CFOG's PIP, August 1989, Volume 8 No. 3, Whole No. 71, page 21
CFOG September Meeting Features Prodigy
Date: September 17, 1989 Place: Skokie Publlc Library,
5215 Oakton StreetTime: Opening 1:00 p.m.
Program 1:30 p.m.Topic: Prodigy On-Line Service
Prodigy is an interactive on-line service brought to you by Sears and IBM. You must have Prodigy's custom software on your IBM compatible computer (versions for Apple II and Macintosh will be available later). Prodigy is here in Chicago now. If you show up at CFOGs September 17th meeting you can get the Prodigy software free plus a month's free usage! We won't be able to have a live demonstration because we can't get a phone line at the Library, but there will be a 'canned demo' and an explanation of the Prodigy system, the benefits that Prodigy thinks you'll get when you join the system, and what it will cost you when your free month is up. Note that Prodigy has no metered charge, and includes such interactive services as banking.
If you want to try Prodigy and can't get to the meeting call 1-800-822-6922 extension 585, and ask for the free Prodigy Kit, mentioning CFOG. This offer expires September 30th, so act promptly.
CFOG's PIP, August 1989, Volume 8 No. 3, Whole No. 71, page 22
Antelope Freeway Now Two Systems
To encourage MS-DOS users to make greater use of the Antelope Freeway Remote Access System our esteemed sysop, Carson Wilson, has turned the system into what amounts to two completely separate remote systems, one for CP/M users, and one for MS-DOS users. While Carson can't force users to limit the subjects of messages on the separate systems to strictly 'DOS or strictly CP/M conversation, the separation is real. When you log on you are asked which side you want to be on and messages and software from one side are not seen by the other.
On the other hand, for those who are ambisystemous, or who would rather switch than fight, the two Antelopes offer the option at the system level to "switch" to the other side. If you haven't tried the Antelope Freeway Remote Access Systems, give them a whirl!
CFOG's PIP, August 1989, Volume 8 No. 3, Whole No. 71, page 23
A Review of 4DOS
by Bill Loftin
[You'll see elsewhere in this issue some comments by Charlie Kestner about 4DOS. Here's a short review that appeared in the June '89 issue of Bug Bytes, newsletter of the Central Maryland Micro Users' Group. -- bhc]
4DOS is another "DOS shell", i.e., a program that gives you access to DOS commands and functions. Unlike most shells which try to isolate the novice user from the MS-DOS command line, 4DOS gets you deeper into 'DOS. It enriches and simplifies ihe environment making the user more productive. 4DOS replaces the MS-DOS or PC-DOS command interpreter COMMAND.COM for all versions of DOS 2.x and above and maintains compatibility. flexibility, and control.
There is a small consideration to achieve 2.x compatibility. 4DOS will run on any PC with DOS and will determine which processor (8086 through 80386) it is hosted on and optimize accordingly. It can remain resident in memory (uses 55K bytes vs. my 35K with COMMAND.COM and ANSI.COM) or can swap out (to EMS, VDISK, or fixed disk) and leave only 5K in memory.
4DOS has more than sixty internal commands. Twelve of these are existing DOS internal commands. There are 20 enhanced DOS commands and 35 all new commands. There is online help of several diffenent kinds and several different levels of help detail. There is command line editing (throw away CED), multiple commands on a single line, expanded command line length, flexible file wildcards (more so than pd), file descriptions, environment variables, aliases, command history, and many new batch-file commands.
If you use LIST, junk it and use the internal LIST command. MEMORYMAP and KEY-FAKE are also internal commands. The ALIAS and KEYSTACK commands provide you power you never thought DOS could offer.
I encountered 4DOS as shareware [it is on CFOG's Antelope Freeway Remote Access System and by the September meeting Steve Lucius will be sure to have included it in our MS-DOS disk library, I'm sure. -- bhc] and I liked enough to register immediately. The software was written by Rex Conn and is distributed by J.P. Software, P.O. Box 1470, East Arlington, MA 02174, [617] 646-3975. Registration is $50.00.
If you think this review is a commercial for 4DOS, it is in a way because of my experiences with the company. I wanted to swap to VDISK and that option had not been implemented. Two days after I called J.P. Software I had a new floppy with VDISK swapping. On several occasions when I had some incompatibilities I called, and they responded with changes, never saying it was the fault of my software. Their attitude toward the customer is unlike any other company I have dealt with.
