Re: ProDOS Plus

["Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com>]

BluPhoenyx wrote:
> Michael J. Mahon wrote:
>
> > > As for actual file system support, it should have P8 and Smartport 
> > > compatibility, original HFS and possibly FAT16.
> > >
> > > Now the questions arise.
> >
> >
> > Right.  I think by adding HFS to the list, you've "blown the budget".
> > This is no longer a simple extension.  FAT16 may also be in this
> > category.  Even increasing the maximum size of a ProDOS(+) volume
> > may be well beyond the scope of a "simple extension".
>
>
> Yes but... The 2gs supports HFS so it would likely be required for 
> access to such devices. As a separate OS, it would need to access common 
> usable media.

My feeling is that anyone who chooses to routinely use a IIgs file
system should have a IIgs.  The IIgs has fine "links" to the 8-bit
Apple II's and ProDOS.

> > > Would the project be useful? Perhaps. It will need applications 
> > > ported or developed to make it so.
> >
> >
> > And there's the rub.
>
>
> Probably one of the most important issues. I'm sure 64k P8 programs 
> could be executed if the system were designed for it. Likewise a number 
> of binary programs could probably be run as well. There would be a lot 
> of problems trying to use many current P8 system applications.

Which would doom it to being a curiosity.

> > > What hardware restrictions should be made? Dunno.
> > >
> > > At least the name would fit considering Apple's in-house preference 
> > > for using the 'plus' term in naming things.
> > >
> > > Another possible advantage would be control of the source code. IIRC, 
> > > Lane Roathe released a compatible P8 kernel for some games which was 
> > > available on his web site. It might be worth checking into as well. 
> > > IIRC, this kernel was used for bootable 3.5" game disks.
> > >
> > > Things to think about.
> >
> >
> > I think it's interesting how discussion about a "cd" capability and
> > possible wildcards turned into a discussion about kitchen sinks.
>
>
> One reason why I posted a new thread. We II users, at least some of us, 
> still like to dream about the possibilities even if they never come true.
>
> Back in the day, when I got the Zram for my 2c I often wondered how 
> feasible it would be to make an OS which used it. Not that I had the 
> skills to actually do so.

I have no problem with dreaming, but it does seem to bring out the
kind of "free association" that never results in anything practical.
...Like the approximately annual "Apple II+++++" discussion.  ;-(

> > Perhaps we are better off with the external command interface...
> > At least that way, not everyone who uses it has to cope with
> > several memoryloads of code that--let's be honest--will never
> > be widely enough used to be fully debugged.
>
>
> In reality, P8 got it pretty accurate as the OS kernel. I think of the 
> system as a group of compatible OS's where each system application is 
> actually the rest of the OS.
>
> Of course I also like the old adage, I can boot my Apple II into 
> whatever I want it to be.

Absolutely--but it would be nice not to be alone.  ;-)

We are too late in the "life cycle" to roll out an OS that isn't
100% backward-compatible with the previous OS.

> > KISS.  Grandiosity killed the cat.  Etc.
>
>
> Absolutely! Too bad today's operating systems tend to forget this 
> principle.

Hear, hear!

-michael

NadaNet file server for Apple II computers!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."