wchao@topaz.rutgers.edu (William Chao) (08/21/87)
Hello. I need some current info on what publications are still devoting to the Model I/III/IV computers. Right now, I still subscribe 80-MICRO, and I just started to get The MYSOSYS Quarterly. I heard that Northern Bytes is still in business, Alternate Source may have something, and there is the Terry Kepler(sp?)Letter. I will need info on any publication including rates and how I may subscribe such magazine, and your opinion on the magazine. I am getting disappointed with 80-MICRO with more devotion to MESS-DOS stuff, YUK!!! Thanks for any info provided. William Chao wchao@topaz.rutgers.edu
conklin@msudoc.ee.mich-state.edu (Terry Conklin) (08/21/87)
Jack Decker and TAS are local, and having spoken with him at some length
at the last Lansing Computer show, TAS is in need of some feedback. Jack
has been at it a long time, and there have been comments to the effect
of his dropping Northern Bytes (very much his creation.)
Northern Bytes is very much Jack, and has a strong Newdos80 influence to
it. For a Mod I/III and IV in III mode, that's just great. LDOS is junk
on the I/III. Actually, I wont use LDOS on a Mod _IV_ becuase of the
massive performance loss compared to just keeping the IV in III mode
under Newdos. That, and no TRS OS ever rivalled Newdos's massive array
of features.
To order Northern Bytes, according to the issue I have here (V7#2), you
can call or write:
The Alternate Source
704 North Pennsylvanie Ave.
Lansing, MI 48906-5319
or call:
(517) 482-8270
(800) 253-3200 ext. 700 (outside of Michigan.)
The folowing is a blatent advertisement. Why? Becuase I think it's in
the nature of the net. IF YOU HAVE A MODEL I/III, YOU _MUST_ ORDER
NORTHERN BYTES. It's not a magazine. It's an irregularly published
newsletter that charges to cover production costs. TAS (The Alternate
Source) is _truly_ the last stand for Mod I/III support. Charlie, the
owner, to this DAY runs TAS, has Mod Is and IIIs all over the place,
and, in the face of sensibility, supports the original TRS80.
Northern Bytes is an amazing point of TRS information in a world that
has forgotten what gave this industry life.
Actually in this issue there are 3 ads. 1 for NEW Mod I/III software
from TAS. (Look, it's here, on the page. No kidding. There's even a new
GAME! A version of Pole Position) 1 for a place offering 64K Mod I-L II
keyboard upgrades, and some Want ads.
NB is quite possibly on the verge of fading out. It is already sold on a
per-issue basis. Jack is certainly getting tired. Every new subscription
though is a sign that these beasts really haven't faded away. Mine
certainly hasn't. It's been online now, well, lessee. 7 years at 24
hours a day, with less than .01% downtime...Hey, I broke the 60,000
hour mark! Gads. (I feel like I should salute or something...)
Buying a subscription to Northern Bytes is like buying a savings bond.
Taking stock in America's original workhorse.
Terry Conklin
...ihnp4!msudoc!conklin
conklin@cps.msu.edu (ARPA)
Or:
Yes this is it! (517) 372-3131 3/12/2400 (well, some things change!)
7/Even/1 (and then again, some don't)rhealey@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Rob Healey) (08/22/87)
In article <52@nancy.UUCP> conklin@msudoc.UUCP writes: >For a Mod I/III and IV in III mode, that's just great. LDOS is junk >on the I/III. Actually, I wont use LDOS on a Mod _IV_ becuase of the >massive performance loss compared to just keeping the IV in III mode >under Newdos. That, and no TRS OS ever rivalled Newdos's massive array >of features. > DOS WARS!!!!!!!! yea!!!!!! Just what we need to perk this group up a bit! How much have you used LDOS 5.x or 6.x? LDOS/LSIDOS has a "massive" array of features as well, most of which are useful and not fluff added to make a system useful. I would be very interested to hear what features of newdos you use everyday. newdos & LDOS/LSIDOS attack things from different angles but that doesn't mean one is better than the other. By the way, where can I get a new version of newdos for the 3? the 4? can it run in 4 mode? Can it handle dates past 1987? Does it timestamp files? I only used a stripped down version that came with a canned package but I'm willing to listen as to why it's that much better than LDOS/LSIDOS. What was the last version of LDOS/LSIDOS that you used? 5.3 or 6.3? -Rob
enped@wolf.UUCP (Eric Pederson) (08/24/87)
