AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS.BITNET ("David A. Lyons") (08/03/88)
>Date: Tue, 2 Aug 88 16:19:43 PDT >From: rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. rupp) >Subject: Re: No 'more' in MS-DOS either >Picky, picky, picky! My point was, and is, that ProDOS is >*relatively* primitive when compared to MS-DOS. COMMAND.COM always, >to my knowledge, comes with an MS-DOS system. Therefore, I think it >is reasonable to assume that ANY user of MS-DOS will be able to use >'type,' 'more,' 'sort,' etc., at will. I don't think I'm being that picky when I ask that you distinguish between an operating system and a command shell. I certainly agree that BASIC.SYSTEM (which is bundled with ProDOS and was never intended to be a full command shell) is not nearly as good a command shell as COMMAND.COM is. Fine. I don't necessarily agree that ProDOS is primitive compared to MS-DOS. I don't know enough about MS-DOS to defend my position, and you [as you show in a few paragraphs] don't know enough about ProDOS to defend yours. >Sure, equivalents of these commands could be, and probably have been, >written for ProDOS. But can one count on *every* ProDOS user's >having taken the time and spent the money to obtain these >"enhancements"? It only takes a couple minutes at your local Apple user group, and it's free (or maybe the cost of copying a disk from the club library). Many users are probably reasonably happy reading files in a word processor. I'm not, so I use a $25 command shell. >By the way, how do you change directories in ProDOS? As I understand >it, there is no 'present working directory,' as such, in ProDOS. >There is certainly not a command such as 'cd' with which a user can >change directories easily. The "current directory" is specified by a "prefix" in ProDOS terminology. In BASIC.SYSTEM (the thing that's bundled w/ ProDOS), you type PREFIX alone to see your current prefix, and you type PREFIX followed by the pathname of a directory to change it. For example, PREFIX /MYDISK/JUNK. From my command shell, you can use 'prefix' or 'cd' or 'chdir' or whatever else you alis into 'prefix'. Or you can just type the pathname of a directory with *no* command, and the effect is the same. Of course, commands like 'up' and 'over' are available to make it easy to travel around a directory structure. (ProDOS 16 [IIgs only] supports 8 different prefixes; this can be handy.) >I don't mean to sound hostile towards ProDOS. You don't. You sound like you haven't used it. >My pessimism, such as it it, regarding the fate of the Apple IIGS is >based on a couple of points. First, the original II line is, in a >sense, at its end. The IIGS is really a different computer that >happens to have a IIe inside it, and that only because of the desire >to keep software compatibility. Even if the original II line eventually dies, as "experts" have been predicting for years (getting close to a decade??), why should that doom the IIgs to death along with it? And why do you say "only" because of software compatibility? I still run a lot of //e software on the IIgs, and I'm not ashamed of it. >The IIe and IIc are pretty much frozen as is, aren't they? I think that remains to be seen. >Second, the "different computer" that I claim the IIGS to be is really >a watered-down, low-cost color Mac. At least, it appears that Apple >intends for the IIGS to look something like the Macintosh. With color >and slots, it might be called a low-budget version of the Mac II (the >Mac II is admittedly much, much more powerful, of course). Apple is pushing for a reasonably-consistent human interface across both product lines. This doesn't make the IIgs a watered-down Mac. It's a very different machine. They run none of the same software, use different CPUs, and have completely independent system software. Some of the system software is *similar* between the machines; QuickDraw is probably most similar. But just ask somebody who's *ported* something from Mac to GS (or vice-versa!) how much work it is. >Bill --David A. Lyons a.k.a. DAL Systems PO Box 287 | North Liberty, IA 52317 BITNET: AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS CompuServe: 72177,3233 GEnie mail: D.LYONS2
rupp@cod.NOSC.MIL (William L. rupp) (08/04/88)
I think I sent a fairly detailed response to this posting directly to the author, but I did not save it. Anyway, I think that my main point was that, as successful as the Apple II line has been, it is now going up against more powerful micros running much more sophisticated operating systems. ProDOS is certainly a big improvement over Apple DOS 3.3, but it still lacks many of the important features found in good old (yuk!) MS-DOS, not to mention UNIX, etc. But, more importantly, I really wonder whether it makes sense from Apple's point of view, to do all the upgrading to the II line that many Apple II users would like. If the line sells well as is, why bother? I don't say that Apple really feels that way. I just believe that, if Apple wants to let the IIs roll on and make money for as long as possible, that is a legitimate decision for them to make. Selling computers that they knew emitted dangerous radiation, or fall apart in six months would not be tolerable, on the other hand. As far as I know, Apple is guilty, at worst, of making hard-nosed business decisions which many people do not like. Such is life in a (more or less) free society, no? Bill ----------------- Someone is going to point out that I already said I would shut up on this topic. Well, I AM going to shut up. Real soon now... -----------------