Re: Apple DOS 3.2 help! HOW?

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <3A227B84.571F8F06@inetnebr.com>,
Roy and/or Janet Miller  <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
 
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> 
>> Frank Townsend <ftownsen@iamdigex.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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".
> 
> 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,
 
I was referring to the MS 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.
 
Exactly what are you suggesting here?  Should the authors of the
manuals from Apple Computer be viewed as arbitrers for what's proper
English?  Or should one have to learn a new English dialect whenever
one encounters a new software company?
 
>> 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 ??????????????????
> 
> 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:
> 
> "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."
 
In that case it's more justified to talk about a conversion, since e.g.
text files had their high bit set in Apple DOS but cleared in Apple ProDOS.
 
> "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.
 
Does that "CONVERSION" utility actually try to modify the BASIC
program code to suit the ProDOS environment better?  If so, it is
VERY justified to talk about a CONVERSION, because then the file
isn't merely transferred, but also modified dueing the transfer.  If
not, I don't see how a file transfer without any modification could
ever fail (unless the file transfer utility would attempt to examine
the BASIC code and reject it if it finds it objectionable).  Of
course the program can fail to run properly in ProDOS, but that's
another issue.
 
DOS 3.3 ==> ProDOS transfers of text files must always include a
conversion step, since the high bit is set in DOS text files but
cleared in ProDOS text files.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
But you're really trying to compare apples and oranges here.  I
was objecting to labelling a DOS 3.2 ==> DOS 3.3 file transfer a
"CONVERSION", and I never said a word about transfers to/from
ProDOS.
 
>> But I'm not really surprised -- this isn't the only case where
>> Apple have invented their own terminology.
> 
> 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).
 
Could be used in mathematics, to e.g. rewrite a vector equation to
component form, or a tensor equation to vector form for a particular
case, or to rewrite an equation from rectangular to cylindrical or
spherical coordinats.  I think mathematicians prefer to refer to
this as "transformation" rather than "conversion" though.  A more
mundane example would be to convert your car's gas usage from
gallons per mile to litres per kilometer, or to its peak speed
from miles per hour to furlongs per fortnight.. :-)
 
> 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.
 
If so, it's also a CONVERSION to move a file from a floppy to a
harddisk or a CD-R disk, or to even load it into program memory,
since all that will imply changes of the storage at some level.  And
if you send it over a modem to another computer, at least
half-a-dozen conversions will occur in the process.
 
 
> I would suggest however, that continued debate about this would be a waste
> of time that could be used much more productively
 
I fully agree with THAT!
 
 
Now I'm just going to CONVERT this post to comp.sys.apple2 --- it'll
probably pass through hundreds of conversions before you see it...  <g>
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
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