shack@bucsb.UUCP (Randy Shackelford) (06/14/88)
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) writes: >>So you feel limited by ProDOS. So what is your OS of choice? DOS 3.3? CP/M? >>I kinda like ProDOS myself. >Now that the quit code has been humanized by Glen Bredon, Don Elton, >Dave Lyons, and others (who've I left out?), I think ProDOS is OK. >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. Buy a copy of Beneath Apple ProDOS published by Quality software. In the first chapter there is a lengthy discussion of the deficiencies of DOS and how ProDOS addresses them. Here are a few I can name: 1. volumes cannot be >400K (making hard disks, RAM disks, and 3.5" disks a pain to use) 2. no support for modern hardware such as eighty column displays, extended memory and interrupting devices such as the mouse 3. customizing DOS requires version-dependent patches which may or may not be compatible with commercial software 4. DOS has no consistent call interface; as a result, DOS was only reassembled once in its five-year life, as this would cause routine entry points to change, causing programs to quit working. As a result, all bug fixes consisted of applying patches to the existing code. >The problem IS so much worthwhile software isn't upward compatible >(ProDOS doesn't have a "DOS box" the way OS/2 will in the IBM world). >I have quite a bit of software that still does what I bought it to do >quite nicely AND I'm used to it (no reason to change) BUT it's NEVER I know of two products that provide a "DOS box". The first is Program Writer from the Software Touch; it came with a SYS program called DOS.SYSTEM which, when run, runs DOS. Only I'm not sure this is still available. The other is ProSel, whose documentation provides information on making a DOS system program which may be run from ProSel to run DOS programs from the selector. The thing is, of course, that this is no help with much DOS commercial software, which has to be booted directly. No reasonable person could expect Apple to offer such a thing of course; As anyone wanting service for their ][+ or 128K Mac or Apple /// would soon find out, Apple is in the habit of abandoning things they no longer like. >I don't have a Z80 in my //e, but I know quite a few folks that do. >dBase II retains all the power it ever had. Is there REALLY enough extra >advantage to ProDOS (ProDOS 16 may be another matter, but the software >library at the moment looks more like "gee whiz" stuff than something with >REAL advantages over in-place systems) to merit starting over from scratch? I have a Z80, and I think all the software I got for it sucks now that there is comparable software specifically for my machine. Can one really expect programs designed to run on a variety of machines (e.g. CP/M) to be better than those tailor made for specific hardware? This machine independence means the machine the software is designed for is the minimum setup, and will not take advantages of extra features. Compare DBase under CP/M which can run on a 64K ][+ and Appleworks 2.0 which uses your peripheral slot RAM card for desktop space and you see what I mean. Randy Shackelford shack@bucsb.bu.edu "I want my UUCP"
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (06/20/88)
>Buy a copy of Beneath Apple ProDOS published by Quality software. In the first >chapter there is a lengthy discussion of the deficiencies of DOS and how ProDOS >addresses them. > >Here are a few I can name: > >1. volumes cannot be >400K (making hard disks, RAM disks, and 3.5" disks a > pain to use) I rarely have to deal with a file over 50K let alone 400K. ProDOS IS nice for large volume devices, but it QUICKLY becomes apparent that the only way to manage is with subdirectories (which have catalogs of manageable sizes). Though I like hard disks for working storage and software, they aren't reliable enough to trust anything truly important to (hence the constant admonishions to back up the rascals). Finished work belongs on disks (plural) anyway. I can keep track of volume numbers as easily as pathnames, so two 400K volumes on a 3.5" disk isn't really a handicap. My RAM-Charger just died; while RAM disks are truly neat, they are even less reliable than hard disks. Note: My original post that occasioned all this passion for ProDOS DID opine that the best thing about ProDOS is the hierarchical file structure. >2. no support for modern hardware such as eighty column displays, extended > memory and interrupting devices such as the mouse Funny how well my 80 column card works with my DOS 3.3 applications; and I've got a number of 128K DOS 3.3 programs. Maybe ProDOS is better for RAM > 128K, but I haven't found any real need to have multiple documents in memory at once (and a 400K RAMFactor partition makes it possible to move pretty rapidly from one document to another anyway). I own a mouse. Mostly it gathers dust. I guess it's because I'm "command driven" - learned to touch type 30 years ago. I do find I can draw better with a mouse than with any other inexpensive input device (mainly because the mouse is 1024 by 1024 while touch pads using the paddle port are only 255 by 255), but I don't draw very frequently (a graphic artist I'm not). >3. customizing DOS requires version-dependent patches which may or may not be > compatible with commercial software I sent Bill Basham his $30 for Diversi-DOS years ago. It works with just about everything that's not copy protected except SOFTERM 2 (which INSISTS upon its own one-of-a-kind custom DOS's). Most of what I use isn't copy protected. Diversi-DOS