16 Apr
2002
16 Apr
'02
9:04 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: R. D. Davis [mailto:rdd@rddavis.org]
> and I'm really trying to play by their rules.
They have no
Why play by their rules? The more who do, the worse
the problem will
become for all of us. Let the biz'droid lusers know that their
software is broken and that they need to pay an appropriate
professional to fix their minds as well.
Indeed I would tell them if they would listen to me. As it is, I have
agreed to follow their rules, and will have to do that until they make
more sane rules. In other words, when I took their job, I gave them
my word. I don't believe I can count on them to fix these problems
on my account. After all, they don't impair my work -- all of our
clients use this junk too. (Sad, but what can you do about it?)
Chris
Christopher Smith, Perl Developer
Amdocs - Champaign, IL
/usr/bin/perl -e '
print((~"\x95\xc4\xe3"^"Just Another Perl
Hacker.")."\x08!\n");
'
20 Apr
20 Apr
4:53 p.m.
Quothe Christopher Smith, from writings of Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 01:04:18PM -0500:
[biz'droids]
Indeed I would tell them if they would listen to me.
As it is, I have
Just talk louder and be more persistent; they'll reach a point where
they'll either listen or fire you; it the later, no great loss since
it doesn't sound like they're worth working for.
agreed to follow their rules, and will have to do that
until they make
more sane rules.
Why?
In other words, when I took their job, I gave them
my word.
You gave them your word that you'd act like a good little obedient
dimwit? Why would anyone promise to do that? I suggest that you
run emacs and invoke doctor ("M-x doctor") to get some help. ;-)
I don't believe I can count on them to fix these
problems
on my account. After all, they don't impair my work -- all of our
clients use this junk too. (Sad, but what can you do about it?)
One can always refuse to work with that Micro$oft rubbish. Perhaps you
could educate your employer's clients; tell them all about the big
mistakes that they're making by wanting to use that Micro$oft
virusware which is broken, and otherwise annoying, by design. Don't
mince words, tell it like it is, and tell them that no reasonably
intelligent computer hacker would work with that rubbish unless it was
as part of a project to change over to a UNIX system, or VMS, or even
CP/M... that is, changing over to a system that doesn't destroy data
and do other peculiar things with files. Ask them why they like
operating systems that molest data... someone needs to make an "Eddy
Electron" like film, that's Monty Pythonish, called "Pfe$ter, the
Micro $oft Mole$ter," showing him doing strange things with bits of
data as they flow through the computer.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
5:07 p.m.
... and if you're dumb enough to believe that, you'll get what you deserve.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. D. Davis" <rdd(a)rddavis.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)
Quothe Christopher Smith, from writings of Tue, Apr
16, 2002 at
01:04:18PM -0500:
[biz'droids]
animals:
Indeed I would tell them if they would listen to
me. As it is, I have
Just talk louder and be more persistent; they'll reach a point where
they'll either listen or fire you; it the later, no great loss since
it doesn't sound like they're worth working for.
agreed to follow their rules, and will have to do
that until they make
more sane rules.
Why?
In other words, when I took their job, I gave
them
my word.
You gave them your word that you'd act like a good little obedient
dimwit? Why would anyone promise to do that? I suggest that you
run emacs and invoke doctor ("M-x doctor") to get some help. ;-)
I don't believe I can count on them to fix
these problems
on my account. After all, they don't impair my work -- all of our
clients use this junk too. (Sad, but what can you do about it?)
One can always refuse to work with that Micro$oft rubbish. Perhaps you
could educate your employer's clients; tell them all about the big
mistakes that they're making by wanting to use that Micro$oft
virusware which is broken, and otherwise annoying, by design. Don't
mince words, tell it like it is, and tell them that no reasonably
intelligent computer hacker would work with that rubbish unless it was
as part of a project to change over to a UNIX system, or VMS, or even
CP/M... that is, changing over to a system that doesn't destroy data
and do other peculiar things with files. Ask them why they like
operating systems that molest data... someone needs to make an "Eddy
Electron" like film, that's Monty Pythonish, called "Pfe$ter, the
Micro $oft Mole$ter," showing him doing strange things with bits of
data as they flow through the computer.