I think that they have stopped delivering their special version of ANSI.SYS as that was the source of most of their problems of compatibility. They distribute the latest version of TSRCOM.ARC (2.6) because of incompatibilities in older versions of MARK and RELEASE from TurboPower Software.
The setup instructions are well written and I would recommend that you choose the manual installation to get to know your software a little better.
CFOG's PIP, August 1989, Volume 8 No. 3, Whole No. 71, page 24
A Bunch of Questions From Brazil
by Hanns Trostli, Itu, Brazil
I am a member of CFOG for some years now. I dote on PIP, as otherwise I am unable to be in touch with my fellow CFOGgers, living as I do in Brazil. PIP has been a great source of information and advice, I have received a lot and given very little.
This time I am not sending any contribution to PIP, but a request for help. I presume that one or the other of the readers has an answer to my questions.
I do hope to see some answers in a future edition of PIP; if anybody wants to get in touch with me directly, this is my address: POBox 471, 13300 Itu - SP, Brazil.
Two Questions Regarding dBase II
I use dBase II, V.2.43, and have a command file for printing three labels across. This is a file adapted from one I read in FOG years ago and it works very well. However, I would like to print the output to disk and this I am unable to do. Generally, the ALTERNATE command copies the output on screen to the designated disk file, but in this case the valid output is on paper, not on the screen. Eliminating line 1 of my LBL3.CMD (SET FORMAT TO PRINT) doesn't help. In order to visualize the problem I give this LBL3.CMD file here -- it may interest somebody -- and want to observe that it produces labels of 4 lines each, that in Brazil the ZIP code is in front of the city name and that it works with a simple DBF file, whose fields are: NAME, ADDRESS, ZIP, CITY.
* LBL3.CMD
SET FORMAT TO PRINT
STORE 0 TO X
DO WHILE .NOT. EOF
STORE X+1 TO X
@ X,1 SAY NAME
SKIP
@ X,41 SAY NAME
SKIP
@ X,81 SAY NAME
SKIP-2
STORE X+1 TO X
@ X,1 SAY ADDRESS
SKIP
@ X,41 SAY ADDRESS
SKIP
@ X,81 SAY ADDRESS
SKIP-2
STORE X+1 TO X
@ X,1 SAY ZIP
@ X,9 SAY CITY
SKIP
@ X,41 SAY ZIP
@ X,49 SAY CITY
SKIP
@ X,81 SAY ZIP
@ X,89 SAY CITY
STORE X+1 TO X
SKIP
ENDDO
SET PRINT OFF
RELEASE ALL
EJECT
My second question regarding dBase is the following: how can I limit the number of records I want to use each time for labels? Suppose I want to print labels for records #31 thru #60, how should I specify this?
And A Question Regarding Directory Entries
As I told in a previous article published in PIP, I use ROMBO, a RAM/ROM device for Osborne 1. I am very happy with it, it speeded up my Ozzy as any RAM disk would, the increased efficiency is notable and very welcome.
There is one slight problem and I wonder whether and how it can be overcome. The permanent files in ROM and the loaded working files in RAM are all considered as A disk. When I load up WordStar all these files appear on the initial menu, cluttering up free space. My files in ROM have all been set to SYS (system files) by STAT, thus do not appear on DIR, but they are there on the WordStar directory of files. How can some directory entries be rendered invisible?
[I suspect that Hans is using WS 2.26. He's right: WS 2.26 shows SYS status files in the directory. I don't recall and a quick look at the WS Bible file doesn't yield any suggestions about how to get WS 2.26 or 3.0 to ignore SYS files (or any others). With WS4 you can specify file extensions that are not to be displayed (so that COM and OVL files -- or whatever you want -- are not shown, regardless of their file status), but SYS files will still show if they do not have an excluded file extension. VDE and ZDE, on the other hand, will exclude SYS files. -- bhc]
And A Quesition: Regarding an Unknown Printer
A friend of mine asked me to obtain a replacement printhead for his dot-matrix printer. Unfortunately, I have been unable to help him and wonder if somebody can identify the printer described below.