works with my RAMFactor (all I had to do was make a copy of the install disk with Diversi-DOS as the boot system), it works with Kermit (in fact I recommend it as it makes DOS 3.3 Kermit load as rapidly as the ProDOS version), and it works with my word processor. Today's commercial software is MUCH less inclined to copy protection and special DOS's because of the growing demand for compatibility with hard disks, which really has little to do with whether the operating system is DOS 3.3 or ProDOS. >4. DOS has no consistent call interface; as a result, DOS was only reassembled > once in its five-year life, as this would cause routine entry points to > change, causing programs to quit working. As a result, all bug fixes > consisted of applying patches to the existing code. That's more esoteric than I care to investigate, but it strikes me as peculiar that Diversi-DOS, David DOS, One-Key DOS, and ProntoDOS work so well. I don't believe any of those are merely patches to the existing code. Programmers sometimes use undocumented entry points resulting in no end of trouble when the operating system changes (seems to me that's been as common a problem in the MS-DOS world as for Apple software), but it doesn't seem to be all that bearish for a really good systems programmer to keep the documented entry points where the documentations says they'll be. Diversi-DOS, at least, seems to have all the entry points in the correct locations. > ...Compare DBase under CP/M which can run on >a 64K ][+ and Appleworks 2.0 which uses your peripheral slot RAM card for >desktop space and you see what I mean. AppleWorks 2.0 does RELATIONAL data bases? When did it start doing that? Even dBase II's outmoded programming language outstrips anything available in AppleWorks (although I gather some of Beagle Brother's extentions provide much of the same functiionality), and I suspect that dBase manipulates large files at "blinding speed" compared to AppleWorks (maybe AW keeps up on a IIgs). CP/M will work from hard drives, I expect a driver for a slot RAM card could be written easily enough. The point is I am NOT anti-ProDOS. Everything I've seen indicates it is a MUCH more sensible system for developing applications, but a lot of this "ProDOS is the ONLY way to go" chatter seems to be coming from people who arrived (and bought their software) after 1985. Howcome there are so many ProDOS word processors and not one decent ProDOS text editor (WYSIWYGs make TERRIBLE text editors and besides they hog core with lots of "features" that a word processor needs but a text editor doesn't)? --------------------- 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
kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) (06/22/88)
In article <8806200344.aa10165@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) writes: >The point is I am NOT anti-ProDOS. Everything I've seen indicates it >is a MUCH more sensible system for developing applications, but a lot >of this "ProDOS is the ONLY way to go" chatter seems to be coming from >people who arrived (and bought their software) after 1985. Here here! Well said. >Howcome there are so many ProDOS word processors and not one decent >ProDOS text editor (WYSIWYGs make TERRIBLE text editors and besides >they hog core with lots of "features" that a word processor needs but >a text editor doesn't)? There's at least *one* I know of. It's called AppleWriter. Of course, it was originally developed under DOS 3.3 -- a very custom 3.3 though. Actually, from my years on UN*X with VI and JOVE, I'm convinced that there really aren't any *full featured* text-editors for the // out there, with the exception of AMACS, but I haven't seen that yet. And, unfortunately, I just don't have the $195 (I think) for it, even if it *did* work well. >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 Murph, you really ought to sign your name, so I don't have to include your whole .sig. Sometimes it's enough for Pnews to barf. (Hence this note. . .) Sean Kamath -- UUCP: {decvax allegra ucbcad ucbvax hplabs ihnp4}!tektronix!reed!kamath CSNET: reed!kamath@Tektronix.CSNET || BITNET: reed!kamath@PSUVAX1.BITNET ARPA: reed!kamath@PSUVAX1.CS.PSU.EDU US Snail: 3934 SE Boise, Portland, OR 97202-3126 (I hate 4 line .sigs!)
elliott@madison.steinmetz (06/22/88)
In article <9644@reed.UUCP> kamath@reed.UUCP (Sean Kamath) writes: >In article <8806200344.aa10165@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) writes: >>but a lot >>of this "ProDOS is the ONLY way to go" chatter seems to be coming from >>people who arrived (and bought their software) after 1985. >Here here! Well said. Well, I hardly fit that description; first, I write most of my software, and don't buy much. Second, I've been programming apples since the late 70s, and writing machine code since the ][+ I had in Mexico. I've used DOS 3.2.1 and DOS 3.3, calling it by printing Ctrl-Ds, calling RWTS directly, and the File Manager, with much help from Beneath Apple DOS. And I think ProDOS is the likely single best thing to happen to the Apple software environment in the 1980s, and am extremely glad to have it around. (I'm not suggesting anyone throw away their 3.3 software, but I hope anyone planning to develop something will do it in ProDOS. They will certainly make life nicer for themselves that way!) Anyway, I am promising myself that this will be the LAST THING I SAY ON THIS SUBJECT! . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 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] . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ... . .