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief
that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify
such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify
much human cruelty.
21 Apr
21 Apr
6:15 a.m.
New subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
Quothe Richard Erlacher, spreader of pro-Microsoft propaganda, from his
writings of Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:07:40PM -0600:
... and if you're dumb enough to believe that,
you'll get what you deserve.
Au contraire. Micro$oft windoze users get what they deserve.
To bring this back on-topic: in the years prior to the existence of
Micro$oft and it's viruses pretending to be operating systems, can
anyone think of any vintage operating system(s) that was (were) known
for being poorly designed, annoying to use, and dangerous to data,
which was (were) regarded with the same disdain as Micro$oft windows,
yet still had loyal lusers who apparently didn't know any better than
not to use it (them)?
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
6:26 a.m.
New subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 11:15:54AM -0400, R. D. Davis wrote:
Quothe Richard Erlacher, spreader of pro-Microsoft
propaganda, from his
writings of Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:07:40PM -0600:
Many would put OS/360 in that category.
Some CDC 6600 OSs (I think NOS, maybe others) have permanent and
temporary files. If your batch job ends and you haven't made your
temporary files permanent, they will be gone. This unintuitive feature
persisted after CDC added an interactive terminal interface to the
underlying batch functionality. You could call that dangerous to data
(and I wouldn't disagree with you).
I hope I haven't messed up those facts... someone will probably correct
me if I have. Doug Q.?
And you can bet that there have been OSs (probably for small computers)
with much less functionality than MS-DOS. I'm thinking of the kind that
have file systems so rudimentary they're hardly worthy of the name (you
are limited to a very small number of files, or files on disk must be
contiguous, or there are no named files at all, just commands to dump
memory to areas of disk and read it back again). Apple's DOS 1 and 2
had no files, or so I hear. FORTH often still doesn't, though it was
designed to be small. Doubtless there were others that were commercially
sold.
-- Derek
... and if you're dumb enough to believe
that, you'll get what you deserve.
Au contraire. Micro$oft windoze users get what they deserve.
To bring this back on-topic: in the years prior to the existence of
Micro$oft and it's viruses pretending to be operating systems, can
anyone think of any vintage operating system(s) that was (were) known
for being poorly designed, annoying to use, and dangerous to data,
which was (were) regarded with the same disdain as Micro$oft windows,
yet still had loyal lusers who apparently didn't know any better than
not to use it (them)? 
6:36 a.m.
New subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Derek Peschel wrote:
memory to areas of disk and read it back again).
Apple's DOS 1 and 2
had no files, or so I hear. FORTH often still doesn't, though it was
Where'd you hear that?
Any information on Apple DOS before version 3 would be interesting. I
didn't think they HAD versions before 3.2. From what I've read, 3.2 was
the version that was finally deemed complete and ready for release.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
7:51 a.m.
New subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 08:36:56AM -0700, Sellam Ismail wrote:
On some "history of the Apple" site, probably.
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Derek Peschel wrote:
memory to
areas of disk and read it back again). Apple's DOS 1 and 2
had no files, or so I hear. FORTH often still doesn't, though it was
Where'd you hear that?
Any information on Apple DOS before version 3 would be interesting. I
didn't think they HAD versions before 3.2. From what I've read, 3.2 was
the version that was finally deemed complete and ready for release.
1 and 2 were not released (which is why I don't have any more information
than you do). You may be interested in chapter 2 of _Beneath Apple DOS_.
Since its introduction, Apple DOS has gone through three
major versions. All of these versions look very much the
same on the surface. All commands supported by DOS 3.3 are
also supported in 3.2 and 3.1. The need for additional
versions has been more to fix errors in DOS and to make
minor enhancements than to provide additional
functionality. Only DOS 3.3 has offered any major
improvement in function; an increase in the number of
sectors that will fit on a track from 13 to 16.
DOS 3 - 29 June 1978
DOS 3.1 - 20 July 1978
The first release of DOS was apparently a victim of a rush
at Apple to introduce the DISK II. As such, it had a number
of bugs. With the movement towards the APPLE II PLUS and the
introduction of the AUTOSTART ROM, a new release was
needed.