I have looked at the printer and can report the following identifications:
- no trademark
- labels: SUPER 5 and EP-150
- another label showing a cube, having on each of its three visible faces an uppercase letter "E"
- uses multistrike film ribbon, indicated as "for Mannesmann Tally Spirit MT80 and for Commodore 1526/4023"
If nobody has seen such a printer I would like to ask a member who subscribes to the BIX network of BYTE magazine to ask around there. I think that asking that larger audience will be successful in identifying this printer.
And A Question About JG Communications
I need the address of the manufacturer of the RT-60A clock for the Osborne 1, JG Communications. A letter sent to POBox 278, Roy, Utah, was returned to me as no forwarding address is registered at the post office.
CFOG's PIP, August 1989, Volume 8 No. 3, Whole No. 71, page 25
MCOPY Makes Multiple Copies
by Benjamin R Cohen
Every time I start using another Eric Meyer utility I marvel at how neatly he has done a job that is needed. MCOPY makes multiple copies of a single file, a task that I perform with some regularity because of my desire to make multiple backup copies of files. I've used (and still use) a lot of different programs, for this, but Eric's MCOPY does something that the others don't do: it copies the file into a memory buffer and then copies it from there to as many different drives as you want That means that if you want to make three copies of the file it has only to be read into memory once from the disk.
MCOPY is just 1K bytes, a typical Eric Meyer assembly language effort: no more size than is absolutely necessary. That's a mixed bag: Eric's utilities offer no help if you don't know what to do. MCOPY's only real deficiency is that it doesn't recognize user areas.
On a system with about 51.5K TPA I was able to copy a test file of 51K bytes! Tested on a file of 55K bytes, MCOPY (not surprisingly) hung the system and I had to reset.
CFOG's PIP, August 1989, Volume 8 No. 3, Whole No. 71, page 26
Z-System, CP/M, and MS-WS: Some Thoughts from CFOG's Antelope Freeway Remote Access System
[I accumulated these messages from our computerized bulletin board as a taste of what's going on there for those who don't have -- or don't use -- a modem. These conversations started only a few weeks ago: the earliest of these messages is dated July 20th and as I write this it's only August 9th. A word of caution: there is more than one thread of messages here, but the are somewhat intertwined so it's hard to separate them out. -- bhc.]
Msg #2662
by Steve Cohen
to Carson WilsonI am not defending the folks who say "CP/M meets all my needs." I am simply pointing to the intractible reality that even of those exposed to Z, most of the remaining CP/M users do not wish to make this upgrade. To be perfectly fair about it, much of the anti-IBM feeling so prevalent in the Z-community derives from the fact of people resisting the calls to spend more and more hard-earned bucks on the latest flim-flam when what they had was good enough. Why with just "a little" tinkering we can develop a whole slew of new tricks that IBM never dreamed of. Unfortunately for Z-system, however, that same logic can be turned against Z, and has, if you read the message train on Lillipute. We had that discussion, too.
There is just too much talent gone into Z for the paucity of monetary reward it produces for the programmers who do it. They have to then be in it for its own intrinsic fun value, education, whatever. Not a formula for stability.
Msg #2674
by Steve Cohen
to Carson WilsonWhat you say is true. But there are people who experience no problems with the limited work they do and therefore don't care. Richard was telling me about someone he knows who runs his small business accounting system on a Kaypro 2 (2Mhz). Every morning the secretary comes in, puts the disk with (Accounting Package) in drive A: and turns on the computer. It auto boots into the Accounting Package, she puts the data disk into drive B: and away they go. That's ALL they do with the computer. It works just fine. Whatever slowness is inherent in that system is unknown to them because they have no experience with anything else and don't care to. I suggest that there are many more of this type of CP/M user than the sort that frequents bulletin boards such as Lillipute or this one.
Msg #2678
by Benjamin Cohen
to Steve CohenI went over to see a guy who is a writer who has an Osborne Exec. Actually, this was about two years ago, but he's probably still there. He had the thing for two years with the original BIOS which would time-out the printer whenever the buffer filled up. So every page or so he had to press "N" to tell it not to unassign the printer. This went on for two years until I got there with the new BIOS. I also gave him a word count program and a 1K directory program and showed him how to run it from the main menu of WordStar. I set up an autostart routine to get WS to log on drive B:. He was in heaven: wordcount, no more lost files because of full disk errors (he had no way to figure out how much space was left on the disk), and auto log to B:. He wasn't interested in learning anything about his system, or even in doing anything faster. It was great as far as he was concerned. He has written several books with the system. I'm convinced most users (numerically speaking) are at that level, or not much above it. You'd have to give them Z and set it up for, them.