shack@bucsb.UUCP (Randy Shackelford) (06/25/88)
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) writes: >>1. volumes cannot be >400K (making hard disks, RAM disks, and 3.5" disks a >> pain to use) >I rarely have to deal with a file over 50K let alone 400K. Since, with few exceptions, DOS programs run in 64k (the exceptions only use 128k), it is a foregone conclusion that your files are less than 50k, as DOS programs cannot handle large files. >Though I like hard disks for working storage and >software, they aren't reliable enough to trust anything truly important >to (hence the constant admonishions to back up the rascals). Finished >work belongs on disks (plural) anyway. I can keep track of volume >numbers as easily as pathnames, so two 400K volumes on a 3.5" disk isn't >really a handicap. My RAM-Charger just died; while RAM disks are >truly neat, they are even less reliable than hard disks. Others have commented on this, so I will not. >Note: My original post that occasioned all this passion for ProDOS DID >opine that the best thing about ProDOS is the hierarchical file structure. Glad you have something nice to say about it. >>2. no support for modern hardware such as eighty column displays, extended >> memory and interrupting devices such as the mouse >Funny how well my 80 column card works with my DOS 3.3 applications; and In 1983, DOS received a minor mod (yet another patch, as this is the only way DOS could be changed). A bit of extra code was added to help support eighty column displays on the //e. So assuming you have this version (how can you tell?) then your eighty column display will be ok. >I've got a number of 128K DOS 3.3 programs. Maybe ProDOS is better for >RAM > 128K, but I haven't found any real need to have multiple documents >in memory at once (and a 400K RAMFactor partition makes it possible to >move pretty rapidly from one document to another anyway). If you wanted to, you couldn't have multiple documents open in a DOS program. They just can't handle enough memory! Are you aware of how the RAMFactor works with DOS? You do IN# to its slot and it *PATCHES* the RWTS image in memory to use the RAMFactor as a disk device. How does ProDOS support it? Well, ProDOS supports anything with a device driver. So nothing has to be done for it. So which OS can make better use of the card? >I own a mouse. Mostly it gathers dust. I guess it's because I'm >"command driven" - learned to touch type 30 years ago. I do find I Looks like you will stay that way. No DOS programs are being released which support the mouse. Are any DOS programs being released at all these days? >>3. customizing DOS requires version-dependent patches which may or may not be >> compatible with commercial software >I sent Bill Basham his $30 for Diversi-DOS years ago. It works with just >about everything that's not copy protected except SOFTERM 2 (which INSISTS >upon its own one-of-a-kind custom DOS's). Most of what I use isn't >copy protected. Gee. When I used DOS software, it was practically all copy protected. >Today's commercial software is MUCH less inclined to copy protection >and special DOS's because of the growing demand for compatibility with >hard disks, which really has little to do with whether the operating system >is DOS 3.3 or ProDOS. Why do you care if software works with a hard disk? You don't like 'em, remember? Moreover, the trend towards copyable software more or less started after DOS died, so what is happening today will not have much effect on DOS software. >>4. DOS has no consistent call interface; as a result, DOS was only reassembled >> once in its five-year life, as this would cause routine entry points to >> change, causing programs to quit working. As a result, all bug fixes >> consisted of applying patches to the existing code. >That's more esoteric than I care to investigate, but it strikes me as >peculiar that Diversi-DOS, David DOS, One-Key DOS, and ProntoDOS work >so well. I don't believe any of those are merely patches to the existing >code. Do you think Apple gave the authors of these programs the source to DOS? Even if they did, how could they hope to have programs work with them? My Pronto-DOS manual documents where the patches to DOS which do its thing are located. The result is a mass of klugy patches jumbled up with a so-so antiquated operating system. Ever wonder why there has never been Pronto- ProDOS or Diversi-ProDOS? Apple did it right for once! They can fix bugs or even totally change the way the system works, and programs will still work! >> ...Compare DBase under CP/M which can run on >>a 64K ][+ and Appleworks 2.0 which uses your peripheral slot RAM card for >>desktop space and you see what I mean. >AppleWorks 2.0 does RELATIONAL data bases? When did it start doing >that? Even dBase II's outmoded programming language outstrips anything >available in AppleWorks (although I gather some of Beagle Brother's >extentions provide much of the same functiionality), and I suspect that >dBase manipulates large files at "blinding speed" compared to AppleWorks >(maybe AW keeps up on a IIgs). CP/M will work from hard drives, I expect >a driver for a slot RAM card could be written easily enough. Well, you chopped out the text in which I made my point, so let me reiterate. CP/M runs on many systems; hence, it runs on a minimum configuration. Since CP/M is meant for 64k machines (pretty minimum already), a program of any substantial size will have to swap overlays and do other similar inefficient methods to run. Contrasted with modern ProDOS software which