Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!cit-vax!elroy!mahendo!jplgodo!wlbr!scgvaxd!stb!michael From: michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) Newsgroups: comp.sys.tandy Subject: Re: Ldos vs. NeWDOS Message-ID: <94@stb.UUCP> Date: Mon, 31-Aug-87 12:16:02 EDT Article-I.D.: stb.94 Posted: Mon Aug 31 12:16:02 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Sep-87 04:25:57 EDT References: <52@nancy.UUCP> <18@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> <7863@shemp.UCLA.EDU> <19@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> Reply-To: michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) Organization: STB BBS, LA, CA, USA, 90402, (213) 459-7231 Lines: 188 Keywords: Dos War In article <19@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> rhealey@ub.d.umn.edu (Rob Healey) writes: >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. I never saw a good C for NeWDOS, only LC for Ldos. >> (Comments about syntax of Ldos) > (reply showing syntax of Ldos Set command) Ok, so set isn't such a bad command. But: 1) You need two commands before any changes to the default can be made 2) You need "dummy" devices to route out to a disk file But my original complaint was about the syntax of Ldos commands in general. Things where you say command filename (option1=X'ABCD') and it complains if you don't have the close paren. Consider dump file 5200h 7000h 5200h with DUMP FILE (START=X'5200',END=X'7000',TRA=X'5200') or compare copy :0 to :1 with BACKUP Source drive number? 0 Destination drive number? 1 (Some other, forgotten questions, deleted) >> (Complaints about density recognition and double density on model 1) > 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? Ok. I was not talking about mixed density tracks, but mixed density cylinders. SOLE's problem WAS that it only reformatted track 0 side 0, and not cylinder 0. This was why it failed on double sided, double density disks. NeWDOS does not allow mixed density tracks either. But it has a flag in the drive type field to say "track 0 side 0 is in opposite density and should not be used". >>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. Hmm, as I remember Ldos needed 512 bytes (two sectors) because of the overhead in loading the entire disk input routines with the boot code. Maybe they trimmed it down since then. NeWDOS's assumes that sys0/sys will be contiguous from lump 0. How it tells the disk density I don't remember, but I belive it is customized at backup or pdrive time for the specified density. >>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. Ah, but the point of minidos is: Any dos command, except copy, format, and append, load into the sys file overlay area, so a program can load at 5200H (or X'5200') and still use dos. (You can copy files with 'mdcopy'). >>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. Well, 3.5K for Ldos compares to 0K for NeWDOS. But even besides that, NeWDOS has no overhead for their keyboard driver which gets rid of bounce and gives autorepeat. LDOS has a large overhead for that. LDOS has overhead for lowercase video support, NeWDOS does not. > >>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. Well, lets say I wanted 222 files on a disk, but my track size wasn't big enough for that many. NeWDOS lets you chose the directory size from 10 sectors to 30 sectors on any size disk, even if you only have 18 sectors per cylinder. > 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. I use different sized disks because: A) Most of my stuff is on 40 track DSDD B) A few are 43 DSDD C) Old stuff is 40 SSSD But I don't remember if copy with copy-by-file option would prompt you for the next disk if the source was larger. I think it did, but I never used that very much. > 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. Gee, NeWDOS uses a command line option to determine, and will format a blank disk for you (why not? The format code loads at the same time, the data needed is all there). And yes, NeWDOS has a "file modified" flag. > 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? Logical tracks are as follows: A gran is always 5 sectors. A lump is from 2 to 8 grans, user settable. The Directory entry has Lump number and gran within Lump. Replace "lump" with "track" and you have trsdos SSSD. And yes, when you do raw I/O to the disk you do I/O to a sector number, not a track and sector within track. Michael -- : Michael Gersten seismo!scgvaxd!stb!michael : Copy protection? Just say Pirate! (if its worth pirating)