Well, a 15 character limit's not bad to me at all. Actually, I've gotten
used to 8 with MS-DOS, which I still use when I want something DONE.
Actually, I was wondering what the heck Microsloth was thinking when they
made it 8 characters. And, the fact that in the next 5 FULL RELEASES
(Counting only the .0's, 2.0 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0) nothing was done about
Tim D. Hotze
From: Tim Shoppa <shoppa(a)alph02.triumf.ca>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: Apple ][+ OS
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 SUPRDAVE(a)aol.com wrote:
>> > look inside your ][+ and see if you have a language card. if so, you
>> > 64k needed to run prodos. the latest and greatest version of prodos 8
>> > run on a ][+ i think, only an enjanced //e. if you dont, you can only
>> > 3.3 i myself prefer both. i remember when prodos first came out and
>> > had an issue with the restrictive 15 character limit for filenames.
>> > back before i worked with mess-dos and that 8.3 filename limit...
>> The silliest thing they did was restrict spaces in filenames. You had to
>> use a period instead. Blech. Its funny when you think about it.
>> Intuitively and I'm sure without really think about it, Apple developed a
>> very human interface with DOS by allowing one to save files with very
>> readable names. Ie: "BIORHYTHM PROGRAM" or "PROGRAM TO BALANCE
>> (30 character limit). Then with ProDOS, they regressed into the
>> function-forces-form syndrome by limiting filenames to 15 characters and
>> requiring periods in place of spaces.
>Under Apple DOS 3.3, you can have anything in a filename you want.
>Control characters, inverse/flashing, the works. Makes for some
>pretty neat CATALOG listings, and is actually semi-workable as
>a "security through obscurity" step (though every Junior High kid
>knew how to bypass it...)
>DOS 3.3 made it easy and convenient to access filenames with embedded
>spaces. Too bad Unix shell command lines are traditionally brain-damaged
>such that spaces in filenames must be quoted.
look inside your ][+ and see if you have a language card. if so, you have the
64k needed to run prodos. the latest and greatest version of prodos 8 won't
run on a ][+ i think, only an enjanced //e. if you dont, you can only run dos
3.3 i myself prefer both. i remember when prodos first came out and everyone
had an issue with the restrictive 15 character limit for filenames. that was
back before i worked with mess-dos and that 8.3 filename limit...
In a message dated 98-01-30 05:18:32 EST, you write:
<< OK... well, if I can't find anything else, I'll take the old copy, as I
think that you might want to hang on to the shrinkwrapped copy. I wouldn't
know what it was like, as I wasn't around when it was made. But, anyway,
I'll take the old copy, you can use the new one, as a "liscense", make a
backup copy of the disks, and then everyone's happy. ;-)
Thanks for the help, >>
I'm actually interested in getting a copy of Warp. Is it true taht there's
still another version coming out (I've heard rumors...)
Tim D. Hotze
From: Peter Prymmer <pvhp(a)forte.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
Date: Saturday, January 31, 1998 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Development, round II
>Subj: Re: Re: Development, round II
>Barry Peterson wrote:
>>On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:41:15 -0600, you said:
>>>IIRC they started officially calling it Warp with V2.0, the first =
>>release following the Microsoft/IBM breakup.
>>I have a copy of 2.0; it is not called Warp. That started with version
>The story that I read somewhere was that "Warp" was used internally at IBM.
>With version 3.0 they were explicit about it and put that name on the box.
Subj: Re: Development, round II
Max Eskin wrote:
>I just picked up a book on Macintosh Think C (MS Press, 50c, I didn't
>bother getting Macsbug and others, also 50c each). For one thing, does
>anyone have an extra/unvalued license copy of THINK C, version 2.1-5.0?
>Also, what was the first programming language (I mean not binary or
According to Goldstine in "The Computer: from Pascal to von Neumann" the
first working modern stored program was a sorting routine that John von Neumann
wrote in roughly 1943 - and had working on the ENIAC/EDVAC by 1946/47, but
it was in machine code (binary).
An Assembler was available on the Princeton U/Institute for Advanced Study
EDSAC by the Fall of 1949. Herman Goldstine and John von Neumann wrote a
programming manual for it by 1951.
Short-code (which would by today's standards be classified as a type of
assembler) was available for UNIVAC machines by October 1952 thanks to
Logan, Schmit, and Tonik.
Heinz Rutishauser of the ETH in Zurich described the world's first compiler
in a preprint issued by ETH in 1952 (based in part on work that Konrad Zuse
had published in 1948/49).
