[NTLK] ProDOS [WAS: "Re: [OT] WWDC 2015, any NTLKers there?"]

Forrest newtonphoenix at mindspring.com
Fri Jun 12 12:51:12 EDT 2015


I love my Apple IIGS. Despite its flaws and shortcomings—compared to more modern machines, like no native Internet browser or native hard drive capabilities—I’d be loathe to part with it.

It’s a great disappointment, like Dennis pointed out, that Apple didn’t do more with it.

Thanks,
--Forrest

"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place."
--Douglas Adams




> On Jun 11, 2015, at 4:14 AM, Lord Groundhog <lordgroundhog at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ~~~ On 2015/06/10 01:54, Dennis Swaney at romad at mac.com wrote ~~~
> 
>> Christian,
>> 
>> ProDOS 8 was the OS for the Apple IIe/c computers; it replaced an OS that
>> was just called Apple DOS. ProDOS originated from the Apple III OS which
>> was called SOS (kinda fits given the problems of the Apple III). ProDOS 8
>> was just a renaming to make a distinction between the 8-bit and 16-bit
>> versions of ProDOS. ProDOS 16 was specifically for the Apple IIGS as an
>> interim until GS/OS was released.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> Dennis B. Swaney
>> 
>> "I think, therefore I Mac"
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Lord Groundhog <lordgroundhog at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
> 
> 
> Ah, thanks for that.  I didn't own any Macs back in the days of Iie/c so I
> hadn't come across ProDOS.  I'd heard others talk of System 7, System 8, and
> so on, but didn't really start learning details of how Macs work until I got
> my Pismo and I'd never heard of that one at all.
> 
> 
> I still have much to learn.
> 
> Out of curiosity, would my Classic currently running system 8 run ProDOS and
> would there be any point in doing that?
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing, now that I look back.  In the '80s and '90s, when I had
> conversations with friends who owned Macs, they seldom talked about their OS
> or their applications in the abstract.  They told me about the amazing
> things they could do on their Macs, not so much about the particulars of
> what they had to do for it to work.  When I was curious how it could be so
> easy, I had to ask.  For them, the point was that the computer was a tool
> that did whatever was needed, well and with no fuss.
> 
> It was the same when I was away from my own machine and needed to use
> theirs.  Read a disk I'd made on my peecee?  "My Mac can do that for you."
> Open and edit files written in a peecee application?  "My Mac can do that."
> Save those files so I can still use them on my (poor, benighted) peecee when
> I get home?  "My Mac can do that."  And it could.
> 
> 
> To me, that attitude, making computing less like farming with a horse-drawn
> plough and more like using a modern tractor, may be one of Apple's most
> important and long-lasting contributions to computing.
> 
> 
> 
> Shalom, 
> 
> Christian 
> 
> ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
> 
> ³Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from a Newton.²
>            -- ref.:  Arthur C. Clarke
> 
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=1ZzpdPJ7Zr4
> (With thanks to Chod Lang)
> http://tinyurl.com/29y2dl
> http://www.diyplanner.com/node/3942
> 
> 
> ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
> Get MUGged and love it: http://www.oxmug.org/
> Where Newtonians meet: http://www.newtontalk.net/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> http://newtontalk.net/



More information about the NewtonTalk mailing list