Epocdigest V1 # 579

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tips for Posting to the Digest and how to unsubscribe

at the end of the Digest

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Epoc Digest Fri, 20 Aug 2004 Volume 01 : Number 579

************************************************************************

Sent to: 744 subscribers

In today's Epoc Digest 12 messages:

==============================

- RE: Widened EpocDigest

- Expanded EPOC Digest - 1 For

- DOS better than Windows

- The series 5 with only 4 Mo

- Re: DOS better than Windows

- Re: URL downloader

- Re: URLs, comparing contacts

- Re: DOS better than Windows

- Epoc/Symbian

- Psion 5 4mb

- Re: Widened EpocDigest / Intro to Symbian

- Re: Widened Epocdigest

*++++++++++&

Date: 19 Aug 2004 18:43:49 +0100

From: Rafe Blandford

Subject: RE: Widened EpocDigest

Hi,

I've been a long time lurker and very occasional posters on the Epoc/Psion digest. Although I haven't used a Psion for some time (I moved on to Symbian phones). So for me at least it is nice to see this expansion.

I'm currently on a mixture of a Nokia 7610 and Sony Ericsson P900.

I'll do my best to answer / respond to some of the more Symbian related questions as they come up.

Regards

Rafe Blandford

*++++++++++&

Date: 19 Aug 2004 19:43:31 +0100

From: Phil Aypee

Subject: Expanded EPOC Digest - 1 For

Hi,

I am a confirmed EPOC-phile, I still use a 3a, I have a 3c and I want a 3mx. I have two 5mxs and I don't have a mobile phone.

So why not extend the digest!

OK, it won't benefit me - so what?

Eventually the EPOC platforms will effectively die, Guildford FC did.

But Guildford FC social club carried on when the club itself folded. Why not the Digest?

And many of us will still post about things EPOC (and maybe even SIBO). When most posts are not EPOC I'll still read the digest and I doubt I'll be the only one.

Itamar, if you want my vote, you've got it.

Good luck,

Phil.

"A generation which ignores history has no past -

and no future.

*++++++++++&

Date: 19 Aug 2004 19:49:00 +0100

From: Antony Booth

Subject: DOS better than Windows

As Chris Handley pointed out, multi-tasking was not incorporated into MS-DOS or any variants. TSRs didn't multi-task either. They simply had control modules daisy chained on interrupt 7, which was invoked by the processor being idle. OS2, however, was multitasking and far superior to MS-DOS, but the take up was insufficient to ensure its survival. The best multitasking O/S was and still is Unix and its variants. Microsoft have only recently managed to incorporate features that have been integral in unix systems for decades. Features such as long file names, mounting additional disks on the same volume instead of creating a new drive, stopping and starting services without a reboot, installing applications without a reboot, moving the mouse without a reboot ;). With the significant advances in GUI (X-windows) interfaces such as Gnome and KDE for unix variants such as Linux and development heading towards more platform independant technologies like Web based server sided scripting, java and .net(???), it is obvious that MS Windows advantages are quickly becoming fewer, and when hardware developers afford more time towards Linux drivers rather than leave it to 3rd parties to develop their own, the primary global O/S will be Linux. O/S performance will no longer be improved by hardware upgrades, but by ever efficient code and greater application selection and tuning, thanks to the open source concept. History will show that MS-DOS was superceded by Windows 3.1 and Windows 20?? will be superceded by Linux Kernel ???

Antony Booth

________________ Reply Header ________________

Date: 19 Aug 2004 09:33:27 +0100

From: Chris S Handley

Subject: DOS better than Windows

Alan Morris wrote:

> Rolf Brunsting wrote:-

>>> if the amount of development that has gone into windows had

>>> gone into DOS, we would have a far better OS than windows.

>> I'm sorry, but this is rather silly. DOS had reached the end

>> of its development .... Microsoft's developers had to

>> overcome these barriers when developing Windows 3.xx and

>> later Windows '95 while remaining backwards compatible.