DOS 3.2 - 16 February 1979
Although DOS 3.2 embodied more changes from its predecessor
than any other release of DOS, 90% of the basic structure of
DOS 3.1 was retained. The major differences between DOS 3.1
and 3.2 and later versions of DOS are listed below:
- NOMON C,I,O is the initial default under DOS 3.2. MON
C,I,O was the default under DOS 3.1.
- Input prompts (>,],*) are echoed when MON O is in effect,
not under MON I as was the case under 3.1.
- When a DOS command was entered from the keyboard, DOS
executed it and then passed a blank followed by a carriage
return to BASIC under 3.1. Under 3.2 only a carriage
return is passed.
- Under 3.2, certain commands may not be entered from the
keyboard but may only be used within a BASIC program
(READ, WRITE, POSITION, OPEN, APPEND).
- Under 3.2, when LOADing an APPLESOFT program, DOS
automatically converts from APPLESOFT ROM format to
APPLESOFT RAM format if the RAM version of BASIC is in use
and vice versa.
- DOS 3.1 could not read lowercase characters from a text
file; DOS 3.2 can.
- Some DOS commands are allowed to create a new file, others
will not. Under DOS 3.1, any reference to a file that
didn't exist, caused it to be created. This forced DOS 3.1
to then delete it if a new file was not desired. (LOAD XYZ
under 3.1 if XYZ did not exist, created XYZ, deleted XYZ,
and then printed the file not found error message.) Under
3.2, OPEN is allowed to create a file if one does not
exist, but LOAD may not.
- Under 3.1, exiting to the monitor required that the
monitor status register location ($48) be set to zero
before reentering DOS. Under DOS 3.2 this is no longer
necessary.
- The Read-Write/Track-Sector (RWTS) section of DOS disables
interrupts while it is executing. Under 3.1, RWTS could be
interrupted by a peripheral while writing to a disk,
destroying the disk.
- The default for the B (byte offset) keyword is 0 under
3.2.
- DOS was reassembled for 3.2 causing most of its
interesting locations and routines to move slightly. This
played havoc with user programs and utilities which had
DOS addresses built into them.
- Additional file types (beyond T, I, A, and B) are defined
within DOS 3.2, although no commands yet support them. The
new types are S, R, a new A, and a new B. R has
subsequently been used by the DOS TOOLKIT for relocatable
object module assembler files. At present, no other use
is made of these extra file types.
- Support was added under 3.2 for the AUTOSTART ROM.
- All files open when a disk full condition occurs are
closed by DOS 3.2.
- As with each new release of DOS, several new programs were
added to the master diskette for 3.2. Among these was
UPDATE 3.2, a replacement for MASTER CREATE, the utility
for creating master diskettes. UPDATE 3.2 converts a slave
into a master and allows the HELLO file to be renamed.
DOS 3.2.1 - 31 July 1979
DOS 3.2.1 was essentially a "maintenance release" of DOS
3.2. Minor patches were made to RWTS and the COPY program
to correct a timing problem when a dual drive copy was done.
Additional delays were added following a switch between
drives.
DOS 3.3 - 25 August 1980
Introduced in mid 1980 as a hardware/software upgrade from
DOS 3.2.1, the DOS 3.3 package includes new bootstrap and
state ROM chips for the disk controller card which provide
the capability to format, read, and write a diskette with 16
sectors. (These ROMs are the same ones used with the
LANGUAGE SYSTEM.) This improvement represents almost a 25%
increase in available disk space over the old 13 sector
format. Also included in the 3.3 package is an updated
version of the DOS manual, a BASICS diskette (for 13 sector
boots), and a master diskette. Although the RWTS portion of
DOS was almost totally rewritten, the rest of DOS was not
reassembled and only received a few patches:
- The initial DOS bootstrap loader was moved to $800 under
3.3. It was at $300 under 3.2. In addition, as stored on
the diskette (track 0 sector 0) it is nibblized in the
same way as all other sectors under 3.3.
- A bug in APPEND which caused it to position improperly if
the file was a multiple of 256 bytes long was fixed under
3.3.
- A VERIFY command is internally executed after every SAVE
or BSAVE under 3.3.