In article <18@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU>, rhealey@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Rob Healey) writes: > In article <52@nancy.UUCP> conklin@msudoc.UUCP writes: > >[No] TRS OS ever rivalled Newdos's massive array > >of features. > > > > DOS WARS!!!!!!!! yea!!!!!! Just what we need to perk > this group up a bit! > Like the title says, and as Rob queries, Newdos/Yuck. I have been a DOSPLUS user from day one. It's a clean but powerful DOS that supports the device independence of LDOS (without the fluff and slowness) and provides the features of Newdos (without the kludge appearance). ------ Eric Pederson - HBUHSD 714-964-3339
cc1@CS.UCLA.EDU (08/25/87)
In article <18@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu (Rob Healey) writes: >In article <52@nancy.UUCP> conklin@msudoc.UUCP writes: >>For a Mod I/III and IV in III mode, that's just great. LDOS is junk >>on the I/III. Actually, I wont use LDOS on a Mod _IV_ becuase of the >>massive performance loss compared to just keeping the IV in III mode >>under Newdos. That, and no TRS OS ever rivalled Newdos's massive array >>of features. >> > > DOS WARS!!!!!!!! yea!!!!!! Just what we need to perk > this group up a bit! > > How much have you used LDOS 5.x or 6.x? LDOS/LSIDOS has a "massive" > array of features as well, most of which are useful and not fluff > added to make a system useful. I would be very interested to hear > what features of newdos you use everyday. newdos & LDOS/LSIDOS > attack things from different angles but that doesn't mean one > is better than the other. By the way, where can I get a new > version of newdos for the 3? the 4? can it run in 4 mode? Can it > handle dates past 1987? Does it timestamp files? I only used a stripped > down version that came with a canned package but I'm willing to listen > as to why it's that much better than LDOS/LSIDOS. > > What was the last version of LDOS/LSIDOS that you used? 5.3 or 6.3? > > -Rob Gee, let me put my 3 cents in :-) I use NeWDOS for a good Basic. No Kidding. I program in assembly (I could do mnumonic to octal in my head when I was active) when I need to, and I use NeWDOS/80 V2 basic for most of my work. Why? #1. Basic's strengths are string handling and file I/O. NeWDOS gave TREMENDOUS improvement to the file I/O (At Last! Seeks on sequential files! No more God durned field/lset pairs.) Other Dos's (LDOS, TRSDOS) left the basic alone. No cmd"" stuff. A cmd"o" that sorts one array if it sorts any (I've used a three array sort, and it was a godsend). Granted, the lack of device driver support is a BIG problem, but thats just one fly in an otherwise perfect ointment. I've used (or rather, I tried to use) Ldos 5.1.something, but was completly turned off by A) The TERRIBLE, absolutely terrible syntax, taken straight from trsdos 2.1, designed to be as complex and un-friendly as IBM mainframes. GAK. B) The Utter Garbage on things like "Sorry, you can't have a double density boot disk on the model 1 because you can't mix formats on a disk because our incorrect density recognizer (which causes more headaches than it solves when you can't detect disk changes) can't recognize the fact that the disk has two different format types." Or lets not forget that when they finally did get double density bootables on the model 1, that you could NOT DO DOUBLE SIDED BECAUSE THEY ONLY FORMATTED THE FRONT SIDE OF TRACK ZERO IN SINGLE DENSITY. I could not believe this when I saw it. C) The utter waste of a device independent boot/sys! If you can't write a boot routine in one sector, you are not doing a very good job. NeWDOS can boot on the same types of drives as LDOS, and it nevers needs more than one sector. D) Minidos. Newdos's will let you do everything except backup a disk, or append files, or format. Ldos's not only restricts you to about 5 commands, but the syntax is completely different than the regular mode syntax. And lets not forget that giving LDOS all those nice features that almost make it as usable as NeWDOS takes HUGE, HUGE chunks of your memory away from you. Sheesh. Finally, nothing else that I've seen even comes close to superzap. The BASIC version. (better than the machine language version, actually). Too bad it didn't work on 2.0 Oh yes, before I forget. I prefer NeWDOS's "Logical Track" lumps and long directory format. LDOs only let you give one track to the directory, much too small. Not to mention that it would resize GRANS on you all over the place making it impossible to compare different sized disks. Heck, NeWDOS would let you do a disk to disk copy on different sized disks if they had the same number of sectors. The opinions represented here are a result of being educated at a school that discriminates againts roosters. Only the birds are responsible.