Msg #2682
by Carson Wilson
to Steve CohenNo doubt there is a lot of CP/M equipment serving as "dedicated" systems of one kind or another. I wouldn't advocate changing ANYTHING in such circumstances. But I still feel there are a lot of people with little or no contact with Z System who would probably embrace it if they knew a more about it and how to get help with it. I don't know this empirically, but we put out so little in the way of advertisement or even generally available information on packages like NZCOM or ZSDOS (almost ALL of it comes via modem) that it seems improbable that we have actually contacted even half of those potentially interested.
Msg #2695
by Steve Cohen
to Benjamin CohenAnd after you'd set it up they would run it just like they ran CP/M.
Msg #2697
by Steve Cohen
to Carson WilsonWell what are you telling me? Are there now 200 customers and there are potentially 200 more who you have not reached? Would the costs of reaching these folk with advertising be worth the returns? It seems to me that the essential premise of the Z-System and Echelon and Z-News and Frank Gaude et al. was that CP/M could be improved radically enough to interest a large number of users in it to the extent that they would avoid the switch to IBM compatible systems. That has proven to be false. It is not all the fault of the Z-community. Forces were at work too powerful for our puny forces to handle. Perhaps more than anything else it was the emergence of the clone marketplace and cheap peripherals that made it impossible. When an IBM PC cost $5000 (I am not talking XT folks) it made sense to keep your Kaypro or osborne or whatever. When an XT clone could be purchased for under a grand complete with a 20-Meg hard drive it was a little harder to justify.
Compared to those sorts of inducements a radically improved BDOS and CCP paled to a lot of people. So what we are left with unfortunately are people who enjoy tinkering with BDOSes and CCPs. Which is fine fun, but dead in the water commercially.
Msg #2698
by Gerald Pine
to Charlie KestnerJust to update your information, I have installed Z on my Xerox, at least part way. ZSDOS is next. My excuse? Money. What else is new? I have to admit that NZ-COM was a disappointment, however. The process of installation was entirely too easy. I was just getting warmed up and found that the full system was installed. Just glancing through the manual and some of the programs makes it clear that making use of it will, in contrast, be a full time effort. Now I can finally try some of the ideas that Rick Charnes has been presenting in TCJ.
Msg #2717
by Bill Kuykendall
to ALLIt's interesting to see the same arguments against upgrading to newer hardware applied against Z system. It's also short sighted.
This period in history is often compared to the advent of the automobile, and the comparison is a good one. If someone had predicted in 1910 that the day would come when horseless buggies would be considered absolute necessities by the vast majority of adults in our society -- and that the average price of such an appliance would be $14,000, he'd have been called a fool. But then, those horseless carriages didn't add the capabilities and convenience of modern autos -- they were pretty much direct replacements for horses, much as the computer is displacing the typewriter now.
The biggest arguments against upgrading one's computing environment seem to be cost and the time expense of the learning curve of a new system. Those are good arguments, given that one's needs never change.
"Needs" do change, however. Another parallel to the computer in history is the telephone. It would be impossible to conduct business in today's society without one, largely because everyone else has one. As computers gain more power and new designs, they will be used in ways that we only see a glimmer of now, and those of us with no close ties to the Amish community (folks I envy in some ways, by the way) *will* need and want those new capabilities. At the present rate of development, that day is probably less than 10 years distant.
Some things that have already materialized in the crystal ball include the video telephone that was dreamed of in the '50s, the ability to use your TV set to scan the news services interactively, home security and device management, and of course, robotics. Try to imagine what computers will do for you in the future, and I guarantee your imagination will fall as far short of the mark as our grand and great-grandfathers did when they dreamed of our society 70 years ago (but our future will be here much sooner!)
Given the learning curve involved in every new thing, the question I ask is, "Can I afford *not* to stay as current as possible with computers?" I'm not talking about Z system vs 'DOS. Moving to MS-DOS so that you can use a different wordprocessor to do the same things is not progress. I'm certain that some of the Z hackers will find themselves more literate in some respects than most of the folks who moved on. On the other hand, the Z80 and its progeny are not likely to have the raw computing power necessary to support the high degree of video and communications integration so certain to dominate the systems we'll all be buying in the next decade or so.
