Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!columbia!rutgers!umnd-cs!umn-d-ub!rhealey From: rhealey@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Rob Healey) Newsgroups: comp.sys.tandy Subject: Re: Model I/III/IV Publication info needed Message-ID: <19@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> Date: Fri, 28-Aug-87 20:01:23 EDT Article-I.D.: umn-d-ub.19 Posted: Fri Aug 28 20:01:23 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 05:59:01 EDT References: <52@nancy.UUCP> <18@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> <7863@shemp.UCLA.EDU> Reply-To: rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu (Rob Healey) Organization: U. of Minnesota, Duluth - Computing Services Lines: 140 Keywords: Model I/III/IV, magazines 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