> I accept the restrictions that you mention, but those

> restrictions were overcome in the program called Windows,

> that was running on DOS. Multi-tasking was part of DOS,

> before it was removed from DOS and put into Windows running

> on DOS - a marketing move!

I really didn't want to get into this argument, since both sides actually have some merit (well, like most arguments!), but I thought I might be able to shed a little light on the technical side:

While I completely avoided the DOS era (thanks to using other (better:) computers), in the past I have written some fairly advanced hacks in assembler for MS-DOS, and so have some idea of what I talk about...

AFAIK, true multi-tasking (even just cooperative) has never been part of MS-DOS, ever. There simply is no allowance for sharing resources (particularly processor time, keyboard & screen) between two different programs.

The only way of achieving the illusion of a little utility running simultaneously with an actual application, is through a trick that is not unlike using Macros to extend an application on the Psion; the utility can be caused to temporarily take-over the machine when certain circumstances arise, such as certian keypresses or after a certain time. This is done by making the utility a so-called Terminate-and-Stay-Resident (TSR) program, which also patches certain parts of MS-DOS to activate it when required.

HOWEVER, I am not saying that multitasking is impossible under DOS - it certainly was possible, and at least several people have written a layer which runs on-top-of DOS, which allow a limited form of multitasking within DOS, BUT I don't think Microsoft ever took this step, and most probably never officially sanctioned one either (since I guess such layers weren't very reliable due to their hackish nature).

You might argue that Windows is simply a more advanced layer running on-top-of DOS, but at least by Windows 9x, it makes so few calls to DOS while it is running that it would be fairer to say that Windows replaces DOS rather than runs on-top-of it. But the fact that Windows 9x still had to provide programs with full DOS compatibility, meant that it could not circumvent some of DOS's limitations. Of course, Win XP no longer provides full DOS compatibility.

The 'secret' as to why Microsoft prefered to replace DOS by Windows, rather than extending DOS further, was that DOS's design was so antiquated that adding any more modern features was either simply not possible (without breaking compatility) or doomed to incredibly poor performance (by even Microsoft standards). I'm sure Microsoft knew the writing was on the wall for DOS long before Windows 1.x, but they needed something much more compelling than DOS to make people leave DOS behind, and that turned out to be a windowed graphical user interface (and poor multitasking;-) .

Regards,

Chris Handley

P.S. Some of what I write is of course opinion, but I'm sure you can tell which.

*++++++++++&

Date: 19 Aug 2004 20:29:12 +0100

From: Thomas F. van der Zijden

Subject: The series 5 with only 4 Mo

Dear all,

When I wanted to upgrade my 3a to a 5 I nearly bought a 5 with 4 Mo, but the salesman advised me not to do it, because the 5 with 8 Mo would appear soon and his customers complained that 4 Mo was a bit too small.

I then waited some more years and bought a 5mx. :-)

Yours truly,

Thomas van der Zijden

*++++++++++&

Date: 19 Aug 2004 21:58:55 +0100

From: Marcus von Cube

Subject: Re: DOS better than Windows

Chris,

>I'm sure Microsoft knew the writing was on the wall for DOS long before Windows 1.x, but they needed something much more compelling than DOS to make people leave DOS behind, and that turned out to be a windowed graphical user interface (and poor multitasking;-) .

M$ and IBM jointly developed a successor for DOS, aimed at the 286 processor: OS/2. It even started without a GUI, just a command line but decent multitasking, interprocess comunication, a much better file system (HPFS). Presentation Manager, the GUI, was a later addition. The main problem of OS/2: It needed much more resources than DOS, especially memory and it *broke the compatibility with DOS*. Only later versions, released by IBM alone and aimed at 32 bit processors restored the DOS compatibility ("Better DOS than DOS" was the slogan). But IBM lost the desktop battle as we know now.

Marcus

http://www.mvcsys.de

*++++++++++&

Date: 19 Aug 2004 23:50:36 +0100

From: Jack

Subject: Re: URL downloader

To: Alan Morris

>>>I've thought about copying back the .HTML file to a Psion to see if it would work in Web or Opera. If it does then I might think about an OPL to do the same as 'Text2Web' for when I'm not at home with w98<<

Hi Alan,

Of course any .htm AND/OR .txt page "works", ie are directly readable, in any (Epoc or not) browsers .

