Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.


Author Topic: EXDOS (Read 14404 times)

Offline Zozosoft

  • EP addict
  • *
  • Posts: 13312
  • Country: hu
  • OS:
  • Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 Windows 7/Server 2008 R2
  • Browser:
  • Firefox 28.0 Firefox 28.0
    • View Profile
    • http://enterprise.iko.hu/
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #15 on: 2014.April.21. 11:41:39 »
Quote from: szipucsu
I would leave the colon ( : ) after "by":
"Written by Martin Lea & Bruce Tanner."
not: "Written by: Martin Lea & Bruce Tanner."
Ok, is it good now? :-)

10459-0

Note: now all commands which existed in 0.3 version but were removed later because of the lack of the ROM space, have been put back in 1.4!
« Last Edit: 2014.April.21. 13:16:48 by szipucsu »

Offline szipucsu

  • EP addict
  • *
  • Posts: 7628
  • Country: hu
  • OS:
  • Windows XP Windows XP
  • Browser:
  • Firefox 28.0 Firefox 28.0
    • View Profile
    • Webnyelv.hu - Tanuljunk nyelveket!
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #16 on: 2014.April.21. 13:17:26 »
Quote from: Zozosoft
Ok, is it good now? :-)
Yes, it is!
Great!
SOUND SOURCE 3,STYLE 16,LEFT 16,RIGHT 64,SYNC 2
SOUND SOURCE 2,STYLE 128,PITCH 25.2,SYNC 2
SOUND PITCH 25,SYNC 2
Videos
OPEL #1:"Audi(o):" ACCESS DENIED

Offline Zozosoft

  • EP addict
  • *
  • Posts: 13312
  • Country: hu
  • OS:
  • Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 Windows 7/Server 2008 R2
  • Browser:
  • Firefox 28.0 Firefox 28.0
    • View Profile
    • http://enterprise.iko.hu/
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #17 on: 2014.April.21. 19:15:29 »
Quote from: Zozosoft
Note: now all commands which existed in 0.3 version but were removed later because of the lack of the ROM space, have been put back in 1.4!

About this I wrote in the Hungarian forum: previously somebody put back four commands (ATTR, ATDIR, ASSIGN, MAPDISK) to the modified, English-Hungarian 1.3 EXDOS. This is at the late '80s.
As I could not see the version 0.3 I always thought these command are extracted from ISDOS and put to EXDOS.
Now I disassembled these commands routines and found: the ISDOS version are totaly different. But the code is very similar to version in 0.3 EXDOS! These routines use lots of internal subroutines of the EXDOS (command line analyze, printing, etc). This means: the person who made the modifications had the source code of 0.x EXDOS! Extracted the command routines from the source, for the called routines found the same in 1.3, and then compiled the adjusted routines to free space in 1.3 ROM.

Today when I added the remaining missing commands to 1.4 I used my 1.3 disassembly for adjusting the extracted code from 0.3.
« Last Edit: 2014.April.21. 19:33:26 by szipucsu »

Offline BruceTanner

  • EP user
  • *
  • Posts: 481
  • Country: gb
  • OS:
  • Linux Linux
  • Browser:
  • Chrome 34.0.1847.114 Chrome 34.0.1847.114
    • View Profile
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #18 on: 2014.April.21. 23:16:35 »
Quote from: Zozosoft
This means: the person who made the modifications had the source code of 0.x EXDOS! Extracted the command routines from the source, for the called routines found the same in 1.3, and then compiled the adjusted routines to free space in 1.3 ROM.

Today when I added the remaining missing commands to 1.4 I used my 1.3 disassembly for adjusting the extracted code from 0.3.
You don't think the person who made 1.3 could have done the same as you ie. take the disassembled code from 0.3?

Where did the English/Hungarian 1.3 come from?

Offline Zozosoft

  • EP addict
  • *
  • Posts: 13312
  • Country: hu
  • OS:
  • Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 Windows 7/Server 2008 R2
  • Browser:
  • Firefox 28.0 Firefox 28.0
    • View Profile
    • http://enterprise.iko.hu/
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #19 on: 2014.April.21. 23:45:27 »
Quote from: BruceTanner
You don't think the person who made 1.3 could have done the same as you ie. take the disassembled code from 0.3?
1) the code is similar, but not the same. I think it is from another 0.x version which still has these commands.
2) anyway have a non public early version ROM or source
3) need a least one version source, because need a lot of additional disassembly for the called subroutines. Which are parts of the command, which are general internal subroutines?
At my situation I have a "1.3 source", my very long disassembly project. Not a complete, but these routines discovered, then easy to adapt the 0.3 code for 1.3.
I'm sure who made the early modifications not have the 1.3 source, because the modifications done by binary level, not a recompile.


