Frank Townsend <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote:CP/M was a product of Digital Research. Utilities for various Apple II CP/M cards could have come from DRI, from the manufacturer of the card, or from a third party hired to create a utility. If the version of "Apple CP/M" that you are referring to was for Microsoft's Softcard, then DRI or Microsoft would be responsible for the terminology. Regardless of who created the card/software, one thing is almost certain - Apple didn't write the utilities or the manuals.> Oh?
>
> Read *The DOS Manual" reverse of the preface page, and page 192-193.
>
> The authors are consistent in their use of the terms convert and
> conversion. In fact, I copied the language virtually verbatim.OK
In Apple CP/M there were two utilities, APDOS and CPMXFER, which
transferred files between Apple DOS 3.3 and Apple CP/M disks.
APDOC was run from CP/M and transferred files to CP/M disks, while
CPMXFER was run from Apple DOS and transferred files to Apple DOS.
The docs describing them used the term "file transfer", not "file
conversion".
But it was a conversion to transfer a file from DOS 3.3 to ProDOS. I quote from BASIC Programming with ProDOS, copyright 1987 by Apple Computer, pg. 11:Now, how come it's a "conversion" to transfer a file from a DOS 3.2
to a DOS 3.3 floppy, but not a conversion to transfer it between
DOS 3.3 and CP/M ??????????????????
"DOS can't read information that was placed on a disk by ProDOS, and ProDOS can't read information that was placed on a disk by DOS. However, in some cases you can use the ProDOS User's Disk or the System Utilities disk to CONVERT (emphasis added) information from one format to the other."
"This means that you can use your existing DOS programs only on a DOS formatted disk, unless they can be CONVERTED (emphasis added) from DOS format to ProDOS format. As a general rule, programs you buy can't be CONVERTED (emp. added), but programs you write yourself can be. If a program uses only BASIC and DOS commands, it can be CONVERTED (emp. added). If it does any tricky PEEKS and POKES, or if it uses machine language at all, then it probably cannot be automatically CONVERTED (emp. added)."
So then, as far as Apple is concerned, moving data or programs from DOS to ProDOS formatted disks is a matter of conversion, whether or not there is any change in the file itself.
However, Apple has used the word correctly, at least in accordance with American Standard English. (And since the manuals referred to are ones sold to Americans, that only makes sense.) Among other definitions for convert are found: "to alter the physical or chemical nature or properties... to change from one form or function to another... to alter for more effective utilization... to exchange for an equivalent... to subject to logical conversion" (whatever that may mean). So then, to move a file from a DOS 3.2 disk to a DOS 3.3 disk, or from DOS 3.3 to ProDOS is to CONVERT the file from one format to another.But I'm not really surprised -- this isn't the only case where
Apple have invented their own terminology.
I would suggest however, that continued debate about this would be a waste of time that could be used much more productively
Roy
> Whoops! Now, I suppose you're going to turn me in for plagiarism . . .
>
>
> Frank
> . . . .preparing for a fusillade of exclamation points in Baltimore.
>
>
>>> "Paul Schlyter" <pausch@saaf.se> wrote in message
>>> news:8vqgtp$g97$1@merope.saaf.se...
>
>
>> What is converted though is the low-level format of the storage of
>> the files: it is indeed converted from 5+3 nibblization to 6+2
>> nibblization. However, unless one deals directly with that low-level
>> representation, one doesn't usually refer to this as "conversion".--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch