Re: Prodos Vs. Dos 3.3

[nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <32724EC0.C1E@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
Rob Kopp  <rkopp@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> wrote:
>Ok, I may be in line for correction here, but here goes.  Is there any
>real advantage to Prodos for floppy disk based Apple ]['s?  

   If you want subdirectories or the easy ability to install a program
on a computer with a HD, go ProDOS. Only the really ancient systems
have only 48K of RAM; ProDOS 1.0.x _will_ run on them-- it uses $9000
up. [Well, you can't run Basic under ProDOS in theat configuration,
but machine language runs fine.] With 64K, ProDOS automatically takes
advantage of the upper 16K (not all DOS 3.3 variants do that), which
gives programmers extra RAM.

>I speculate that Prodos was
>really concieved for hard drive mass storage with it's
>directory/subdirectory file structure.

   And what's the problem with that?

>THe reason I am raising the issue is that I have some Native American
>games that I want to write for the ][.  It has been a long time since
>I've messed about with the ][, and I seem to remember always wanting to
>use Prodos.  But now I am thinking that Dos 3.3 would allow it to run on
>more systems (like ancient ][+'s).  I also don't think hard drives are
>in common use on ]['s.  What are your thoughts?

   The highly ancient (48K or less) Apple II systems aren't really in
as much use, especially not among the folks who are still actively
downloading and seeking out new programs. ProDOS runs great on a 64K
machine (and almost as well on a 48K machine if you're not using
Basic), but it also runs on HDs. HDs are fairly common, especially
among those who support their Apple IIs.

Nathan Mates

--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?  -R.A. Heinlein