Quote
Where did the English/Hungarian 1.3 come from?
Very good question! :oops:
Probably every Hungarian EXDOS user has this version, but nobody knows the origin :oops:
I guess Mr. Kopácsy or other people from the Hungarian team which are connected with the English company.
Unfortunately noone from this team found the existing Enterprise community :cry:
« Last Edit: 2014.April.22. 14:05:45 by szipucsu »

Offline Zozosoft

  • EP addict
  • *
  • Posts: 13312
  • Country: hu
  • OS:
  • Windows XP Windows XP
  • Browser:
  • Firefox 28.0 Firefox 28.0
    • View Profile
    • http://enterprise.iko.hu/
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #20 on: 2014.April.22. 09:54:59 »
Bruce! One non technical question :-)
Why the purple color selected for paper color in EXDOS CLI? Used a monochrome monitor? :-D

Offline BruceTanner

  • EP user
  • *
  • Posts: 481
  • Country: gb
  • OS:
  • Linux Linux
  • Browser:
  • Chrome 34.0.1847.114 Chrome 34.0.1847.114
    • View Profile
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #21 on: 2014.April.22. 10:59:13 »
Quote from: Zozosoft
Bruce! One non technical question :-)
Why the purple color selected for paper color in EXDOS CLI? Used a monochrome monitor? :-D
Good question! I remember deciding to do the EXDOS CLI this way so you could copy, rename, delete etc easily without having to leave BASIC (an early form of pop up window) but I don't actually remember making it purple, and in fact I was surprised when I saw it purple after nearly 30 years! :oops: :smt021 I don't think it is a colour I would have chosen from free will, I was probably told to make it that colour. I had been looking into easy-on-the-eye colour schemes around that time (IBM had done some research for mainframe terminals) and I don't think purple featured very highly! You could probably change it fairly easily...

Offline Zozosoft

  • EP addict
  • *
  • Posts: 13312
  • Country: hu
  • OS:
  • Windows XP Windows XP
  • Browser:
  • Firefox 28.0 Firefox 28.0
    • View Profile
    • http://enterprise.iko.hu/
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #22 on: 2014.April.22. 11:20:30 »
Quote from: BruceTanner
You could probably change it fairly easily...
I have already done it :-) What do you think about dark green?
10461-0
« Last Edit: 2014.April.22. 14:03:20 by szipucsu »

Offline BruceTanner

  • EP user
  • *
  • Posts: 481
  • Country: gb
  • OS:
  • Linux Linux
  • Browser:
  • Chrome 34.0.1847.114 Chrome 34.0.1847.114
    • View Profile
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #23 on: 2014.April.22. 14:08:35 »
Quote from: Zozosoft
I have already done it :-) What do you think about dark green?
(Attachment Link)
Yes yellow on dark green is good. The other combination that works well is white writing on dark blue. But you are doing the work so it is your choice!

Offline Zozosoft

  • EP addict
  • *
  • Posts: 13312
  • Country: hu
  • OS:
  • Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 Windows 7/Server 2008 R2
  • Browser:
  • Firefox 28.0 Firefox 28.0
    • View Profile
    • http://enterprise.iko.hu/
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #24 on: 2014.April.23. 21:38:37 »
Bruce! Now one technical question:
Can you remember about developing disk buffers function?
Firstly view the 0.0 version specifications, start at PDF page 26 talking about buffers.
The essence: buffers allocated as Channel using BUFFER: device, and the allocated channel RAM are the buffer space. maximum 30 sector buffers are possible, which are on segment (30x540 bytes).

The main change in the existing ROM versions (including the early 0.3) the buffers are allocated by user device called as "." it is added by EXOS 21 call, and the requested device RAM are the buffer space.
Device RAM only can be allocated in the System Segment, then less buffers possible.
At the FISH 27 call, which are allocate buffers, the version 0.3 accept max 30 as input parameter, as the 0.0 document wrote. But only max 15 can be allocated, with 16 the system will be very unstable, for example cold reset done after :BASIC :oops:
The 1.x versions only accept max 10 as buffers. I think because avoiding too high System segment usage.

Can you remember why changed the original idea: channel RAM to device RAM? It is too many problems with force closed channels?

Offline BruceTanner

  • EP user
  • *
  • Posts: 481
  • Country: gb
  • OS:
  • Linux Linux
  • Browser:
  • Chrome 34.0.1847.114 Chrome 34.0.1847.114
    • View Profile
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #25 on: 2014.April.23. 22:14:52 »
Quote from: Zozosoft
Can you remember why changed the original idea: channel RAM to device RAM? It is too many problems with force closed channels?
Once again my memory fails me I'm afraid zozo: I don't recall the change let alone the reasons for it! (It wasn't really my area anyway.) If I had known at the time someone was going to revisit the issues 30 years later I might have taken notes!