The direction of most software development should be alarming to groups such as ours. The level of complexity of software, and the profit to be made from it is creating a barrier between developers and end-users that isolates the "knowledge haves" from the "havenots". There is nothing sinister in this -- do you know how your phone works? How about your fuel-injected car engine? It's highly unlikely unless you work in one of those industries.
My point is that we, as declared computer enthusiasts, should be challenged to ensure that we are not *forced* into being mere users of the new technology, by falling so far behind the Iearning curve that we can never catch up.
It's something to think about, anyway.
Msg #2721
by Gerald Pine
to Bill KuykendallYour comments remind me to some extent of the changes in electronics and the painfulness of those changes to ham radio enthusiasts. First, the replacement of tubes by transistors caused a furious debate. That was nothing compared to the changes brought about by IC's. To a purist in the old school from vacuum tube or even early transistor and discrete component days, we already became users of devices like modern radios and computers (even the 6502 or Z80 variety) when we changed from discrete components and flip-flops, etc. to large scale integrated circuits like the Z80. The Z80 is a relatively simple IC by modern standards, but do you really understand what's inside? Most of us know at best what its responses are in the black box sense.
A second point -- except for the committed hackers among us, the lack of a need to understand what's in the box and how to create patches to make our programs work is probably viewed as a blessing. It allows the "User" to apply his creativity to "more productive" endeavors than playing with his computer. A transparent appliance is the ideal for most people. Finally, isn't the cost of new "computer appliances" what really keeps most of us hobbyists from switching -- especially the costs in comparison to the marginal benefits (for me at least) in pleasure that can be obtained from practicing the hobby on an expensive computer as compared to practicing it on an Osborne, Kaypro, or other old computer? I would expect that the hobbyist will always trail slightly behind the state-of-the-art except for those people who roll their own strictly because of financial considerations. Ham radio has certainly gone this route. There are a few pioneers who design circuits with the latest components and actually advance the communications state of the art. Most, however, use 15-30 year old technology to talk with friends across town, maybe even learning something about the old technology in the process. Before any hams out there jump on me, I am also a ham and I like the hobby, but I think that the characterization is correct.
Msg #2725
by Bill Kuykendall
to Gerald PineThat guy at the Tribune would be a lot more effective if he would read more and write less. Per Intel -- the i486, i586, and i686 chips will all be 100% binary compatible with the i386. They will all be 32-bit chips with new instructions added for the sole purpose of allowing optimization to the chip on the fly. The i486 has six (count'em, _6_) instructions not found in the i386, and those primarily take advantage of the RISC pipelining of the chip... Since it isn't clear from my earlier wording, let me restate my second sentence: code written for the newer chips is guaranteed by Intel to also run on the i386. They also guarantee that the '286 is not included in their future plans.
Msg #2726
by Bill Kuykendall
to Gerald PineI read you loud and clear, Gerald, and I find no fault with your hobby. A great many auto enthusiasts aren't the least interested in new cars, either.
My point is simply that, for those of us who are eagerly awaiting the toys that the future will hand us shortly, now is not a time for complacency. Sure, a morse key does the job, but it will be nice to know how to plug in a microphone when they become available, if I can borrow your metaphor.
Msg #2731
by Bill Kuykendall
to Gerald PineYup. And my guess is that the tenacity of MS-DOS will surprise even a few CP/Mers, before it's over. MS-DOS will not be vulnerable in it's declining years to the one valid argument against ZP/M. The largest library of applications in the world will continue to run on those chips just as well as they do now.
Msg #2732
by Bill Kuykendall
to Gerald PineAh, but *which* computer will be the last one you want to replace that morse key with?
Verily, verily, I say unto you, that there shall come a time when thy Xerox hath more in common with the morse key than the computer...
Msg #2824
by Steve Cohen
to Carson WilsonOh, I absolutely agree with you there. MS-DOS did not succeed because it was better, rather it is "better" because it succeeded. Its success is entirely due to the market power of IBM, and that is a shame. But I don't know what can be done about that.
