Re: Another ProDOS ?

["Tom Zuchowski" <tzuchow@attglobal.net>]

Well, of course. I should have qualified my response as referring mainly to
Applesoft programs.

"Simon Biber" <simon@basilisk2.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:Ifrp6.1621$0N3.11147@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> It is pretty-well impossible to find a program which doesn't make ROM
calls.
> At least, to find a program that does something _useful_ without ROM calls
> :-). But almost all are compatible between ProDOS and Dos 3.3. If however
> your program is accessing the disk then you need a lot more changes than
the
> filename issue (unless it's an Applesoft program).
>
> Simon.
>
>
> "Tom Zuchowski" <tzuchow@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> 3aa57875_2@news3.prserv.net">news:3aa57875_2@news3.prserv.net...
> > It might be better to say that DOS 3.3 programs will run unmodified
under
> > ProDOS if they do not access the disk and if they do not do any machine
> > calls. Generally, if they access the disk, all such commands must be
> > modified to use ProDOS-compatible filenames, as ProDOS is a good bit
more
> > restrictive about filenames than DOS 3.3. As for machine calls, if they
> are
> > simple generic ROM-based calls, they might work OK as well. You pays
your
> > money and you takes your chances.
> >
> > Tom Zuchowski
> >
> > "Obsbedia2" <obsbedia2@aol.com> wrote in message
> > 20010306000055.28071.00000851@ng-fc1.aol.com">news:20010306000055.28071.00000851@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> > > << re
> > >    Just wondering if ProDOS is backward compatible with DOS 3.3. (ie
> > > will it
> > > run DOS 3.3 files)
> > > >>
> > > Adalbert Goertz responds >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>
> > > No >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, it depends.  I've converted DOS binary and Basic problems to
> ProDOS
> > with
> > > pretty good results.  Most even run off the hard drive.  Use Copy II+.
> It
> > does
> > > the conversion automatically.
> > > Jay Edwards.
> >
> >
>
>