- All 4 bytes are used in the Volume Table Of Contents
(VTOC) free sector bit map when keeping track of free
sectors. This allows DOS to handle up to 32 sectors per
track. Of course, RWTS will only handle 16 sectors due to
hardware limitations.
- If a LANGUAGE CARD is present, DOS stores a zero on it at
$E000 during bootstrap to force the HELLO program on the
master diskette to reload BASIC.
- DOS is read into memory from the top down (backwards)
under 3.3 rather than the bottom up. The image is still
stored in the same order on diskette (tracks 0, 1, and
2), however.
- Additional programs added to the master diskette under 3.3
include FID, a generalized file utility which allows
individual files or groups of files to be copied, MUFFIN,
a conversion copy routine to allow 3.2 files to be moved
to 16 sector 3.3 diskettes, BOOT 13, a program which will
boot a 13 sector diskette, and a new COPY program which will
also support single drive copies.
- Under 3.2, speed differences in some drives prevented
their use together with the COPY program. Because the
COPY program was rewritten under 3.3, that restriction no
longer applies.
DOS 3.3 - 1 January 1983
This "maintenance release" of DOS was introduced with the
Apple IIe computer. It contains a few minor patches and no
additional function.
- A patch was introduced in DOS 3.3 to fix a bug in APPEND
processing. This patch also had bugs. Additional patches
were added to (hopefully) correct this problem.
- An error for the POSITION calculation in large files is
corrected in this release.
- A few instructions were added to properly support the 80
column display on the Apple IIe.
- The system master diskette contains some different files.
Notably, a fast loader for the language card and all of
the example programs have been moved to a separate
diskette.
No, I don't have an online copy of the book -- I just typed everything in.
Some other historical tidbits:
DOS 3.x was not written by Apple but by Optimized System Software.
They later went on to write the DOS for the Atari 8-bit machines, which has
a very polished and modular internal organization (though Atari never really
upgraded the hardware -- also it would be nice to get rid of the menu system
and mix BASIC with DOS -- I think there are software programs to do that).
FID says FIle Developer in its title screen. A few years ago I read
(on comp.sys.apple2) that it was originally called FISHEAD. (That is
a horrible acronym but I forget what for.) The Apple management protested.
Little did they know that FID really stands for Fishead In Disguise!
And MUFFIN was named for the programmer's dog. A program to convert 3.3
files back to 3.2 exists and is called (naturally enough) NIFFUM.
I'm not sure if the APPEND bug was ever completely fixed. DOS doesn't
record the length of a text file, unlike ProDOS; that undoubtedly makes
the programmer's life harder. I believe sparse text files under DOS
are also a complete pain.
-- Derek
22 Apr
22 Apr
2:53 a.m.
New subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
Apple's DOS 1 and 2 had no files, or so I hear.
AFAIR there was never a Apple DOS 1 - the first was called 2
(like in Apple 2, Disk 2, Dos 2) and was written by the Woz
himself. Soon to be replaced by DOS 3 (only the low level and
the RWTS functions taken from DOS 2 _ which barely was more
than that), which again soon developed into 3.2 (all over a
period of less than a half year). 3.2 was more or less the
standard DOS for over a year, and the one commonly seen as the
first public release. Some time later (1980?) 3.3 came around
and the 16 sector format, picking up a development done for the
UCSD Pascal System (Well, the P-System required you to change
the boot PROMs for 16 sector format, and if you wanted to use
DOS and the P-System, you either had to swap PROM all the time,
or have at least two controllers, and boot via monitor (or basic)
command line). Otherwise 3.3 was more or less unchanged from 3.2.
So the main trick was the conversion from 13 sectors and 117 K
to 16 sectors and 143 K per disk (side).
Well, looking back, your're right - at least Apple DOS 1 never
supported files, because it didn't exist :)
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
4:42 a.m.
New subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
I've been playing with my clone PDP-8's OS-8
installation, and I would say at first glance that you
might think it was awful, but when you consider that
it is running in 32K (x 12 bits, but still...) of RAM,
has highly "regular" commands, has installable device
drivers, and has a large degree of device independence
it's really very amazing. I could say the same thing
about Flex for the 6800 and 09. Considering their
severely limited resources, pretty darned good.
