Re: not there yet (FAQ info)

[Toby Reiter <treiter@cs.oberlin.edu>]

On 2 Apr 1997, Nathan Mates wrote:

> In article <5hu26q$158u@uni.library.ucla.edu>,
>  <pubpc1@library.ucla.edu> wrote:
> >People, there is _NO_ problem with forked files under a GS.
> 
>    Scott, _NOT_ everyone with a GS has GS/OS available. There are far
> too many ROM 0's [where GS/OS will not work no matter what] or ROM 01s
> with 512K of memory [forget it] in homes and schools. GS/OS requires a
> ROM 01 or 3 with at least a meg of ram to do anything useful, and not
> all GSs measure up to that standard. I don't care if you consider such
> GSs fast color //es (which essentially they are), they're Apple IIs
> with 'GS' on the front case, and incapable of dealing with GS/OS and
> forked files.
> 
>    What I've written in the FAQ will stay: with ProDOS 8, forked
> files are bad news. I will not put in any _WRONG_ information about
> the label on the case affecting dealing with forked files, when it is
> the OS's business to deal with files, not the motherboard's. 
> 
>    Your further recommendation of using Copy ][+ is also wrong and
> stupid.  My official disk release of Copy ][+ 9.0 refuses to deal with
> forked files, and WILL cause disk corruption if you use it on a HD
> with forked files. It is unsafe to use, and doesn't do the job you
> claim it to do. I recommend against using Copy ][+ on any disk with
> forked files (such as any HD with GS/OS on it), and will continue to
> do so.

Just wanted to point out that Copy ][+ did not occur anywhere in Scott
G.'s post.

Have a nice day,
Toby