Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!ucla-cs!cc1 From: cc1@CS.UCLA.EDU Newsgroups: comp.sys.tandy Subject: Re: Model I/III/IV Publication info needed Message-ID: <7863@shemp.UCLA.EDU> Date: Tue, 25-Aug-87 02:57:58 EDT Article-I.D.: shemp.7863 Posted: Tue Aug 25 02:57:58 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Aug-87 04:42:29 EDT References: <52@nancy.UUCP> <18@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> Sender: root@CS.UCLA.EDU Reply-To: cc1@CS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Gersten) Organization: Ucla Computer Club (disclaimer) Lines: 80 Keywords: Model I/III/IV, magazines 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.