On 2012-09-20, at 10:13, Oliver Schmidt wrote: > P.S.: It's really a pitty that the Apple II seems to be the only > machine where one can presume that the typical user stepped up from > the "original" DOS (here DOS 3.2/3.3) to THE "more useful" DOS (here > ProDOS 8) - and not to "lots of" different incompatible DOSes like it > seems on the C64. You want to start a flame, don't you? ;-) But - frankly - The fact that on a 64 (or rather on a 1541/1571/1581) DOS is ROM-stoned on the drive side, made it very stable and hardly anyone used anything else. Except the speeder users, that is. But even then, with all major speeders, care was taken to keep compatibility with 2.6 high on the list or priorities. Therefore basically on a 64 and 5.25 there is DOS 2.6 and that's it. You don't really find C64 floppies that would not work because of DOS incompatibility. Even the extended tracks disks (from Dolphin, Prologic, etc.) are compatible up to track 36. If we talk about things like IDEDOS or CMD_HD, that's a different story then but I think it doesn't come as surprise. From my experience the most fragmented was Atari on this matter but there it paradoxically helped a lot that the DOS was booted from disk rather than kept in ROM. Therefore even if a disk was formatted using a different DOS than the one that came with 1051 - it could still work because one can boot proper DOS from it. Problems happened with data disks, when there was no appropriate DOS disk at hand.. something that doesn't really happen on a 64 nor (as I understand from your words) on Apple ][ -- SD! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Thu Sep 20 13:55:07 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2012-09-20 13:55:10 CEST