Msg #2840
by Carson Wilson
to Steve CohenAs they say, "nothing succeeds like success," but I think there is still a role for "unsuccessful" software, especially that of the calibre of Z System. I know it has raised my standards when it comes to computers; I know now that it's possible to program carefully and conscientiously. I'm not fooled by enormous and sophisticated yet poorly designed or executed programs, and I doubt anyone who has experienced the power and freedom of Z system will be. So Z System may now function as sort of a computer "counter-culture," largely free of the influences which shape more mainstream systems. I don't think there needs to be a huge volume of users for Z System to be an effective force in shaping the evolution of modern software. If it alters the perceptions of only a few professional computer programmers like yourself, its influence can be far-reaching.
Msg #2844
by Charlie Kestner
to Al GrabauskasTry looking at 4DOS. (It's here on the DOS board.)
It's as near ARUNZ as it can be, and maybe a bit more. Also, a bit less, since it won't let you do: alias=alias=alias verb.
But that's about ALL it won't let you do.
Ward C[hristensen] was recommending CED and TreeView to Phil Newman. I think 4DOS beats CED (it's newer, and W.C. probably isn't aware of it's existance), but have not seen TreeView.
4DOS not only combines all the great features of ARUNZ, but it tosses in a lot of fancy SD-type stuff to boot. (Neat stuff like adding a 40-char descriptor note to each file, which comes up when you have it DIR in a certain manner.) [There's a review of 4DOS elsewhere in this issue. -- bhc]
Heck, I'm feeling all dressed up, and nowhere to go. I purchased a NEW copy of FastCad (speedier than AutoCad, and only slightly less-powerful) at a flea market for $150 -- and they sent me the latest upgrade FREE! I just got done getting Smart, which is an integrated WP-DB-SS program that I'd used, and liked for a mere $150 (store was blowing them out).Now, all I can do is gnash teeth while I accumulate a bit more compubux so that nice 386 is setting here, instead of trusty old 4mhz Actrix
I think this is going to be a real mind- blow, going from a 4mhz CP/M box with the blazing throughput of floppies to a 25-33mhz 386 w/22ms hard drives. It'll make my leap from 300bps to 2400bps look tame by comparison.
Msg #2851
by Steve Cohen
to Carson WilsonYes, I agree with that. I have only contempt for those who think they have "grown up" because they have put away their CP/M toys and believe that more RAM is the key to every problem. And it is absolutely because of the contacts I made through the Z-System and all that they taught me that I was able to land the job I did without any prior professional experience. The guy who hired me was very impressed when I showed him a piece of my code that began
FALSE EQU 0
TRUE EQU NOT FALSEI was amazed, because for sure I did not think of that and assumed everyone knew that trick. But my boss, who wrote an entire application in 8086 assembler and maintains it thought that a novel brilliancy and was kicking himself that he did not think of it himself. I just wish I could afford the time I used to spend on Z, but I can't.
Msg #2667
by Carson Wilson
to Steve CohenWell, there is SOME monetary reward for those of us who show the most tenacity in working things through and making them usable for others. Not a LOT, mind you, but SOME, and I think there could be more. I really feel much safer with Z System than I would using straight CP/M 2.2. There are just too many blind alleys in CP/M 2.2 that aren't a problem any more with Z. Function 38, for example, or the requirement to always reset disks with ^C first.
I think one problem is that users generally don't take their machines very seriously, even though they are entrusting 100's of hours of work to the system software and hardware. Generally things work as they are supposed to, hiding the immense complexity of what's going on behind the scenes until suddenly something doesn't work and there isn't a clue as to what went wrong. And at that point of course it's too late for Z System to solve the problem.
CFOG's PIP, August 1989, Volume 8 No. 3, Whole No. 71, page 29
THE PORTABLE CORNER
by Benjamin H. Cohen
This column will run from time to time, covering laptop portables. It will help if others will contribute occasionally, too.
Used Epson Genevas and NEC PC8400, 8401, and 8500 systems sell for about $100 to $150. One place to look for offers on these is the PX-DOCK, a bulletin board specializing in the Epson Geneva PX-8 at [313] 538-6968 (3-12-2400, 8-1-N).
Toshiba T1000s sell for under $600, or you can spend about as much as you want to to put computing power on your lap and get all the bells and whistles including FAX board that plugs in to a serial port.