Grace Hopper (who had started out working with H. Aiken at Harvard) developed
A0 then A1 and published results in the ACM Proceedings by 1952. By 1955 she
released A2 - which was popular on UNIVAC computers. She went on the become
instrumental in the development of COBOL.
FLOW-MATIC and MATH-MATIC were also available on Sperry computers in the
early(?) fifties. Remington Rand then developed a language called UNICODE by
1957/58 for use on UNIVAC 1103A and 1105 machines.
John Backus (et al.) at IBM developed: 1] Speedcoding in 1953 for the 701
2] FORTRAN starting in 1954 (which took 18 person years to develop, and
was released as Fortran I in 1956/57) 3] served on the international committee
that developed Algol (starting in 1959 but continuing through the 60s).
>Another thing: CP/M was run on just about everything, usually with
>about 64K ram. How is it that MS-DOS blew up to about 384K? What
>did they put in there?
A DOS kernel is distinct from a DOS installation. The DOS kernel is tiny
even for fairly recent versions. On a Dell boot disk for
MS-DOS (I think 6.22 and thus not classic) I see the following file sizes:
and on a bootable PC-DOS 7.0 (again not classic) partition I have:
and in either case the configuartion files AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS are
each less than 1 kB. The big user interface difference between these and CP/M
is the full hierarchical file system. Of course they also come with loads of
bloatware - but some of that is quite fun. e.g. PC-DOS can be optionally
installed with Rexx and I chose that option. I also have a couple of
different DPMI's available including the one for DJGPP.
I recently received an HP-85 which was lying unused just next door!
It is in good cosmetic and mechanical shape but unfortunately it is not
operational. On power on, the indicator below the tape drive lights, but
the main power LED does not and nothing appears on the screen.. I assume
this indicates a PS problem.
Can anyone send me a copy of the service (and user) docs for this
machine? As always I would pay duplication and shipping costs.
Hans B. Pufal : <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
Comprehensive Computer Catalogue : <http://www.digiweb.com/~hansp/ccc/>
<>And you'll have to pardon my ignorance of the Intel parts after the 8085
<>but why wouldn't a 386 work if the 486 works? (Other than the speed
<>difference.) It has always been my impression that few OS's/application
<>need whatever extra software features that differentiate the 486 from th
The 486 was a series in incremental improvents over the 386, caching on
chip, more piplining and other changes to execute the same 386
instructions in fewer clocks plus the math processor as part of the same
silicon. With the scaling of transistors and other logic changes it was
effectively lower power and faster for the same clock as the 386 while
I'm trying to make a new, blank "master" RT-11 RK05 disk pack from a
bunch of "user" disk packs. What files are considered to be part of the
"base" operating system.
<nospam_rcini(a)msn.com> (remove nospam_ to use)
ClubWin! Charter Member (6)
MCP Windows 95/Windows Networking
Subj: Re: Re: Development, round II
Barry Peterson wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:41:15 -0600, you said:
>>IIRC they started officially calling it Warp with V2.0, the first =
>release following the Microsoft/IBM breakup.
>I have a copy of 2.0; it is not called Warp. That started with version
The story that I read somewhere was that "Warp" was used internally at IBM.
With version 3.0 they were explicit about it and put that name on the box.
At 08:06 PM 1/30/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Maybe not in this day and age. Who knows what wacky contraption some whiz
>will invent in the future which will allow just such a thing? (Perhaps it
>will be somebody among us here for just the purposes of restoring classic
>computers in the year 2050).
I can see someone developing good enough VR that you'd be able to scan in
about 20 different pics of a dead pc inside and out, throw some emulator
code in the fray, and you'd be able to go under the goggles and actually
use the system in VR.
(It never would be the same as actually being there (at least not for a few
years) but wouldn't it save a whole lot of physical storage space!)
At 11:43 PM 1/30/98 GMT, Barry Peterson wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 17:17:51 -0500, you said:
>>Barry Peterson wrote:
>>> I sold a drive (IIRC, a micropolis 85MB) that would spool up and then
>>> do a couple of "ching-chings" and worked fine. I tested the livin'
>>> daylights out of it; no problems, but many folks told me and the
>>> fellow I sold it to that it would die immediately.
>>So how long has the guy you sold it to been using it? (I've had bad
>>luck with the Micropolis 40MB drives in some AT&T 3B1s).
>I had it for >3 years, he had it for two more, now his grandson has
>it... So far, so good.
The Micropolis I stuck in my AT&T has been dropped twice and
actually caught on fire once! Still works too... Believe it or not,
chkdsk and scandisk both give it the 100% ok.