For your collect aim:

- From a Window MSOE email message, Ctl+F2 is the quickest way I ever know for copying any selected text (like a Url or e-Ad) directly to (last opened) Notepad file.

- Freeware such as Ian Chapple' MyNote and Shareware like nConvert does convert most Epoc native formats to Html.

But it looks quicker to not converting at all :

On your psion, you could keep your urls page in .txt format

and open it (bookmarked or not) with Web or Opera or Word (or any other native epoc app) or Editor and use the "hyperlink" function that most macro launcher such as Assistant have built in; or alternately use :

Translauncher.opo or Hyperlink.opo from Nicolas ("thanks for ever") site.

Does it help?

Jack

"With Epoc, no need for Windont"-)

*++++++++++&

Date: 20 Aug 2004 00:11:16 +0100

From: Alan Morris

Subject: Re: URLs, comparing contacts

Ian Chapple wrote:-

> I have a solution which might be better than the above,

> particularly if you wish to do all your work on a Psion. My

> MyNotes application, available from the FreEPOC website

> (www.freepoc.org)

Those features sound interesting, I'll download it.

> I have recently been working on a way to compare Contacts

> databases;

Something that many would probably find useful. The other problem I have is that from my S5 days, I still use a Data contacts file. I still find it much better in all respects apart from hitting the <Tab> key in Email.

> Chris Handley has suggested trying to write a program which

> would synchronise Contacts databases via IR,

Even better.

> If you are interested, email me at ian (dot.) chapple (at.)

> planet (dot.) nl.

Ian, I'm sure that many would want this. Yes please.

Who was it that posted a comment that there was nothing new on EPOC anymore!

Alan R Morris, G4ENS.

Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, UK.

Using a Psion netBook & Nokia 6210e.

*++++++++++&

Date: 20 Aug 2004 00:11:26 +0100

From: Alan Morris

Subject: Re: DOS better than Windows

Chris S Handley wrote:-

An interesting posting Chris.

> AFAIK, true multi-tasking (even just cooperative) has

> never been part of MS-DOS, ever.

Some confusion has probably occurred due to the use of the words used to describe, 'an apparent multi-tasking' machine.

The version of DOS (6.xx) that came with Windows for Workgroups, (3.11) originally had the 'multi-tasking' of WFW, but was removed before commercial release and 'put' into Windows. Developers received copies of it.

There was also Concurrent CP/M, which ran on the early Apricot, but with only 2 x 315Kb floppies, it was not much use until the 5Mb hard drive arrived! (DOS was developed from CP/M)

I remember being at a Microsoft seminar when they released W95. Word was now able to do background printing! I lacked detailed knowledge of MS Word as it was inferior to the DOS Wordcraft that I was using and selling. I asked a colleague if what I thought I heard was correct. He confirmed that Word did not have background printing - a form of 'multi-tasking' - before W95.

DOS Wordcraft had always had background printing, even later CBM (PET) versions of Wordcraft had background printing!

> The only way of achieving the illusion ....

> a so-called Terminate-and-Stay-Resident

> (TSR) program, which also patches certain parts of

> MS-DOS to activate it when required.

I used to program in a language called Alpha RPL. It was a Resident popup language and also had some similarities with our Macro5.

It ran all the time that it was 'installed' on DOS and 'monitored' the running program.

CP/M, DOS and UNIX were all somewhat similar, fortunately a modern version of UNIX is now gaining on Windows and in the server area, is probably now ahead of Windows. If not in numbers then in time between downtime.

It was also interesting that for a period there were both DOS and Windows versions of many programs, until Windows took over. The DOS versions were generally the best, which was surprising especially when the user interface was graphic.

Alan R Morris, G4ENS.

Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, UK.

Using a Psion netBook & Nokia 6210e.

