Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ucbvax!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL From: SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: RE: DOS/ProDOS Message-ID: <8806251840.aa13334@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA> Date: 25 Jun 88 22:43:48 GMT References:Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 90 >Since, with few exceptions, DOS programs run in 64k (the exceptions only use >128k), it is a foregone conclusion that your files are less than 50k, as DOS >programs cannot handle large files. You missed the point. The mainframe will let me edit a 2Meg file if I want to, but I rarely find anything of the kind necessary. I didn't say I never use ProDOS either. What I said was I almost never have occasion to edit a file as large as 50K. >If you wanted to, you couldn't have multiple documents open in a DOS program. >They just can't handle enough memory! Are you aware of how the RAMFactor works Hmm... didn't I say, I didn't want to work on more than one document at a time? If I can save one in 2 seconds and load another in 2 seconds, what have I really given up over being able to shift from one window to another? I CAN edit multiple documents on the mainframe and I really haven't found that to be so advantageous that I want to dash out to a computer store and spend a bunch of bucks. If I do get to that point, I'll buy something less retrograde about it than an Apple 2 (that is unless I wait long enough for the 65832 -- the Vaporware column will be along in a few days). >with DOS? You do IN# to its slot and it *PATCHES* the RWTS image in memory to >use the RAMFactor as a disk device. How does ProDOS support it? Well, ProDOS >supports anything with a device driver. So nothing has to be done for it. >So which OS can make better use of the card? So what? I really don't care HOW the software uses the card. Once that patch is installed in DOS, it works fine. I have zilch, zero, no interest in whether it makes "better use of the card." I only care about whether I can use it to get work done. At this point, your flame reminds me of: "Having lost sight of the objective, we redoubled our effort" or the pilot who informs his passengers "Our navigation system has failed and we are completely lost... However, we are making very good time." >Looks like you will stay that way. No DOS programs are being released which >support the mouse. Are any DOS programs being released at all these days? Beside the point. I have ProDOS programs which use the mouse, yet I tend to use the keyboard (unless I'm trying to draw something) because it's MUCH faster that way. If you like the mouse, good for you, but I can live without it, and I'm not the only person in the World that feels that way). Yes, there are some relatively recent (admitedly public domain) DOS programs and updates; so what. If I'm willing to run one application at a time and use a RAMFactor, switching to a ProDOS application really isn't a bother. >Gee. When I used DOS software, it was practically all copy protected. Perhaps your not as sharp as you think you are. My kids use a lot of copy protected stuff, but I've tend to avoid it (with almost no difficulty whatsoever) for professional software. I've got DOS word processors, spreadsheets, and data bases dating to 1982 and 1983 that aren't copy protected. >Why do you care if software works with a hard disk? You don't like 'em, They're okay for transient storage or for holding software (which remains available disk), and the newer optical technology promises to be MUCH more reliable. >Well, you chopped out the text in which I made my point, so let me reiterate. >CP/M runs on many systems; hence, it runs on a minimum configuration. Since >CP/M is meant for 64k machines (pretty minimum already), a program of any >substantial size will have to swap overlays and do other similar inefficient >methods to run. Contrasted with modern ProDOS software which can make use of >any hardware in your system, these seem like junk. >By the way, along with my Z80 card, I have AE's new CP/M system software, >which allows CP/M to use both 3.5's hooked up to my IIgs and my IIgs RAM disk >along with 5.25's and the small RAM disk set up in the extra 64k. It also >supports the 3.5 and 1 mb RAM card in my //e. Yet my Z80 card and software >sit gathering dust. The reason? Compared to new ProDOS software, that stuff >SUCKS. What ARE you using for a relational data base (not AppleWorks)? --------------------- Disclaimer: --- My employer isn't responsible for my mistakes AND vice-versa! (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: {rutgers psuvax1 ucbvax & in Europe - mcvax} Univ. of Connecticut !UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL "It might help if we ran the MBA's out of Washington." - Adm Grace Hopper