KLund1 Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 While working through another estate sale Atari box, I found an almost new copy of Atari DOS 1.0. I'm sure there is a copy of it in here somewhere, but just in case I made an ATR. It is just a disk copy from 2.0S, but it works. Enjoy. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_The Doctor__ Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) That's what I couldn't remember! Define device as a menu option! you didn't attach the atr however... should be able to just sector copy from the original to a blank atr... Edited March 21, 2020 by _The Doctor__ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLund1 Posted March 21, 2020 Author Share Posted March 21, 2020 Sorry, here is the ATR DOS 1.0.atr 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Nezgar Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 3 hours ago, _The Doctor__ said: should be able to just sector copy from the original to a blank atr... Agreed, don't use the DOS 2.0S disk copy function, as it only copies sectors marked 'in use' in the bitmap, use a real sector copier that reads every sector. This is not good for archival/preservation purposes, as there might be residual data in the unallocated sectors that "could" be forensically interesting. I also wonder how much we can trust DOS 2.0S to accurately deal with a 1.0 disk structure, there are numerous differences... With a full sector copy, it can be compared to DOS 1.0 ATR's already archived. Cheers! -N Edit: Almost forgot to ask! When you boot DOS 1.0, I would expect the original disks to have a slower sector interleave associated with the older Rev B 810 ROM's. The sectors should sound like they're audibly loading with longer gaps between each. The working theory is that this 'slower' interleave was optimal for DOS 1.0's lack of burst I/O introduced in DOS 2.0. DOS 1.0 in theory would load slower on a disk formatted with a Rev "C" 810 or 1050 as the sector interleave is 'too fast.' 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebiguy Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 5 hours ago, _The Doctor__ said: Define device as a menu option What was this option for? And why was it removed from later versions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Nezgar Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 9 minutes ago, ebiguy said: What was this option for? And why was it removed from later versions? From page 37 of the PDF manual on Atarimania: 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 Needs more poll - "Do you prefer Dos 1.0 or 3.0 ?" 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLund1 Posted March 21, 2020 Author Share Posted March 21, 2020 Need a sector copy program. What is the best to use for an 810? Post a link, pls, Thx. Just in case, I have rail of of 18 810 "B" ROMs, C0112998B-03 IC's. Anyone want one? Send PM. I have a couple C0112998B-03's too. Thanks, again everyone !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_The Doctor__ Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 7 hours ago, ebiguy said: What was this option for? And why was it removed from later versions? it was for i/o redirection... good stuff... why was it removed? stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLund1 Posted March 21, 2020 Author Share Posted March 21, 2020 ?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_The Doctor__ Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, Nezgar said: From page 37 of the PDF manual on Atarimania: that's it exactly, your able to dump stuff directly to whatever physical device or handler you wish. Redefining things as often as you wished. Edited March 21, 2020 by _The Doctor__ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DjayBee Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 4 hours ago, KLund1 said: Need a sector copy program. What is the best to use for an 810? I guess that nearly everybody has its own favorite. For archival purposes I prefer Disk Wizard II. It is neither the fastest, nor the one with the least disk swaps, but it is able to copy the readable data from bad sectors and does not "invent" data for missing sectors. If you have a disk with bad sectors, it can give you a map where yo can see, what was bad. Disk Wizard II.atr 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Nezgar Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 12 hours ago, KLund1 said: Need a sector copy program. What is the best to use for an 810? Post a link, pls, Thx. MyCopy-R is a good overall sector copier that supports Single/Enh/Double density, 256K+ RAM for single pass DD copy and ultraspeed when supported. It will skip bad sectors and continue copying the rest. Option F on this ATR image: SectorCopiers.ATR If the disk has bad sectors, move on to Disk Wizard II, as previously endorsed by @DjayBee, as it will preserve the data that the drive was able to read from bad sectors, even if some of it is corrupt. Most sector copiers, including the above MyCopyR will skip bad sectors leaving blank sectors in the copy. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Nezgar Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 13 hours ago, KLund1 said: I have rail of of 18 810 "B" ROMs, C0112998B-03 IC's. Anyone want one? Send PM. I have a couple C0112998B-03's too. Those part numbers appear ..... the same ? did you mean a couple of C011299C? C0112998B was the original 810 Revision "B" ROM (Formats with 12:1 sector interleave) vs the later C0112998C revision "C" ROM (formats with 9:1 interleave). The lot of them was probably leftover pulls from early 810's when replaced with the revision C ROM's. Funny such a batch would turn up after I spent what seemed like year searching to find one of those ROM's, and looking for evidence of what the differences were... And as of June 2018 we now have all the answers after I found one, and got it dumped. Anyhow, looks like I commented previously about them on a post of yours from June 2018. Wouldn't mind getting a couple more though, will send you a PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tschak909 Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 (edited) I still want to know who specified the filesystem to SMI at Atari, so I can go up to them and thwap them repeatedly with a trout. A SINGLE ENDED LINKED LIST OF SECTORS?! -Thom Edited March 22, 2020 by tschak909 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashjazzcat Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 6 minutes ago, tschak909 said: A SINGLE ENDED LINKED LIST OF SECTORS?! That on its own wasn't sufficient. Putting the links in amongst the data made it perfect. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tschak909 Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 Welp, straight from the mouth of the man who wrote the FMS. Apparently some of our shared knowledge needs revision: 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashjazzcat Posted March 22, 2020 Share Posted March 22, 2020 8 minutes ago, tschak909 said: Apparently some of our shared knowledge needs revision: At least he admits that in retrospect he should have used a linked list of sector maps, which is exactly what SpartaDOS uses. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drac030 Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 This FS is overly simplicistic and lacks everything, but has one advantage: you need only one buffer to access a file (SDFS needs two, so does FAT and such). Also, as far as I know, CBMFS in the 1541 drive for C-64 uses similar approach, so DOS 1.0/2.0 method of linking files was not so exceptional at that time. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 Have to wonder - did they have the desire for the Dos to be feasible for 16K systems? Which could go some way to explaining the simplicity as well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempest Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 3 hours ago, Rybags said: Have to wonder - did they have the desire for the Dos to be feasible for 16K systems? Which could go some way to explaining the simplicity as well. I believe the 800 came with 16K as its minimal configuration, so they were probably aiming for that. I think all disk programs required 24K though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drac030 Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 The most stupid idea was IMHO not the sector link itself, but using its 6 bits as "file number". This not only reduces the max. number of files on disk to 64, but also reduces the overall capacity of a disk to 1023 sectors (with 24-bit link!). This is a bit wasteful, I would say. It could be for example 16-bit links used in more efficient way: say 1 bit for the end flag (if set, the last byte contains the number of bytes in the sector), 15 bits for the link = max. 32768 sectors, 126 data bytes each = ~4 MB, the number of files per disk virtually unlimited... Or bidirectional list, 124 data bytes per sector * 32768 = still more than 3.8 MB, instead of just ~125k. To be fair to them, it could have been worse: the filesystems on the competing platforms (CP/M 2, Apple, CBM), as far as I know, do not even allow to detect EOF reliably, if the file itself does not contain some information on that (file's size in the header or an EOF character at the end). On Apple the DOS uses physical track and sector on track numbers to address the files on disk, LOL. (CBMFS on Commodore also uses physical sector addresses, but the DOS is in the disk drive, so it is not a problem). 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybags Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 They could easily have used e.g. 4 bits for file number which would give a high probability of catching corruption, then freeing up more bits for the forward pointer. 256 byte clusters might have been a better idea as well and would have allowed for less overhead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashjazzcat Posted March 23, 2020 Share Posted March 23, 2020 The DOS 3 filesystem looked pretty good to me aside from the fact the FAT had to fit in a single sector for some reason, mandating the large, wasteful clusters people griped about at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KLund1 Posted March 24, 2020 Author Share Posted March 24, 2020 I used DiskWizard II above with setting in the picture to make a sector copy of the disk to a blank disk in RespeQT I hope these are right. If not let me know. I also happen to have an original of the DOS 1.0 manual. I scanned and OCR'd a copy for here. Thanks DOS 1.0 Sector Copied.atr Atari DOS 1.0 Manual.pdf 7 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.