rhealey@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Rob Healey) (08/29/87)
In article <7863@shemp.UCLA.EDU> cc1@CS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Gersten) writes: > >Gee, let me put my 3 cents in :-) > >I use NeWDOS for a good Basic. No Kidding. I program in assembly (I could >do mnumonic to octal in my head when I was active) when I need to, and I >use NeWDOS/80 V2 basic for most of my work. Why? > I mostly use C and assembly so the basic doesn't matter to me. The basic does sound much better tho. >Granted, the lack of device driver support is a BIG problem, but thats just >one fly in an otherwise perfect ointment. I've used (or rather, I tried to >use) Ldos 5.1.something, but was completly turned off by >A) The TERRIBLE, absolutely terrible syntax, taken straight from trsdos 2.1, >designed to be as complex and un-friendly as IBM mainframes. GAK. > Hmmm, set *cl rs232t The above line set's up the rs232 as device *cl. After a device is defined it can be used where a filename would be used, i.e. 10 open 1,"*cl" Would open the rs232 port as file #1. The set command doesn't strike me as being that bad syntax wise. I do admit I am and assembly hacker so maybe that's why it doesn't bother me... >B) The Utter Garbage on things like "Sorry, you can't have a double >density boot disk on the model 1 because you can't mix formats on a disk >because our incorrect density recognizer (which causes more headaches than >it solves when you can't detect disk changes) can't recognize the fact >that the disk has two different format types." Or lets not forget that >when they finally did get double density bootables on the model 1, that >you could NOT DO DOUBLE SIDED BECAUSE THEY ONLY FORMATTED THE FRONT SIDE OF >TRACK ZERO IN SINGLE DENSITY. I could not believe this when I saw it. > I only use model 3's and 4's so I don't have this problem. The main problem is that the Model 1 ROM's only know about single density so track 0 side 0 will have to be in single density, don't know how well a MIXED density track would work. The automatic density recognition is aimed at THE WHOLE disk, on model 3/4's this works just fine but the model 1 get's screwed in the deal. As I understand "sole", the program that allows you to boot model 1's in double density, requires you format the disk as double density first. Sole then format's a single density track 0 side 0 and places the primary boot strap on the track. How does NewDos allow for mixed density disks? >C) The utter waste of a device independent boot/sys! If you can't write a boot >routine in one sector, you are not doing a very good job. NeWDOS can boot on >the same types of drives as LDOS, and it nevers needs more than one sector. > The boot routine only uses one sector. sys0/sys takes up the rest of the track if I remember correctly. Are you saying NewDos fits in 256 bytes!!! I think not. The trouble comes in that the boot routine has to assume that the sys0/sys file and the directory are all in one density. If it doesn't then you have to write code to toggle density on read error which takes up valuable space on a 256 byte sector. NewDos must alter the boot routine to always use one density on boot. >D) Minidos. Newdos's will let you do everything except backup a disk, >or append files, or format. Ldos's not only restricts you to about 5 >commands, but the syntax is completely different than the regular mode >syntax. > Never make use of minidos since I use DOS assembly calls that will run library programs in the overlay area and then return to the calling program. Overlay area is 5200H to 5fffH on a model 3 so if you code from 6000H on your ok and don't have to take any special precautions. >And lets not forget that giving LDOS all those nice features that almost >make it as usable as NeWDOS takes HUGE, HUGE chunks of your memory >away from you. Sheesh. > For the model 1 drivers had to be loaded to compensate for the hardware design flaws. On a model 3 I can use from 5200H on if I don't want to make use of library routines or 6000H on if I do. What is the low address for NewDos? Ldos uses overlayed library commands so that you have to code from 6000H up if you use the library commands. 3.5K doesn't seem too unreasonable a loss for the added utility of the library programs. >Finally, nothing else that I've seen even comes close to superzap. The BASIC >version. (better than the machine language version, actually).Too bad it didn't >work on 2.0 > Yes it is a nice program, once I changed the read/write addresses it worked rather nice under LDOS. I wrote my own disk zap program since superzap felt awkward to me, I wrote it in assembly tho. >Oh yes, before I forget. I prefer NeWDOS's "Logical Track" lumps and long >directory format. LDOs only let you give one track to the directory, much >too small. Not to mention that it would resize GRANS on you all over the >place making it impossible to compare different sized disks. Heck, NeWDOS >would let you do a disk to disk copy on different sized disks if they had the >same number of sectors. I admit LDOS and similar systems nail you in the gran dept. Although being limited to 254 files seems to be a blessing to me. Since TRS-80 DOS'S are all flat directory structures having more than 254 files on a logical disk would seem to be a pain. Why do you use so many different sized disks? Wouldn't date stamps handle the problem of different file versions? Ldos is more file file oriented than sector oriented. You can write programs to do sector by sector compares but isn't it the files one worrys about and not the sectors? Ldos allows you to backup different sized disks no problem, it even prompts you to insert more blank disks if your source disk is larger than the destination. It couldn't care less about track/sector sizes, it copys as files not raw disks which I think to be much better. Ldos requires that all disks be formatted before you try to backup onto them. This allows backup to figure out whether or not to do a sector by sector copy or a file by file copy. Ldos marks a file as being altered since last backup so you can easily see what files have been changed and which ones haven't, this shows up in the directory display. It looks like we use our computers for different things, there is no one-size-fits-all dos so maybe that's why NewDos works great for you and Ldos works great for me. Most of your complaints seemed to be related to Model 1 problems, I only have a 4 so these problems are moot in my case. I would really like to hear more about the guts of NewDos, it sounds like it takes a different approach to alot of things. How exactly does "logical tracks" work? Where could I get a copy of NewDos for my 4? For the DosPlus person who commented in another note: Where do you see LDOS as being worse as far as speed or efficiantcy? File I/O has always been a bottle-neck on LDOS but there are ways to get around it. -Rob Healey rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu