8 Dec
2001
8 Dec
'01
4:46 p.m.
--- Louis Schulman <louiss(a)gate.net> wrote:
Commodore PET drive system. Holy smoke, a whole
second computer just
to operate the drives, and even then, blecch.
Being a PET user from way back, I always liked the Commodore drives from
one particular aspect - they were intellegent peripherals. You didn't
bang on a couple of registers to make magic things happen (like on the
Apple), you communicated your request and it did what you asked or it
told you why it didn't work. The thing I did *not* like about them was
that they were scorchingly expensive. By the time I could afford a
PET drive, nobody cared anymore. I think my first 4040 was about $10
from the university surplus.
I also liked the fact that the PET did not need boot disks. I saw that
as a major source of problems watching my friends sort through piles of
Apple floppies, looking for a DOS3.3 disk.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
8 Dec
8 Dec
5:15 p.m.
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 19:46:18 -0800 (PST), Ethan Dicks wrote:
#I also liked the fact that the PET did not need boot disks. I saw that
#as a major source of problems watching my friends sort through piles of
#Apple floppies, looking for a DOS3.3 disk.
They probably existed, but I don't recall ever seeing a non-bootable program disk for
an Apple II. And data
disks are not much use without program disks.
Of course, putting the DOS in the drive's ROM somewhat limits your choices as to an
OS. If you recall, with
an add-on card or two, an Apple could run DOS 3.3, ProDOS, CP/M, OS-9, MS-DOS (needed an
add-on
drive as well) and probably some other OS that I have forgotten.
Louis
6:11 p.m.
They probably existed, but I don't recall ever
seeing a non-bootable program disk for an Apple II. And data
disks are not much use without program disks.
You needed to use a special disk in order to not include DOS on an Apple
disk. It did free up a small bit of space. Apple's minimalist DOS was so
small it was rarely worth the effort. Program loads didn't obliterate the
resident portion of DOS.
CP/M on the other hand took significant disk and RAM space for the DOS and
command interpreter, portions of which were lost on program load and needed
to be reloaded on return to the OS.
Eric
9 Dec
9 Dec
7:26 a.m.
They probably
existed, but I don't recall ever seeing a non-bootable program disk for an Apple II.
And data
disks are not much use without program disks.
You needed to use a special disk in order to not include DOS on an Apple
disk. It did free up a small bit of space. Apple's minimalist DOS was so
small it was rarely worth the effort. Program loads didn't obliterate the
resident portion of DOS.
CP/M on the other hand took significant disk and RAM space for the DOS and
command interpreter, portions of which were lost on program load and needed
to be reloaded on return to the OS.
Eric
7:53 a.m.
Since the OS provided file and byte I/O system functions for applications to
call, only the console command interpreter was reloaded on exit, and that only
when the application was large. I guess this was an issue for CP/M systems that
didn't have the full 64K of RAM, but I never worked with one that didn't for
more than half a day. Vector and Northstar systems, and probably a few others
that maintained a ROM BASIC may have had less RAM, but my own experience started
and ended with 64K RAM under CP/M.
On the Apple, the DOS had to be smaller, since there was only 48K of RAM unless
the extra 16K was present. on an add-on card. Of course, when the 16K board was
present, it was often so that CP/M could be used via the Z80 board.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric J. Korpela" <korpela(a)ssl.berkeley.edu>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Apple Floppy Drives (was: More Apple Pimpers)
^^^^ I must have been tired. This should have
said program.
Eric
> > They probably existed, but I don't
recall ever seeing a non-bootable
program disk for an Apple II. And data
disks are not much use without program disks.
You needed to use a special disk in order to not include DOS on an Apple
disk. It did free up a small bit of space. Apple's minimalist DOS was so
small it was rarely worth the effort. Program loads didn't obliterate the
resident portion of DOS.
CP/M on the other hand took significant disk and RAM space for the DOS and
command interpreter, portions of which were lost on program load and needed
to be reloaded on return to the OS.
Eric
8 Dec
8 Dec
6:23 p.m.
Of course, putting the DOS in the drive's ROM
somewhat limits your choices
as to an OS. If you recall, with
an add-on card or two, an Apple could run DOS 3.3, ProDOS, CP/M, OS-9,
MS-DOS (needed an add-on drive as well)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's cheating, of course. I don't remember if PETs could be coerced into it,
but C64s can run CP/M 2.2 just fine with an add-on Z80 cartridge. They just
can't read the MFM disks, but neither can the Apple CP/M IIRC. There's
nothing about having a sidecar intelligent peripheral that's per se limiting
about what choices you have for an OS. Besides, if you really wanted a custom
DOS on a Commodore drive, you can either load the DOS into drive RAM and have
it execute there, or make the drive just a serial slave and feed data to the
Commodore for processing. Most custom Commodore formats did the former.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- Intel outside -- 6502 inside! ----------------------------------------------
9 Dec
9 Dec
7:38 a.m.
--- Louis Schulman <louiss(a)gate.net> wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 19:46:18 -0800 (PST), Ethan Dicks
wrote:
#I also liked the fact that the PET did not need boot disks. I saw that
#as a major source of problems watching my friends sort through piles of
#Apple floppies, looking for a DOS3.3 disk.
They probably existed, but I don't recall ever seeing a non-bootable
program disk for an Apple II. And data
disks are not much use without program disks.
I remember booting up on a master and running stuff from disks
with just program files/data files in many cases (some games
you _had_ to boot). For example, I don't think the Scott Adams
text adventures came on a bootable disk from Adventure International -
why should they pay for a license, after all. I did not ever own
them for the Apple, just the PET (on cassette), so can't guarantee
what the distribution looked like.
Of course, putting the DOS in the drive's ROM
somewhat limits your
choices as to an OS.
True, but back in those days, that wasn't a fatal limitation. Besides,
the 8-bitters didn't really have a OS, more of a structured program
loader. If all you need to do is read in executables and read/write
data files, you don't need a full OS.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
7:56 a.m.
There were a few that used "structured program loaders" as you call them, but
CP/M certainly was more than that. I guess there were many things that fell
between those limits.
I occasionally saw an Apple system used with one drive for the boot diskette,
one for the program, with overlays, and one or two for data. That required a
second controller at the time, though ISTR that later controllers, e.g. Rana
Systems' version supported four drives.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ethan Dicks" <erd_6502(a)yahoo.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Apple Floppy Drives (was: More Apple Pimpers)
--- Louis Schulman <louiss(a)gate.net> wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 19:46:18 -0800 (PST), Ethan
Dicks wrote:
#I also liked the fact that the PET did not need boot disks. I saw that
#as a major source of problems watching my friends sort through piles of
#Apple floppies, looking for a DOS3.3 disk.
They probably existed, but I don't recall ever seeing a non-bootable
program disk for an Apple II. And data
disks are not much use without program disks.
I remember booting up on a master and running stuff from disks
with just program files/data files in many cases (some games
you _had_ to boot). For example, I don't think the Scott Adams
text adventures came on a bootable disk from Adventure International -
why should they pay for a license, after all. I did not ever own
them for the Apple, just the PET (on cassette), so can't guarantee
what the distribution looked like.
Of course, putting the DOS in the drive's ROM
somewhat limits your
choices as to an OS.
True, but back in those days, that wasn't a fatal limitation. Besides,
the 8-bitters didn't really have a OS, more of a structured program
loader. If all you need to do is read in executables and read/write
data files, you don't need a full OS.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
8:16 a.m.
Ethan Dicks wrote:
True, but back in those days, that wasn't a fatal limitation. Besides,
the 8-bitters didn't really have a OS, more of a structured program
loader. If all you need to do is read in executables and read/write
data files, you don't need a full OS.
