Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bu-cs!bucsb!shack
From: shack@bucsb.UUCP (Randy Shackelford)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: DOS/ProDOS
Message-ID: <1756@bucsb.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jun 88 01:51:36 GMT
Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci.
Lines: 63


SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) writes:

>>So you feel limited by ProDOS. So what is your OS of choice? DOS 3.3? CP/M?
>>I kinda like ProDOS myself.

>Now that the quit code has been humanized by Glen Bredon, Don Elton,
>Dave Lyons, and others (who've I left out?), I think ProDOS is OK.
>However, as a user, I see little advantage other than the hierarchical
>file structure makes it MUCH easier to keep things organized on large
>(over 256K) storage devices.

Buy a copy of Beneath Apple ProDOS published by Quality software. In the first
chapter there is a lengthy discussion of the deficiencies of DOS and how ProDOS
addresses them.

Here are a few I can name:

1. volumes cannot be >400K (making hard disks, RAM disks, and 3.5" disks a
   pain to use)
2. no support for modern hardware such as eighty column displays, extended
   memory and interrupting devices such as the mouse
3. customizing DOS requires version-dependent patches which may or may not be
   compatible with commercial software
4. DOS has no consistent call interface; as a result, DOS was only reassembled
   once in its five-year life, as this would cause routine entry points to
   change, causing programs to quit working. As a result, all bug fixes
   consisted of applying patches to the existing code.

>The problem IS so much worthwhile software isn't upward compatible
>(ProDOS doesn't have a "DOS box" the way OS/2 will in the IBM world).
>I have quite a bit of software that still does what I bought it to do
>quite nicely AND I'm used to it (no reason to change) BUT it's NEVER

I know of two products that provide a "DOS box". The first is Program Writer
from the Software Touch; it came with a SYS program called DOS.SYSTEM which,
when run, runs DOS. Only I'm not sure this is still available. The other is
ProSel, whose documentation provides information on making a DOS system program
which may be run from ProSel to run DOS programs from the selector. The thing
is, of course, that this is no help with much DOS commercial software, which 
has to be booted directly. No reasonable person could expect Apple to offer
such a thing of course; As anyone wanting service for their ][+ or 128K Mac
or Apple /// would soon find out, Apple is in the habit of abandoning things
they no longer like.

>I don't have a Z80 in my //e, but I know quite a few folks that do.
>dBase II retains all the power it ever had.  Is there REALLY enough extra
>advantage to ProDOS (ProDOS 16 may be another matter, but the software
>library at the moment looks more like "gee whiz" stuff than something with
>REAL advantages over in-place systems) to merit starting over from scratch?

I have a Z80, and I think all the software I got for it sucks now that there
is comparable software specifically for my machine. Can one really expect 
programs designed to run on a variety of machines (e.g. CP/M) to be better
than those tailor made for specific hardware? This machine independence means
the machine the software is designed for is the minimum setup, and will not
take advantages of extra features. Compare DBase under CP/M which can run on
a 64K ][+ and Appleworks 2.0 which uses your peripheral slot RAM card for
desktop space and you see what I mean. 

Randy Shackelford      shack@bucsb.bu.edu

"I want my UUCP"