Good theory though...sounds very plausible

Offline Zozosoft

  • EP addict
  • *
  • Posts: 13312
  • Country: hu
  • OS:
  • Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 Windows 7/Server 2008 R2
  • Browser:
  • Firefox 28.0 Firefox 28.0
    • View Profile
    • http://enterprise.iko.hu/
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #26 on: 2014.April.23. 22:32:37 »
Quote from: BruceTanner
If I had known at the time someone was going to revisit the issues 30 years later I might have taken notes!
Good idea! If I found a time machine will tell you :ds_icon_cheesygrin:

Offline Zozosoft

  • EP addict
  • *
  • Posts: 13312
  • Country: hu
  • OS:
  • Windows XP Windows XP
  • Browser:
  • Firefox 28.0 Firefox 28.0
    • View Profile
    • http://enterprise.iko.hu/
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #27 on: 2014.April.28. 16:50:13 »
Unfortunately the original EXDOS documentations still missing :cry: but exist a leaked Hungarian documentation: text files which are talking about FISH and DISKIO calls, FAT table, and EXDOS error codes. Unknow people see the original documentation, and translated these parts. The error table contaion the original IS identifiers of the errors. (This is the right pharse for .WPROT, .NDOS and etc?)
I wanted to use error code table from this package, cleaned up the Hungarian texts, for talking about English error messages.
Then I noticed many errors are missing from this table! Probably are come from early documentation.
Missing the:
- File exists
- RAM disk already exists
- Invalid file attributes
- Invalid MAPDISK
- Data error
- No RAM disk
But exist the: File cannot be copied onto itself
The strange thing: version 0.3 ROM have all the missing errors from the list, but don't have File cannot be copied onto itself error! (And COPY FILE1 FILE1 are working :-) )

Another strange thing the: B1h  .WDRV      - Insert disk for drive x:
In all existing version (from 0.3) these removed from the error table and putted to other messages table.
The very early 0.0 documentations what we have talking about this as error messages!

I'm totally confused about guess which version are the original of the leaked documents. At the FISH calls the RAMDISK handler function also missing, and also some other calls.


Back to the error messages... What is the right in English: filename or file name?
At the A6h  .IFNM      - Invalid filename

in version 1.3 changed to "Invalid file name".


But at ABh  .DUPF      - Duplicate file name

all existing ROM version use "Duplicate filename".


And the story of B1h error very interesting: it is removed from error messages table, but the error code still used. In the "ask user when error occured" routine (Retry or Abort and etc) added a exception handler for B1h error: if B1h code then print message from messages table, else select right message from error messages table.
Why added this extra routines for B1h? Just for can't see "Insert disk..." message with EXOS 28 (Explain error code) function?
Then if any user program using own replacement handler for EXDOS errors, then it is can get B1h error code, but can't get message for it with EXOS 28.

Offline BruceTanner

  • EP user
  • *
  • Posts: 481
  • Country: gb
  • OS:
  • Linux Linux
  • Browser:
  • Chrome 34.0.1847.114 Chrome 34.0.1847.114
    • View Profile
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #28 on: 2014.April.28. 17:19:32 »
Zozo you might find that COPY FILE FILE only works for small files - it will read the whole file into memory and then write it out again on top of the original. Fine if the whole file fits into memory but if it doesn't...:oops:

I'd say either filename or file name is correct but it sounds as though I was made to change it to file name at some point and missed one! Personally I find filename easier to read. The same Q exists over pathname. I don't think it's as clear cut in this case but I still prefer pathname and it is nice to be consistent! Wikipedia has filename but not pathname.

I'm not sure about error B1h. Does it print any extra parameters for that message (eg. two drive letters)?

B.

Offline Zozosoft

  • EP addict
  • *
  • Posts: 13312
  • Country: hu
  • OS:
  • Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 Windows 7/Server 2008 R2
  • Browser:
  • Firefox 28.0 Firefox 28.0
    • View Profile
    • http://enterprise.iko.hu/
Re: EXDOS
« Reply #29 on: 2014.April.28. 22:17:15 »
Quote from: BruceTanner
Zozo you might find that COPY FILE FILE only works for small files - it will read the whole file into memory and then write it out again on top of the original. Fine if the whole file fits into memory but if it doesn't...:oops:
Then this happen :-D
10528-0
But this is only in the 0.3, the released 1.x version don't allow this operation.

Quote
I'd say either filename or file name is correct but it sounds as though I was made to change it to file name at some point and missed one! Personally I find filename easier to read.
Ok, in 1.4 "filename" will be used at both message.

Quote
I'm not sure about error B1h. Does it print any extra parameters for that message (eg. two drive letters)?
Only one drive:
10530-1

Like as other errors:
10532-2