Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!vanvleck!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: DOS/ProDOS Message-ID: <8806200344.aa10165@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> Date: 20 Jun 88 05:31:35 GMT References: Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 101 >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) I rarely have to deal with a file over 50K let alone 400K. ProDOS IS nice for large volume devices, but it QUICKLY becomes apparent that the only way to manage is with subdirectories (which have catalogs of manageable sizes). Though I like hard disks for working storage and software, they aren't reliable enough to trust anything truly important to (hence the constant admonishions to back up the rascals). Finished work belongs on disks (plural) anyway. I can keep track of volume numbers as easily as pathnames, so two 400K volumes on a 3.5" disk isn't really a handicap. My RAM-Charger just died; while RAM disks are truly neat, they are even less reliable than hard disks. Note: My original post that occasioned all this passion for ProDOS DID opine that the best thing about ProDOS is the hierarchical file structure. >2. no support for modern hardware such as eighty column displays, extended > memory and interrupting devices such as the mouse Funny how well my 80 column card works with my DOS 3.3 applications; and I've got a number of 128K DOS 3.3 programs. Maybe ProDOS is better for RAM > 128K, but I haven't found any real need to have multiple documents in memory at once (and a 400K RAMFactor partition makes it possible to move pretty rapidly from one document to another anyway). I own a mouse. Mostly it gathers dust. I guess it's because I'm "command driven" - learned to touch type 30 years ago. I do find I can draw better with a mouse than with any other inexpensive input device (mainly because the mouse is 1024 by 1024 while touch pads using the paddle port are only 255 by 255), but I don't draw very frequently (a graphic artist I'm not). >3. customizing DOS requires version-dependent patches which may or may not be > compatible with commercial software I sent Bill Basham his $30 for Diversi-DOS years ago. It works with just about everything that's not copy protected except SOFTERM 2 (which INSISTS upon its own one-of-a-kind custom DOS's). Most of what I use isn't copy protected. Diversi-DOS works with my RAMFactor (all I had to do was make a copy of the install disk with Diversi-DOS as the boot system), it works with Kermit (in fact I recommend it as it makes DOS 3.3 Kermit load as rapidly as the ProDOS version), and it works with my word processor. Today's commercial software is MUCH less inclined to copy protection and special DOS's because of the growing demand for compatibility with hard disks, which really has little to do with whether the operating system is DOS 3.3 or ProDOS. >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. That's more esoteric than I care to investigate, but it strikes me as peculiar that Diversi-DOS, David DOS, One-Key DOS, and ProntoDOS work so well. I don't believe any of those are merely patches to the existing code. Programmers sometimes use undocumented entry points resulting in no end of trouble when the operating system changes (seems to me that's been as common a problem in the MS-DOS world as for Apple software), but it doesn't seem to be all that bearish for a really good systems programmer to keep the documented entry points where the documentations says they'll be. Diversi-DOS, at least, seems to have all the entry points in the correct locations. > ...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. AppleWorks 2.0 does RELATIONAL data bases? When did it start doing that? Even dBase II's outmoded programming language outstrips anything available in AppleWorks (although I gather some of Beagle Brother's extentions provide much of the same functiionality), and I suspect that dBase manipulates large files at "blinding speed" compared to AppleWorks (maybe AW keeps up on a IIgs). CP/M will work from hard drives, I expect a driver for a slot RAM card could be written easily enough. The point is I am NOT anti-ProDOS. Everything I've seen indicates it is a MUCH more sensible system for developing applications, but a lot of this "ProDOS is the ONLY way to go" chatter seems to be coming from people who arrived (and bought their software) after 1985. Howcome there are so many ProDOS word processors and not one decent ProDOS text editor (WYSIWYGs make TERRIBLE text editors and besides they hog core with lots of "features" that a word processor needs but a text editor doesn't)? --------------------- Disclaimer: The "look and feel" of this message is exclusively MINE! (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited) ARPA: sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu Murphy A. Sewall BITNET: SEWALL@UCONNVM School of Business Admin. UUCP: ...ihnp4!psuvax1!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL University of Connecticut