Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!daemon
From: prindle@nadc
Newsgroups: net.micro.cbm
Subject: re 1541 SAVE@ bug
Message-ID: <3520@caip.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Thu, 2-Oct-86 11:35:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: caip.3520
Posted: Thu Oct  2 11:35:13 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Oct-86 05:44:51 EDT
Sender: daemon@caip.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 26

From: prindle@NADC

Per Commodore's posting to this list several months ago, discussing the 14 bugs
in the 1571 DOS ROM (note: that's *71*), bug #2 was:

	"A bug in routine 'STLBUF' prevented buffer allocation and
	caused the SAVE@ bug.  This has been remedied (1541/1571)."

This, to me, is *official* evidence of the (terribly infamous) SAVE@ 1541 bug
(not just when the disk is full, or when the replace is interrupted, but anytime
the drive has ever been accessed without a "0:" prefixing a file name).

The 1571 ROM upgrade (to be released sometime in the future) will correct this
for lucky 1571 owners who choose to upgrade.  I have no idea if Commodore
intends to issue a 1541 upgrade ROM to fix this one bug (probably not), though
there are some aftermarket suppliers I've seen advertizing a ROM which claims
to implement the fix.
of warnings, deserves to have all his software returned for refund as *not
acceptable*.  While replacing a file (instead of a rename/open/write/close/
scratch or rename/save/scratch cycle) is a mild form of convenience in direct
mode, there is no substantial advantage to replace from within a software
package - so why the heck would they use it in spite of the warnings?

Sincerely,
Frank Prindle
Prindle@NADC.arpa