Why by Apple
br...@ihuxm.uucp
Pascal is not an O.S. it is a language. The fact that it "Auto-boots"
does not mean it is an OS or a DOS. The Apple does not have an OS
like the Atari. The Atari has a real OS plus a DOS. The size of the
Atari OS is 10k on the old computers and 14k on the new. On the Atari,
DOS or AUTORUN.SYS is booted in if the OS "finds" a Disk drive
during a cold start. As for the syntax used to do i/o that is left up
to the language.
On the Atari all i/o is done through the OS CIO (Central Input Output).
On the apple it is not easy (using interger basic) to LIST out a program
to a printer with out first doing an operation to allow it to happen.
In Atari basic all that is required to LIST a program to a printer is
LIST "P:" or, to list to disk drive LIST "Dn:file" were n is the disk
drive you want to list to. On the apple you half to turn off the output
to the printer after you do a list. One must understand that the Apple and
Atari computersare not designed for the same market. The Apple is a
computer for the person who wished to build all or part of his computer
system while the Atari was designed for the general public. This has
caused some to think that the Atari is not as expandable as the Apple
and that the Apple forces you to buy or build lots of little boards
to do anything. The Atari is a more software user friendly computer
while the apple is more hardware user friendly.
The reason this is so is that the OS on the Atari has a bit more
smarts, in that it goes out and "finds" were all the hardware is,
while on the Apple you have to tell the computer were all the
hardware is.
ihuxf!bryan
Bryan DeLaney
BTL Naperville IL
P.S I think the Apple and Atari are both good computers, but that
the apple is a bit overpriced, if you buy everything instead of
build it. While the Atari has been marketed as a "game machine"
instead of a real computer, therfore there is a shortage of
third party hardware for the Atari. In the future you will see
the new Ataris better marketed and more open to add hardware to
while I am afraid that the Apple IIe will either half to drop
in price (40%) or drop out of the market, because of the IBM
peanut and the Atari 1450xld computers invading its market.
CSvax:Pucc-H:Pucc-I:ags@pur-ee.uucp
operating system:
I am posting a separate article explaining that Apple Pascal is both a
language and an operating system. I would like to respond here to
a few points raised by Mr. DeLaney:
"The fact that it 'Auto-boots' does not mean it is an OS or a DOS".
True enough, but you seem to have some idea that Pascal runs under Apple DOS
and is booted by a "hello program" -- not true.
"The size of the Atari OS is 10K on the old computers and 14K on the new."
Really? The size of the Apple Pascal system is more than will fit
on a single disk, let alone what can fit in memory at one time.
"On the Apple you have to turn off the printer after you do a 'list'."
That is true of Apple DOS. It is not true of Apple Pascal.
Dave Seaman
pur-ee:Pucc-I:ags
dg...@ecsvax.uucp
This business of operating systems seems to have confused people. Let me see
if I can shed a tiny bit of light without getting too boring. BASIC on the
Apple uses a pathetic disc operating system that runs as a part of the BASIC
language and requires all sorts of nonsense to do anything. Apple has recently
announced (but I have not seen) an allegedly much improved operating system
for its //e. (When I say "Apple" I mean Apple ][ or //e. The Apple /// has
its own operating system, Apple-SOS, and the Lisa has a monster one as we all
are well aware.)
The UCSD P-system is an operating system written to run on a non-existent
computer called the "P-machine". This computer can be "emulated" by a fairly
small program on just about any computer. Apple users desperate for a
real operating system (and a real language) have been able for some time to
buy the "Apple language card" which is some extra memory replacing some ROM
in the address space and generally bundled with the P-System and the UCSD
Pascal compiler. When an Apple user speaks of using the "Pascal operating
system", he or she is talking about the P-System.
Although it is sophisticated in many respects, the P-System is too slow for
certain applications. It is also surprisingly non-standardized (try switching
between the IBM version and the Apple version - you'll soon find some
disturbing differences underlying the superficial similarities). Its biggest
flaw from a user standpoint is the disc format. Files are stored contiguously,
which requires that discs be "K)runched" periodically.
Personally, I'll wait for Unix. (Supposedly, MS-DOS 2.5 and following are
going to be compatible with Xenix...)