COAET" • r

80 Apple Orchard
• An interactive, symbolic debugger;
• Full support of duplicate directories, including "markdup·
dir," "copydupdir," and "recover" programs (See Dr. Wo's
column in the Winter 1981 Apple Orchard .PCW)
•Various other utilities including a P-code disassembler and·
the famed "patch" program, a byte-level editor;
• BIOS attachment utilities;
• Primitives for concurrent processing and interrupt
handling;
•A variety of new memory management procedures which
should facilitate development of routines for processing
arrays;
• Memory management procedures for controlling the
residency of segments and units under program, as
opposed to compiler, control;
• Extended system memory management so that application
programs can make use of the larger memories in the
coming computers;
And ...
•Complete portability of software between the Apple 11, Z-80
machines, the IBM-PC, 68000-based machines, 6809 machines,
Tl 9900 machines, LSI-11/PDP-l 1, ... and others.
Specific to the Apple II
•* Drivers included for a variety of peripherals, including all of
the standard Apple ones and Micro-Sci floppies, SVA 8-inch
floppy disk controller, lower case adapters, CCS serial card,
SSMAIO serial card and Sup'R'Term, Smartterm,Videx, and
Double Vision boards;
• A completely relinkable BIOS which allows you to take
advantage of the above-mentioned drivers;
• A configuration utility which allows you to set such
parameters as whether you have installed a jumper to enable
true shift key operation from the Apple II keyboard.
Going Down
I like this system. I like it a whole lot. But it's not the best
system if all you'll work with is the Apple 11; it works better on
other computers. What's the down side?
The Version IV system is noticeably slower on the Apple II
than is Apple Pascal. This is because the system architecture
is quite different and because the system is heavily
swapped, leading to more disk 1-0 than with Apple Pascal.
This system will be very hard to use with only(!) two disk
drives, not only because of the swapping mentioned above,
but also because the SYSTEM.PASCAL file is much larger
than the Apple Pascal version. The score is UCSD 84 blocks
without debugger, Apple 41 blocks. So there's less space
on the boot disk
Consider this: the System Filer is now segmented; not all
of it resides in memory at once. You will swap disks while
using the Filer, even on a two-drive system. This can be
tricky, or inconvenient, or both.
The Version IV system as marketed by Softech sells for
$750 (not including the RAM card), which is more than
Apple Pascal. Surprised? Don't be. Remember, Apple the
Company sells hardware, and software to sell hardware;
Softech sells ... software. We also don't know the details of
the licensing agreements with the Regents of UC, etc. The ·
price difference is substantial. So are the differences
between the operating systems. Which system is for you? I
can't answer that question for you, but I can answer it for
myself.
Let's suppose I was an experienced BASIC programmer,
had an Apple II with two floppy drives, and was about to
purchase Pascal for the first time. The choice is Apple
Pascal hands down; there's plenty of room to grow into this
system and to learn some very exciting things.
Now suppose I was an advanced hobbyist; a reasonably
experienced Apple Pascal programmer looking forward to
upgrading my system by hanging on an 8086 processor
with 128K RAM on board, and a mini-Winchester hard disk I
don't know that I'd rush out and get Softech' s Pascal, or the
CP / M MT+ discussed in the March-April 1982 Apple
Orchard, but I sure would be wondering who is going to
bring up Pascal on my new processor and how, and what
version they plan on using. I'd hope for the best: both
operating systems making full use of my new computer's
capabilities.
Or, suppose I was a cottage industrialist, developing
applications software and hoping to reach the broadest
possible customer base in the shortest time. Softech's Pascal
would be worth having; sitting in front of my Apple, I
could write programs for any number of machines, availing
myself of all of the powerful features of the new operating
system. I would use Apple Pascal, or the appropriate subset
of it in Softech, when trying to reach the Apple market
specifically. Apple's Pascal is faster, as it's tailored for the
Apple machines.
Finally, let's say I was trying to write software for tomorrow's
computers today. Choice: Softech, going away. New
machines will be far better equipped for emulating the
P-machine than today's Apple II, and will obviate the downside
analysis given above.
Who are You?
The whole point is, that there is a tradeoff analysis which
you must make. Maybe you' re a cynic who believes that new
machines won't be logically thought out in terms of P·
machine capability (History is on the side of the cynic, as
usual. .PCW) Well, on one end of the spectrum is portability,
on the other is the speed and smoothness that comes from
custom-tailoring to the machine architecture. Only you can
say.
Indeed, what have you to say? what are your interests and
objectives? If you' II let me know, I'll try to point my pen ... er,
keyboard, in your direction.