--- Hans Franke <Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
Apple's DOS 1 and 2 had no files, or so I
hear.
AFAIR there was never a Apple DOS 1 - the first was
called 2
(like in Apple 2, Disk 2, Dos 2) and was written by
the Woz
himself. Soon to be replaced by DOS 3 (only the low
level and
the RWTS functions taken from DOS 2 _ which barely
was more
than that), which again soon developed into 3.2 (all
over a
period of less than a half year). 3.2 was more or
less the
standard DOS for over a year, and the one commonly
seen as the
first public release. Some time later (1980?) 3.3
came around
and the 16 sector format, picking up a development
done for the
UCSD Pascal System (Well, the P-System required you
to change
the boot PROMs for 16 sector format, and if you
wanted to use
DOS and the P-System, you either had to swap PROM
all the time,
or have at least two controllers, and boot via
monitor (or basic)
command line). Otherwise 3.3 was more or less
unchanged from 3.2.
So the main trick was the conversion from 13 sectors
and 117 K
to 16 sectors and 143 K per disk (side).
Well, looking back, your're right - at least Apple
DOS 1 never
supported files, because it didn't exist :)
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
5:13 a.m.
New subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
What sort of drives were the intended target of this OS? I had a colleague
who had a couple of "DF32" drives for his PDP8E (wirewrapped CPU, BTW) which
he was never able to utilize, and I've always wondered just how those drives,
with their small capacity, fit into the scheme of things.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Loboyko Steve" <sloboyko(a)yahoo.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
I've been playing with my clone PDP-8's OS-8
installation, and I would say at first glance that you
might think it was awful, but when you consider that
it is running in 32K (x 12 bits, but still...) of RAM,
has highly "regular" commands, has installable device
drivers, and has a large degree of device independence
it's really very amazing. I could say the same thing
about Flex for the 6800 and 09. Considering their
severely limited resources, pretty darned good.
--- Hans Franke <Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
Apple's DOS 1 and 2 had no files, or so I
hear.
AFAIR there was never a Apple DOS 1 - the first was
called 2
(like in Apple 2, Disk 2, Dos 2) and was written by
the Woz
himself. Soon to be replaced by DOS 3 (only the low
level and
the RWTS functions taken from DOS 2 _ which barely
was more
than that), which again soon developed into 3.2 (all
over a
period of less than a half year). 3.2 was more or
less the
standard DOS for over a year, and the one commonly
seen as the
first public release. Some time later (1980?) 3.3
came around
and the 16 sector format, picking up a development
done for the
UCSD Pascal System (Well, the P-System required you
to change
the boot PROMs for 16 sector format, and if you
wanted to use
DOS and the P-System, you either had to swap PROM
all the time,
or have at least two controllers, and boot via
monitor (or basic)
command line). Otherwise 3.3 was more or less
unchanged from 3.2.
So the main trick was the conversion from 13 sectors
and 117 K
to 16 sectors and 143 K per disk (side).
Well, looking back, your're right - at least Apple
DOS 1 never
supported files, because it didn't exist :)
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/ 
5:37 a.m.
New subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
What sort of drives were the intended target of this
OS? I had a colleague
who had a couple of "DF32" drives for his PDP8E (wirewrapped CPU, BTW) which
he was never able to utilize, and I've always wondered just how those drives,
with their small capacity, fit into the scheme of things.
Dick
Isn't the DF32 a 32 Kword fixed head drive? I think it was used for multi-user
PDP8 systems (like a drum)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Loboyko Steve" <sloboyko(a)yahoo.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
Peter Wallace
I've been playing with my clone PDP-8's
OS-8
installation, and I would say at first glance that you
might think it was awful, but when you consider that
it is running in 32K (x 12 bits, but still...) of RAM,
has highly "regular" commands, has installable device
drivers, and has a large degree of device independence
it's really very amazing. I could say the same thing
about Flex for the 6800 and 09. Considering their
severely limited resources, pretty darned good.
--- Hans Franke <Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
Apple's DOS 1 and 2 had no files, or so I
hear.
