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

[John Heinrichs]

"Out of curiosity, would my Classic currently running system 8 run ProDOS …”
Oh dear, no. At one point (early 90s) there was an Apple II card for the Mac, which would allow one to run ProDOS programs on the Mac.
Unfortunately, ProDOS was written for the the 8-bit WDC 65C02 CPU chip of the Apple II. One could run ProDOS on the Apple IIGS because it ran a 16-bit WDC 65816 chip, an upgrade of the 65C02. Neither code were compatible with the 68000 of the Mac Classic, thus the Apple II card.


Cheers
John
 minicapt1 at mac.com

> On 11 Jun 15, at 4:14, 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/