Re: getting DOS onto a //c+

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <20020630050210.19873.00002251@mb-mg.aol.com>,
Supertimer <supertimer@aol.com> wrote:
 
> noone@nowhere.net wrote:
> 
>>> Will the DOS33dmp utility work?
>>
>> Yes, so long as you have a 5.25" drive.  Probably the easiest way would
>> be to ask someone to ship you a couple disks to get started.
>>
>> I would recommend that you acquire a 5.25" drive for your IIc+ to make
>> sure you get the maximum value from it. There are many fine software
>> (read games) out there for the Apple II that are tied to their 5.25"
>> diskettes.
> 
> I was an Apple II fanatic for many years, still am in a way.  One thing
> that always got me was how a sizable part of the Apple II community
> refused to advance beyond a certain point.  Granted, Apple ultimately
> killed the II but user perception had a lot to do with it.
> 
> The best software titles were NOT DOS 3.3 stuff on 5.25" disks. That
> is akin to saying DOS 5.0 software were the best software for the
> PC ever.  When I was an active Apple II user, I ditched DOS 3.3 as
> soon as ProDOS came out because it was SO MUCH better.
 
One thing I enjoyed in DOS 3.3 which ProDOS lacked though was Integer
Basic support.  "But what's so great about Integer Basic?" I hear you
ask.  Not much of course, and I rarely used Integer Basic.  "But why
do you miss Integer Basic support if you rarely used Integer Basic?"
I hear you shout.  Well, Integer Basic could be replaced by the S-C
Assembler which was so Integer Basic like (it used "I" type files to
store its source files; its entry point was the same as Integer
Basic, and the first byte at the entry point was the same too) that
DOS could easily be fooled into believing the S-C Assembler WAS
Integer Basic!  So by typing "INT" you entered the S-C Assembler, and
if you were in Applesoft and LOADed an "I" type file, the S-C
Assembler was invoked.  Yes, the (language card version of the) S-C
Assembler resided in the Language Card, at the same addresses used by
Integer Basic when it resided there.
 
With ProDOS this very convenient way to switch between Applesoft
and the S-C Assembler was lost.  Eventually a ProDOS version of
the S-C Assembler was released, but since ProDOS already used all
of the Language Card, this S-C Assembler had to reside in the lower
48K of the Apple II memory, which meant the source files had to be
smaller.
 
 
> As far as I am concerned, the best 8-bit software came out after ProDOS.
> DOS 3.3 5.25" stuff was limited mainly to using the lower 48k of
> memory.  80 column capability, 128k to 1MB support, all the stuff
> that made an Apple IIc/IIe/IIc+ much more than simply an Apple II+
> was not tapped in DOS 3.3 programs.
 
:-) ...IMO the best 8-bit softare was available on CP/M-80; whatever
was available for the Apple II were toys in comparison, no matter if
it was DOS 3.x, ProDOS or Apple Pascal software.  So the seroius
stuff I did on my Apple II was done using the Z80 Card (I had a 6 MHz
Apple-Card with its own 64K of RAM), and Apple DOS and (rarely)
ProDOS and Apple Pascal was used mostly for relaxation and enjoyment,
and experimenting with the hardware too.
 
> When GS/OS came out, I dumped 75% of my old ProDOS stuff
> because it was a much better OS.  The ones I kept were the more
> advanced ones like 8-bit AppleWorks, Publish-It!, and ProTERM.
> 
> Once Apple devoted itself to the Macintosh completely, it was
> like the users did little to continue the momentum.  First, the
> IIGS was forgotten.  Ok, there were some die-hards and of all
> the post Apple II+ computers, the IIGS received the most user
> support and for years after Apple's discontinuation of the model,
> fine stuff came out for it but ultimately, the Apple II+ forces
> dominated.  Next to go were the IIc+, IIe, and IIc.  It was bad
> enough that people advocated running just ProDOS on a IIGS
> thereby negating the Ensoniq wavetable sound chip and 3200
> color graphics, now IIe and IIc users and even IIc+ users were
> being told to run DOS 3.3!
> 
> So in the end what have we come to?  Emulator users and the
> all mighty Apple II+.
> 
> Makes me a little sad.  I remember when the IIe Professional
> system came out triumphantly after the failure of the III and
> Lisa.  Apple was forced to put 128k and 80 columns into the
> IIe and eat its words that the II was not good enough for
> business.  The IIc+ and the IIGS were beautiful machines.
> We should not reduce their memory to the Apple II+ which
> was where Apple wanted the Apple II story to end.
 
However the IIc+ and the IIgs never were mainstream micros, like
the earler Apple II versions were.
 

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se
WWW:     http://hem.passagen.se/pausch/index.html
         http://home.tiscali.se/~pausch/