AFAIR there was never a Apple DOS 1 - the first was
called 2
(like in Apple 2, Disk 2, Dos 2) and was written by
the Woz
himself. Soon to be replaced by DOS 3 (only the low
level and
the RWTS functions taken from DOS 2 _ which barely
was more
than that), which again soon developed into 3.2 (all
over a
period of less than a half year). 3.2 was more or
less the
standard DOS for over a year, and the one commonly
seen as the
first public release. Some time later (1980?) 3.3
came around
and the 16 sector format, picking up a development
done for the
UCSD Pascal System (Well, the P-System required you
to change
the boot PROMs for 16 sector format, and if you
wanted to use
DOS and the P-System, you either had to swap PROM
all the time,
or have at least two controllers, and boot via
monitor (or basic)
command line). Otherwise 3.3 was more or less
unchanged from 3.2.
So the main trick was the conversion from 13 sectors
and 117 K
to 16 sectors and 143 K per disk (side).
Well, looking back, your're right - at least Apple
DOS 1 never
supported files, because it didn't exist :)
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
6:49 a.m.
New subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
I really wouldn't know. I remember being shown the drives, which were very
large and cumbersome considering the small capacity. One's conception of such
things changes over time, though, doesn't it?
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter C. Wallace" <pcw(a)mesanet.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
multi-user
Peter Wallace
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
> What sort of drives were the intended target of this OS? I had a
colleague
> who had a couple of "DF32" drives for
his PDP8E (wirewrapped CPU, BTW)
which
> he was never able to utilize, and I've always
wondered just how those
drives,
with their
small capacity, fit into the scheme of things.
Dick
Isn't the DF32 a 32 Kword fixed head drive? I think it was used for PDP8 systems (like a drum)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Loboyko Steve" <sloboyko(a)yahoo.com>
> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid
Lusers)
I've been playing with my clone PDP-8's
OS-8
installation, and I would say at first glance that you
might think it was awful, but when you consider that
it is running in 32K (x 12 bits, but still...) of RAM,
has highly "regular" commands, has installable device
drivers, and has a large degree of device independence
it's really very amazing. I could say the same thing
about Flex for the 6800 and 09. Considering their
severely limited resources, pretty darned good.
--- Hans Franke <Hans.Franke(a)mch20.sbs.de> wrote:
> Apple's DOS 1 and 2 had no files, or so I hear.
AFAIR there was never a Apple DOS 1 - the first was
called 2
(like in Apple 2, Disk 2, Dos 2) and was written by
the Woz
himself. Soon to be replaced by DOS 3 (only the low
level and
the RWTS functions taken from DOS 2 _ which barely
was more
than that), which again soon developed into 3.2 (all
over a
period of less than a half year). 3.2 was more or
less the
standard DOS for over a year, and the one commonly
seen as the
first public release. Some time later (1980?) 3.3
came around
and the 16 sector format, picking up a development
done for the
UCSD Pascal System (Well, the P-System required you
to change
the boot PROMs for 16 sector format, and if you
wanted to use
DOS and the P-System, you either had to swap PROM
all the time,
or have at least two controllers, and boot via
monitor (or basic)
command line). Otherwise 3.3 was more or less
unchanged from 3.2.
So the main trick was the conversion from 13 sectors
and 117 K
to 16 sectors and 143 K per disk (side).
Well, looking back, your're right - at least Apple
DOS 1 never
supported files, because it didn't exist :)
Gruss
H.
--
VCF Europa 3.0 am 27./28. April 2002 in Muenchen
http://www.vcfe.org/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
23 Apr
23 Apr
8:53 a.m.
New subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
--- "Peter C. Wallace" <pcw(a)mesanet.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Richard Erlacher wrote:
That was a common use because they were word addressable (not block
addressable), write-protectable by 25% increments (four toggle switches)
and *fast* - no seek, just rotational latency.
OTOH, they _could_ be used as a scratch disk for a compiler, or anything
else. You _can_ put a filesystem on them, somewhat useful if you gang
four of them together (1 DF32 + 3 DS-32) - 128KW total.
I presume there is an OS/8 driver for them. I have never tried. The
machines that I have with DF-32s, do not have enough core for OS/8, and
in any case, I believe my platters are abraded away (the heads do not
retract as with newer drives, leading to wear on the plated surface).