In retospect I would say people expected BASIC to run rom. I/O
was a feature only used to save your programs, maybe even data.
The Apple,TRS-80?,Pets,C64's,Coco's,IBM-PC all come to mind.
CP/M was the most common real OS, but lets not forget about
6800/6809 machines running FLEX or OS/9.
--
Ben Franchuk --- Pre-historic Cpu's --
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
11:27 a.m.
CP/M was the most common real OS, but lets not forget
about
6800/6809 machines running FLEX or OS/9.
And with both Uniflex and OS/9 you could have a multi-user,
multitasking operating system on a 6809 in as little as 56k of RAM.
FLEX runs nicely on this S/09 but I would still love to find the
SWTPc version of OS/9 for it.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
10 Dec
10 Dec
1:50 a.m.
New subject: Apple Floppy Drives (was: More Apple Pimpers)
Hi,
Ben Franchuk said:
Ethan Dicks wrote:
Can I just put a word in for LDOS (for TRS-80) - one of the better
8-bit operating systems. I really missed some of it's capabilies
when I moved to MSDOS (V. 2-point-something), particularly the
device independence and easy driver and filter installation.
--
Cheers,
Stan Barr stanb(a)dial.pipex.com
The future was never like this!
True, but back in those days, that wasn't a fatal limitation. Besides,
the 8-bitters didn't really have a OS, more of a structured program
loader. If all you need to do is read in executables and read/write
data files, you don't need a full OS.
In retospect I would say people expected BASIC to run rom. I/O
was a feature only used to save your programs, maybe even data.
The Apple,TRS-80?,Pets,C64's,Coco's,IBM-PC all come to mind.
CP/M was the most common real OS, but lets not forget about
6800/6809 machines running FLEX or OS/9. 
9 Dec
9 Dec
10:18 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 295 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011209/7be70d42/at…
1:30 p.m.
> True, but back in those days, that wasn't a
fatal limitation. Besides,
> the 8-bitters didn't really have a OS, more of a structured program
I'm not sure I'd call OS-9 a 'structured
program loader'. It does most of
what I'd expect a real OS to do :-) And it runs on 8 bit machines.
This reminds me of a question I never got answered, since I'm poor with
6809 stuff. Has OS-9 been ported to a 6502-based architecture? I wouldn't
expect binary compatibility, of course, but since you always hear OS-9
in connection with CoCos and such, you'd think the CoCo had a monopoly on it.
--
----------------------------- personal page: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Point Loma Nazarene University * ckaiser(a)stockholm.ptloma.edu
-- "I'd love to go out with you, but my tarantula is getting neutered."
-------
1:27 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1178 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20011210/0d05e7fe/at…
2:03 p.m.
This reminds me of a question I never got answered,
since I'm poor with
6809 stuff. Has OS-9 been ported to a 6502-based architecture? I wouldn't
expect binary compatibility, of course, but since you always hear OS-9
in connection with CoCos and such, you'd think the CoCo had a monopoly on it.
The OS-9 FAQ lists it as supporting the following processors:
6809, 68xxx, PPC, X86, Intel SARM / IXP, MIPS, SPARC, Hitachi SH
Specific machines which ran OS-9/6809 include:
CoCo, SWTPc SCB-69, Gimix 6809, SSB Chieftain 6809, FHL TC-9,
the FEBE, and a host of others, most of which are SS-50 bus machines.
From the sound of the FAQ, it would appear that the SS-50 bus
machines were the platform of choice for OS-9/6809.
Jeff
--
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.cchaven.com
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
8333
days inactive
8335
days old
14 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
edick＠idcomm.com -
erd_6502＠yahoo.com -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
korpela＠cyclops.ssl.berkeley.edu -
korpela＠ssl.berkeley.edu -
louiss＠gate.net -
spectre＠stockholm.ptloma.edu -
stanb＠dial.pipex.com