home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!cbmvax!jesup
- From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: Searching for DOS documentation
- Message-ID: <37820@cbmvax.commodore.com>
- Date: 11 Dec 92 22:26:24 GMT
- References: <37568@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1992Dec9.221139.488@samba.oit.unc.edu> <1992Dec10.003945.18444@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
- Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
- Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
- Lines: 33
-
- jdickson@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Dickson) writes:
- >>>>My question is WHY is the dos stuff documented separately?
- >>> Ancient history dealing with contracts signed back before the Amiga
- >>>was introduced...
-
- >>Every time I try to use that book I get mad. I read manuals all day
- >>long and that's one of the worst.
-
- > The real problem here is that the filesystem was handed over to
- >Commodore on a silver platter when they purchased the Amiga from Amiga Corp
- >back in 1985.
-
- No.
-
- > Plus, I don't believe the documentation was all that good either.
-
- True, it was a bunch of terse, confusing comments I think written
- by Tim King about Tripos. The original Bantam manual was just a copy of
- this developer documentation in one manual.
-
- >the market. Boy, was I disapppointed. Commodore ought to be more up on the
- >curve nowadays (7 years later), but if they are the current release of the
- >AmigaDOS manual certainly doesn't reflect it.
-
- Unlike the RKMs, commodore does not have complete control of the Dos
- manual, I think.
-
- --
- To be or not to be = 0xff
- -
- Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering.
- {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com BIX: rjesup
- Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion.
-