Re: who still uses DOS 3.3 (was Apple DES program)

[u901841@student.canberra.edu.au (Hickey / Michael Gerard (ISE))]

In article <1994Apr12.110558.22426@csc.canberra.edu.au> u901841@student.canberra.edu.au (Hickey / Michael Gerard (ISE)) writes:
>In article <Cnsy69.CD6@crash.cts.com> shack@crash.cts.com (Randy Shackelford) writes:
>[chomp]
>
>>If you can dig up a copy of ProDOS 1.0 you can run it on a 48K machine. I have 
>>a ][ that I'm trying to patch up and when I get it running I'm gonna try that.
>>The only thing is BASIC requires 64K to run but that's moot in an integer-only
>>machine.
>>Randy Shackelford                                "That's right, keep dancing
>
>Randy,
>
>The label on my brand-spankin'-new ProDOS 1.0 (only used _once_ by a little 
>old lady to boot BASIC after Church on Palm Sunday, 1982) 
>
>"For Apple //e and 64K II+" 
>
>Was there a ProDOS 0.9 that only used 48K (Maybe Apple was lying! hmmmm 
>wouldn't be the _first_ time ;-)
>
>Michael
>

Wups!

I just re-read the label and it is the "ProDOS User's Disk" that requires 
64k _not_ the ProDOS 1.0 that's on it!

Hmmm, I think I should engage my BRAIN a little sooner....

Michael Hickey