uhclem@trsvax.UUCP (01/05/88)
/*Written 5:30 pm Jan 3, 1988 by eecae.UUCP!conklin*/ /* ---------- "Re: Newdos80 date failure" ---------- */ >Thanks to several who sent mail regarding this situation. >LDOS is the culprit. Being curious, I went through and tested MultiDOS, >DOS+ and of corse, Newdos, and all work just fine. LDOS 5.3, which has been advertised for at least 9 months, will carry the user to the year 2000. LS-DOS 6.3 (supercedes TRSDOS 6.x) has been advertised for the past 14 months. Model I LDOS users will have to switch to some other system, as a 5.3 is not being offered for it. (Complain to Misosys, not to me.) The date problem stems from the original Model I DOS'es that only set aside 3 bits in directory entries for the year (0-7). (If you like, I can give you the name of the person responsible, but if you have a Model I DOS, you have likely seen it on the screen by now.) The date shortcoming in TRSDOS 6 is even documented on the page with the DATE command (1-64). The LDOS/TRSDOS/ LSDOS are not the only Model III operating systems that break. Some won't break until 1990, others will sorta work till then but the day of the week will go wrong after 29-Feb-88 or -92. Better check yours. >What beast will next wreak havoc upon unsuspecting LDOS users? That's the only one I know of apart from ribbing from MonSter-DOS(TM) users, who have never had the opportunity to work with a system that works well, and assume that older means "worse than MS-DOS", a horrifying concept. <My employer does not provide LDOS 5.3 or LS-DOS 6.3, except under extreme diress. Contact Misosys for LDOS and Logical Systems, Inc. for LS-DOS 6.3.> "Thank you, Uh Clem." Frank Durda IV @ <trsvax!uhclem> ...decvax!microsoft!trsvax!uhclem ...convex!infoswx!hal6000!trsvax!uhclem
lewisd@homxc.UUCP (David Lewis) (01/12/88)
In article <193300040@trsvax>, uhclem@trsvax.UUCP writes: > > /*Written 5:30 pm Jan 3, 1988 by eecae.UUCP!conklin*/ > /* ---------- "Re: Newdos80 date failure" ---------- */ > >Thanks to several who sent mail regarding this situation. > >LDOS is the culprit. Being curious, I went through and tested MultiDOS, > >DOS+ and of corse, Newdos, and all work just fine. > > The date problem stems from the original Model I DOS'es that only set aside 3 > bits in directory entries for the year (0-7). One of my professors found that Digital had made the same mistake -- for the years 1970-1977. He printed something out on January 1, 1978, that had a date of January 1, 1970. So much for planned obsolescence. -- David B. Lewis {ihnp4,allegra,ulysses,rutgers!mtune}!homxc!lewisd 201-615-5306 EST