Re: Y2K ProDOS 8 (2.0.3)

["Charlie" <charlied@NOSPAMbboard.com>]

"Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote in message
InKdnT6i5ZmpCpKiXTWJkQ@comcast.com">news:InKdnT6i5ZmpCpKiXTWJkQ@comcast.com...
>
>
> "Charlie" <charlied@NOSPAMbboard.com> wrote in message
> beo27004sj@enews1.newsguy.com">news:beo27004sj@enews1.newsguy.com...
> >
> > "Bill Garber" <willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > K-qdnUTUh5DObZOiXTWJgQ@comcast.com">news:K-qdnUTUh5DObZOiXTWJgQ@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Charlie" <charlied@NOSPAMbboard.com> wrote in message
> > > bel7pd01nou@enews2.newsguy.com">news:bel7pd01nou@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > 257d7207.0307101716.1ea07009@posting.google.com">news:257d7207.0307101716.1ea07009@posting.google.com...
> > > > > "Michael Pender" <mpender@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:<x49Pa.71588$n%5.56799@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> > > > > > Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > 20030710024051.00221.00000126@mb-m03.aol.com">news:20030710024051.00221.00000126@mb-m03.aol.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But Apple chose to go a different route, with year values from
> > > > > > > 40-99 meaning 1940-1999 and years from 00-39 meaning
> > > > > > > 2000-2039.  Relatively little software actually implements
> > > > > > > this fold point, but having the definition out there certainly
> > > > > > > biases the argument!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >  ...snip...
> > > > > > >
> > > > I believe all the file creation and mod fields (date and time) take up
> > > four
> > > > bytes which contain 5 unused bits (although they are in the field used
> for
> > > > time).  Using those 5 bits in conjunction with the 7 bits already
> > > allocated
> > > > would have allowed 4096 years.  Why this wasn't done originally is a
> > > mystery to
> > > > me.
> > > I would assume that it is because Apple didn't think anyone would still
> > > be using/caring about the Apple II computers for this long. ;-)
> >
> > I suppose you are right, Bill, At least about Apple the company but it is
> hard
> > to understand why the people who actually did the programming would waste
> five
> > bits on every file that was ever created in ProDOS while at the same time
> > skimping on the number of bits used for the year field.
> >
> > Charlie
>
> Could be they wanted to remain compatible with existing software,
> which is ludicrous if using the extra bits would improve on ability
> to keep track of when files were written, but hey, what do we know,
> right? ;-)

At the time that ProDOS was written most software on the Apple II ran under DOS
3.3 which has no support for date and time stamping.  It is possible that
programs that ran under other systems (Apple III SOS, CP/M, Pascal, etc.) may
have had a similarly bit challenged date system (I don't know enough about
those systems to argue the point) but from what I've seen of Apple (the
company) over the years, compatibility isn't high on their list of priorities.

Charlie