Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!caip!dayton!rosevax!hogan
From: hogan@rosevax.UUCP (Andy Hogan)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: wordstar pathnames
Message-ID: <642@rosevax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Sep-86 17:54:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: rosevax.642
Posted: Thu Sep 25 17:54:38 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Sep-86 03:16:28 EDT
References: <8609182052.AA24629@cory.Berkeley.EDU> <13112@amdcad.UUCP>
Organization: Rosemount Inc., Eden Prairie, MN
Lines: 43

In article <13112@amdcad.UUCP>, jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes:
> In article <8609182052.AA24629@cory.Berkeley.EDU> (Matt Dillon) writes:
> 
> | >Gack!  Last I knew, WordStar STILL won't accept pathnames.  IBM certainly
> | >did NOT change from flat to hierarchical without any problems.  
> | >-Steve Dorner
> | 	The point is that it was upwardly compatible... you could still give
> | Wordstar non-path file names.
> | 			-Matt
> The point is that wordstar is in \ws.
> To edit autoexec.bat I have to copy it to \ws, edit it there, copy it
> back. There are MANY excellent PC programs which are STILL limited in this
> manner.
> 
>  Jim Budler                                   X   X

IBM 'fixed' this brain-damage with a brain-damaged solution: the 'subst'
command in DOS 3.1 (I think that's the earliest...).  This lets you use
a drive designator (say, k:) to pinch-hit for a path (say, \ws\andy\memo).
Unfortunately, this drive designator collides head on with the logical 
drive designators used by networks.  There is no check for other, similar
assignments.  The DOS substitution overrides.  This sucks, since you 
either wind up dumping network volumes or constantly re-substituting
path-drive combos.  Either one negates the advantage that 'subst'
was supposed to create.

As I understand it, Mac programs that were carefully designed from the
start (that is, the designer(s) read and understood the fine print) needed
no changes to work with HFS, although they may have found some to be
desirable.  I don't know of any early PC software that can make that claim.
So since PC DOS *and* its solution are both still not too good, it seems to
me that Apple did a much better job of it.  

Making compatibility possible on an expanding product line is very difficult.
The big difference I see between IBM and Apple is that Apple tries, and
IBM just says "well, NOW compatibility means this!"  Of course, their
relative market positions may have something to do with that.

-- 
Notice how they do not so much fly, as plummet. {appropriate head movement}
                                    --Monty Python (Flying Sheep Sketch)
Andy Hogan   Rosemount, Inc.   Mpls MN
path: ...ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!hogan