*++++++++++&

Date: 20 Aug 2004 02:47:34 +0100

From: Walker, Jan

Subject: Epoc/Symbian

I am quite please by the renaming and new focus of the old Psion Digest. I am now seriously looking at the Sony Ericson P910 and the Nokia 9500 as replacements for my 5mx, Revo Plus, and netBook. Can someone please comment on the following: size comparison between the screens of the Revo/5mx/and the P910 and 9500? Also the same for keyboard usage; overall size and weight in the pocket; and last, transferability of data, word and spreadsheet documents to the new machines.

Many thanks,

JW in San Fran

*++++++++++&

Date: 20 Aug 2004 05:41:59 +0100

From: Chester Choi

Subject: Psion 5 4mb

Hate to disagree with the very knowledgeable Itamar, but I definitely recall that the Psion 5 was available in a 4 mb version. I had queried the group on the old UPS 5 Digest about the benefits and shortcomings of a 4 mb version versus an 8 mb one, since the 4 mb was less expensive. I recall the email exchange because someone was rather rude in responding to my question, so someone else quickly corrected him and provided the information I wanted. The 4 mb version was available through various stores here in the US, including one called d-store.

In fact, this same store was selling refurbished 4 mb versions while they could still obtain them.

Chester Choi

*++++++++++&

Date: 20 Aug 2004 08:44:20 +0100

From: Steve Baker

Subject: Re: Widened EpocDigest / Intro to Symbian

Hi People,

I haven't written in for (quite) a while, but the above subjects are

particularly relevant to my own current situation.

Although my work brings me into constant close contact with M$ WinDoze,

I have used a Psion as my primary personal computing platform for over

8 years. In fact, for the past few years, it has been my only personal

computing platform. I live and work in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, but am

planning to leave within the next 9-12 months, as 'the magic' has gone.

I needed a new computer that would aid/allow me to:

1. collect all of my data into one place (barring the all-important

backups)

2. bring my computing skills up to date (on-line training, etc.)

3. work in almost any (non-)networked environment

4. continue to make best use of my investment in Symbian hardware

(netBook, SE P900)

I have brought a Apple PowerBook G4 17" (PB), and with the latest

version of OS X (10.3.5) the interaction between each of my devices is

beyond my initial expectation. The P900 interacts with the PB in every

way except SMS messaging via bluetooth; I can even use my Bluetooth

headset with the PB, too. The netBook is still used on a daily basis at

work and while mobile - it might not be pocket-sized, but it's a pup

compared the PB's sheer size - and can communicate with the PB via

WiFi, IR or CF card (nConvert takes care of any necessary conversions).

Sitting on non-M$ platforms, I have little worry about virii or other

attacks when online using any of my chosen platforms. When away from

Saudi, I make best use of the P900 to provide communication channels

wherever wired or WiFi networking is not available, though it is

perfectly usable in it's own right for working with documents and

spreadsheets (courtesy of QuickOffice), reference data (Handy Databank)

and GPS navigation (PowerNavigation) - to name but a few applications.

Strangely enough, the only things that stop the netBook from doing all

that the P900 does for me is the lack of Bluetooth interface - though I

may invest in the Serial to Bluetooth cable that is being touted for

£150.00 - and the inability to use a GSM modem card in the internal PC

card slot.

I admit that I do like 'gadgets', but they have to have a real-world

application before I'll be swayed. I always try to register and pay for

all applications that I use - regardless of platform - yet I have paid

out less than £700.00 for every piece of software that I have

owned/used over the past 8 years, as the vast majority of excellent

applications out there are FreeWare or Open Source.

If anybody is interested, I would be more than happy to go into detail

about the hardware and software that I use and the uses that everything

is put to in my working and leisure lives.

The Psion is dead, long live the Psion, along with Symbian, unix and

Apple.

Best regards to one and all,

Steve Baker

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

*++++++++++&

Date: 20 Aug 2004 10:19:04 +0100

From: Ian Chapple

Subject: Re: Widened Epocdigest

I fully agree with the proposal to broaden the scope of the Epoc Digest, but how about just calling it "The Digest". It sounds a bit less unwieldy than the "EpocSymbian Digest", especially as we all know what it means anyway.