There are used MS-DOS laptops available, too. Watch out for "Generic MS-DOS" systems. They won't run most 'DOS applications, so you may be stuck with what comes with the system. But there are some bargains if you don't need all the bells and whistles.
Owed to the Repair Shop
by Benjamin H. CohenCome all you young lassies
take warning by me
never leave your Geneva
to run on batt-er-y.The RAM disk will run down
its little nicad
and when it hits bottom
the results will be bad.It won't take a charge,
it won't run at all
the cost to repair it
sure will make you bawl.So if your not usin'
your computing friend
put it on the charger
to avoid that bad end.
Some battery powered portables, like Epson Geneva, have dedicated Ni-Cad batteries. One of them is in a compartment in the main body of the Geneva. There are lots of articles about this battery, but for the most part it's not difficult to deal with: use the machine a lot and keep it charged up. NiCads are designed for hard usage, and about the worst thing you can do for them is to just let them sit around unused. Replacements are about $35.
If you have a 120 K RAM disk "wedge" or a Multi-Unit (64K RAM disk, 300 baud modem, and a slot for a 32K or 64K ROM as Drive I:), the wedge has its own hidden battery. In ordinary usage your Geneva gets plugged in regularly and the hidden battery in the RAM disk gets charged.
But if for some reason you don't use your Geneva for a while, say when your battery dies, and you simply set the Geneva on the shelf, you'll get a rude shock. Welcome to the crowd: the repair guy says this non-use is a frequent happening. The RAM disk in the wedge draws current from its own battery to maintain the RAM disk -- even when you are not using it. When that battery is drained down to zero -- time for a new battery, it won't charge up again. The Geneva main manual says nothing about this. I don't have a manual for the RAM disk, unfortunately.
A Different Portable: NEC PC-8500
While the Geneva was in the shop I picked up a used NEC PC-8500. The NEC's screen is 25 lines (versus the Geneva's 8), and came with a 124K RAM disk peripheral. There's 300 baud modem and 32K of ROM can be configured as RAM disk. Programs in ROM include WordStar-To-Go, Calc-To-Go, Filer, Telcom, PIP, and STAT. The screen is much easier to read than the Geneva's. The NEC is not much heavier than the Geneva, at 6 pounds, with the RAM disk peripheral adding about another pound.
The NEC also needs power to maintain its RAM disk. But the NEC uses 4 easily replaced C cells. You can use standard (3 hours), alkaline (9 hours), or NiCad. NEC says alkaline batteries will maintain the (internal) RAM disk for 60 days and recommends that you keep the system plugged into the wall whenever you're not travelling. For about the cost of a replacement battery for the Geneva you could get two sets of rechargeable C cells and a charger, thus having a spare set on hand all the time. You must plug the NEC in when changing batteries or you loose the contents of your RAM disk(s).
The 124K RAM disk peripheral uses a CR2032 Lithium battery. NEC tells you to replace it every six months. The external RAM disk is not maintained when you change the battery. It costs about $2.
NEC 8500, Epson Geneva, and "Keys" Programs
I gave the NEC to one of the other lawyers in my office because I couldn't get any of the 'keys' programs to run on it, so I couldn't reconfigure it to Dvorak keyboard. I tried SmartKey, XtraKey, MagiKey, and GKX390. I've heard that you SmartKey and MagiKey can run on the Geneva but I got a system ROM burned with Dvorak keyboard built-in instead.
GENEVA ROMS
Mark Gasaway, c/o C.A.E., P.O. Box 370, Livingston Manor, NY 12758, offers 32K ROMs for Genevas for $21, two for $40, three for $56. Two 32K ROMs can be made to act like one 64K ROM (so you can use programs larger than 32K). Reburns are $14, 64K ROMs (for those with the Multi unit) are $30, reburns $19.
Gasaway also offers the improved operating system (allows reset without reinitializing the RAM disk) for $20, or with custom defaults for $40. You can set user BIOS size, RAM disk size, auto shut-off minutes, serial port, RS-232, menu on/off, drives displayed on the menu, function key definitions, MCT settings, and menu file expansion. You can also redesign the keyboard, whether you just want to put the asterisk over the 8 or make a full Dvorak layout.
Gasaway's full page plus of notes are available for from CFOG (enclose an SAE).