.
I remember that when I first saw ProDOS I was not terribly impressed.
But that was because I did not understand what it was.
I think calling ProDOS an "operating system" is a little bit
misleading, because that to me implies things like a command shell and
utilities (as one of this group's readers so ardently pointed out).
But then, that is not what ProDOS claims to be (otherwise it would be
called ProOS!) A better thing to call it would be a "file system". It
provides an interface to hardware devices on which you want to store
files. And THIS is what it is extremely good at.
It is almost unfortunate that Apple shipped BASIC.SYSTEM at all, for
it does not even begin to take advantage of the power of the ProDOS
Machine Language Interface. And, unfortunately, a lot of people think
that BASIC.SYSTEM >IS< ProDOS.
It was when I bought a copy of the ProDOS technical reference manual,
and sat down to see how I would go about writing programs to use
ProDOS that I began to see what it was really all about. And I became
very excited. It was better than Christmas! Anyone who has ever
written machine language programs that call RWTS (or, gak, the file
manager) in DOS 3.3 knows how much they left to be desired. The ProDOS
MLI is wonderful, and not just by comparison. For the environment in
which it exists, it is a beautiful and elegant construct. It has
helped me start thinking about my //e in new and productive ways, and
some of the results of this will be evident soon when I post ATP, my
rather extensive terminal emulation package, to comp.binaries.apple2
Meanwhile, evidence of the power of the ProDOS programming environment
has been showing up all over. The command shells mentioned already by
others are good examples of ways that power can be made accessible to
users. With ProDOS and Davex I can now do things that I did not really
think were practical on a //. And, impressively, they fit together
into a consistent, cohesive, and elegant frame. ProDOS seems to
encourage "well-behaved" programs. I almost never have to reboot
anymore.
Of course, If I really want to, I can use a DOS 3.3 program. I rarely
do, though. (And, it wouldn't know about my hard drive...)
. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ... . .
Jim Elliott / ...!seismo!uunet!steinmetz!crd!elliott
/
"Don't look, son, it's / Jim_Elliott%mts@itsgw.rpi.edu [school]
a secular humanist!" / (or) elliott@ge-crd.arpa [work]
. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ... . .SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (06/19/88)
>Murphy Sewall writes, >>However, as a user, I see little advantage other than the hierarchical >>file structure makes it MUCH easier to keep things organized on large >>(over 256K) storage devices. >Sorry, but I really have to disagree. The more I learn about PRODOS the more I >am impressed. So far, all I see is astonishment that I don't find ProDOS to be the Holy Grail, but not a whit of a reply for the reasons I gave for being less than ecstatic about the prospect of dumping several hundred dollars worth of software so I could invest money and time learning new programs to do little more than I'm already doing. Now GS OS (is it going to be referred to as "Gosh?") could be a different kettle of fish entirely (the next issue of Vaporware containing an item about GS OS and other utterly AMAZING Apple II rumors will be along in a week or so). I was at a Burger King with an Apple beta tester last Thursday -- he was too honest to deny that he's heard of GS OS (actually he's using it every day), but then he's not supposed to say anything about it either - makes for a PECULIAR conversation :-). --------------------- Disclaimer: The "look and feel" of this message is exclusively MINE! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ARPA: sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Murphy A. Sewall BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM School of Business Admin. UUCP: ...ihnp4!psuvax1!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL University of Connecticut
GREYELF@WPI.BITNET (04/10/89)
> What really bothers me is that P8 used to be an effective, working prodos >file. Formerly, one could boot straight into P8 without need of anything >else. Kind of nice to have the capability. Does anyone out there know if it >is still possible to make a 3.5 inch, booting disk with only a PROdos file, >sans ANY startup files that poll all devices? > Scott > SELLSWORTH@HMCVAX > sellswor@jarthur.claremont.edu> It is possible to put only Prodos, and another system file on a 3.5er and have it work peachy. I have a Laser 128, so I boot from slot 7, and use it like a small harddrive (but you don't have to spin down...) -- Michael J Pender Jr Box 1942 c/o W.P.I. I wrote SHELL and Daemon, greyelf@wpi.bitnet 100 Institute Rd. send bug reports, suggestions, greyelf@wpi.wpi.com Worcester, Ma 01609 checks to me. People keep asking me if Shell or Daemon are compatible with the IIc, IIe. YES, I wrote them on my Laser 128. I mean, what would be the challenge to multitasking on a IIgs? I'll start writing dedicated gs programs when somebody sends me one in the mail.