The best I was ever able to manage was to write a program to flash the
state of the rotation sensor in the LINK bit to prove that I'd rebuilt
the sensor (it had caught fire before I got it).
Mechanical wear of the data surface was such a problem that the drives
were designed to have the motor and the electronics seperately power
down. For the most part, DEC had customers switch the drives on and
leave them spinning perpetually. It'd be like leaving on four table
saws (similar size motor).
Interesting drives, but impractical for general-purpose use.
-ethan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/
I had a colleague who had a couple of
"DF32" drives for his PDP8E...
which he was never able to utilize, and I've always wondered just how
those drives, with their small capacity, fit into the scheme of things.
Dick
Isn't the DF32 a 32 Kword fixed head drive? I think it was used for
multi-user PDP8 systems (like a drum) 
22 Apr
22 Apr
3:58 p.m.
New subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
Loboyko Steve wrote:
I've been playing with my clone PDP-8's OS-8
installation, and I would say at first glance that you
might think it was awful, but when you consider that
it is running in 32K (x 12 bits, but still...) of RAM,
has highly "regular" commands, has installable device
drivers, and has a large degree of device independence
it's really very amazing. I could say the same thing
about Flex for the 6800 and 09. Considering their
severely limited resources, pretty darned good.
And fast too!
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
4:13 p.m.
New subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
it's
really very amazing. I could say the same thing
about Flex for the 6800 and 09. Considering their
severely limited resources, pretty darned good.
And fast too!
21 Apr
21 Apr
6:37 a.m.
New subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
To bring this back on-topic: in the years prior to the
existence of
Micro$oft and it's viruses pretending to be operating systems, can
anyone think of any vintage operating system(s) that was (were) known
for being poorly designed, annoying to use, and dangerous to data,
which was (were) regarded with the same disdain as Micro$oft windows,
yet still had loyal lusers who apparently didn't know any better than
not to use it (them)?
Users never had a real say in the matter.
--
Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk/index.html
7:02 a.m.
New subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
Well ... since you've gone trolling ...
I can't remember a single widely used OS about which there weren't complaints
galore from the system programmers. The evolution of desktop PC's, however,
has made for lots of "system programmers" though in the current computing
world I doubt there are any more competent ones than in the '60's. There are,
of course millions claiming to be system programmers and claiming to know what
they're doing. There are, in fact, enough to go around.
I hardly believe Microsoft Windows to be the be-all and end-all of operating
systems.
I think the suggestion that Christopher Smith should give up his job just to
promote the interests of the Microsoft-haters, however right or wrong they may
be, is just plain stupid, and if he does that, as I said, he gets what he
deserves. Now, if you're willing to give him a job, that's great, but
there's
no chance I'd hire anyone willing to follow such inane advice where employment
is concerned. Since giving bad advice can make you liable, while being stupid
enough to follow such advice can not, I'd be really careful about dispensing
such advice.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. D. Davis" <rdd(a)rddavis.org>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 9:15 AM
Subject: Bad Classic Operating Systems (was: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers)
Quothe Richard Erlacher, spreader of pro-Microsoft
propaganda, from his
writings of Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:07:40PM -0600:
> ... and if you're dumb enough to believe that, you'll get what you
deserve.
Au contraire. Micro$oft windoze users get what they deserve.
To bring this back on-topic: in the years prior to the existence of
Micro$oft and it's viruses pretending to be operating systems, can
anyone think of any vintage operating system(s) that was (were) known
for being poorly designed, annoying to use, and dangerous to data,
which was (were) regarded with the same disdain as Micro$oft windows,
yet still had loyal lusers who apparently didn't know any better than
not to use it (them)?
--
Copyright (C) 2001 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other
animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief
that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify
such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify
much human cruelty.
8152
days inactive
8159
days old
16 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
csmith＠amdocs.com -
dpeschel＠eskimo.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
erd_6502＠yahoo.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
Hans.Franke＠mch20.sbs.de -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
pcw＠mesanet.com -
rdd＠rddavis.org -
sloboyko＠yahoo.com