can make use of any hardware in your system, these seem like junk. By the way, along with my Z80 card, I have AE's new CP/M system software, which allows CP/M to use both 3.5's hooked up to my IIgs and my IIgs RAM disk along with 5.25's and the small RAM disk set up in the extra 64k. It also supports the 3.5 and 1 mb RAM card in my //e. Yet my Z80 card and software sit gathering dust. The reason? Compared to new ProDOS software, that stuff SUCKS. >The point is I am NOT anti-ProDOS. Everything I've seen indicates it >is a MUCH more sensible system for developing applications, but a lot >of this "ProDOS is the ONLY way to go" chatter seems to be coming from >people who arrived (and bought their software) after 1985. I have been using II's since '82, and have owned one since '83. I would not call my self some snot-nosed youngster who has only been computing since '85. Yet, I know when it is time to move on; nowadays, ProDOS is "the only way to be sure", to quote one of my favorite movies. Randy Shackelford shack@bucsb.bu.edu
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (06/26/88)
>Since, with few exceptions, DOS programs run in 64k (the exceptions only use >128k), it is a foregone conclusion that your files are less than 50k, as DOS >programs cannot handle large files. You missed the point. The mainframe will let me edit a 2Meg file if I want to, but I rarely find anything of the kind necessary. I didn't say I never use ProDOS either. What I said was I almost never have occasion to edit a file as large as 50K. >If you wanted to, you couldn't have multiple documents open in a DOS program. >They just can't handle enough memory! Are you aware of how the RAMFactor works Hmm... didn't I say, I didn't want to work on more than one document at a time? If I can save one in 2 seconds and load another in 2 seconds, what have I really given up over being able to shift from one window to another? I CAN edit multiple documents on the mainframe and I really haven't found that to be so advantageous that I want to dash out to a computer store and spend a bunch of bucks. If I do get to that point, I'll buy something less retrograde about it than an Apple 2 (that is unless I wait long enough for the 65832 -- the Vaporware column will be along in a few days). >with DOS? You do IN# to its slot and it *PATCHES* the RWTS image in memory to >use the RAMFactor as a disk device. How does ProDOS support it? Well, ProDOS >supports anything with a device driver. So nothing has to be done for it. >So which OS can make better use of the card? So what? I really don't care HOW the software uses the card. Once that patch is installed in DOS, it works fine. I have zilch, zero, no interest in whether it makes "better use of the card." I only care about whether I can use it to get work done. At this point, your flame reminds me of: "Having lost sight of the objective, we redoubled our effort" or the pilot who informs his passengers "Our navigation system has failed and we are completely lost... However, we are making very good time." >Looks like you will stay that way. No DOS programs are being released which >support the mouse. Are any DOS programs being released at all these days? Beside the point. I have ProDOS programs which use the mouse, yet I tend to use the keyboard (unless I'm trying to draw something) because it's MUCH faster that way. If you like the mouse, good for you, but I can live without it, and I'm not the only person in the World that feels that way). Yes, there are some relatively recent (admitedly public domain) DOS programs and updates; so what. If I'm willing to run one application at a time and use a RAMFactor, switching to a ProDOS application really isn't a bother. >Gee. When I used DOS software, it was practically all copy protected. Perhaps your not as sharp as you think you are. My kids use a lot of copy protected stuff, but I've tend to avoid it (with almost no difficulty whatsoever) for professional software. I've got DOS word processors, spreadsheets, and data bases dating to 1982 and 1983 that aren't copy protected. >Why do you care if software works with a hard disk? You don't like 'em, They're okay for transient storage or for holding software (which remains available disk), and the newer optical technology promises to be MUCH more reliable. >Well, you chopped out the text in which I made my point, so let me reiterate. >CP/M runs on many systems; hence, it runs on a minimum configuration. Since >CP/M is meant for 64k machines (pretty minimum already), a program of any >substantial size will have to swap overlays and do other similar inefficient >methods to run. Contrasted with modern ProDOS software which can make use of >any hardware in your system, these seem like junk. >By the way, along with my Z80 card, I have AE's new CP/M system software, >which allows CP/M to use both 3.5's hooked up to my IIgs and my IIgs RAM disk >along with 5.25's and the small RAM disk set up in the extra 64k. It also >supports the 3.5 and 1 mb RAM card in my //e. Yet my Z80 card and software >sit gathering dust. The reason? Compared to new ProDOS software, that stuff >SUCKS. What ARE you using for a relational data base (not AppleWorks)? --------------------- Disclaimer: --- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa! (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: {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax} Univ. of Connecticut !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL "It might help if we ran the MBA's out of Washington." - Adm Grace Hopper