VD0: troubles
20 messages in this thread
Hi!
I'm having trouble getting VD0: to work on an A3000 under WB 1.3. I can
mount VD0:, but when I try to access it, I get "Can't find VD0:". INFO
doesn't see it, but AVAIL shows it in the "devices" list. Is this an A3000
incompatibility, or am I doing something wrong? HELP! Thanks!
— CJC —
Absolutely Positively will not work on an A3000.
pk
Hi Perry. Does VD0: fail because of the A3000 or 2.0? I will be getting a
A3000 rsn (Will be giving my a1000 and your 8M/2 board to my father-in-law)
and would hate to have to give up a old friend.
Mark Jacobs
I was told two years ago that WB2.0 would break VD0. And that's what it
did.
pk
And I'me sure you have more important things to do to try and fix it.
<sigh> Well, I guess I have to use rad: Bye.
Perry:
Your porgram FaccII, will it work with hard disks, or only floppies? I got
a copy of it, and it had no documentation, it was just in what looks like a
CD case, with 2 small grey sheets of paper with red printing, Is the
documentation missing, or is it all on the disk? Thanks.
-Mike Schiller
CIS: 76416,3065
Perry,
Life without VD0:? Oh, woe is me! <sad smile> Would it be possible to
make a quickie patch to get asdg.vdisk.device going under 2.0, or is some
re-engineering in order? I'd personally lay down some (more) $$ to get a
2.0-compatible ASDG-RAM:. The thought of having to use RAD: makes me
shudder. Yecch!
-Dave
The way that memory allocation works chnaged under 2.0. The methods I used
(valid since early 1986) no longer work, so I am told. Who knows, maybe
I'll be able to work on a new one someday (if sales of our other products
hold up so I don't have to scramble for my next rent check!)
pk
This is a great opportunity for you… If VD0: breaks under 2.0, then turn
it into a commercial product right now. You can still sell to the 1.3
crowd, in my opinion. Not everyone knows about the public domain, and
certainly others must be dissatisfied with CBM's RAM disks. (I do a "mount
vd0:" "relabel vd0: ram:" very early in my startup, to prevent theirs from
ever running.) You could add some Intuition-ized generator of the mountlist
entry, and automate the installation process as you did with TAD. Hey,
remember, I gave you the idea, and I told you to sell VD0: a long, long
time ago. 🙂
John,
If I redo the Recoverable Ram Disk…I don't think I'd charge for it.
PK
What do you think of the idea I presented, though? Put it in a simple
package, like Facc II, and add some Intuition-ized utilities for
controlling the size of the RAM disk, and for creating or altering the
Mountlist. I'd love to be able to say that you don't need a text editor to
make a RAM disk. And I'm sure plenty of people haven't ever heard of VD0:,
who could benefit from it. No matter what, you'll do a better job at it
than Commodore will, and people are willing to pay for that.
I could not in good conscience charge money for an RRD after so many people
sent in shareware contributions. It wouldn't be right.
pk
Send a copy to everyone who sent in shareware bucks… the rest of us pay
for it. What's wrong about that?
Charge for a 2.0 compatible version. I sent $20 for VD0: years ago and I'd
pay $30, say $29.95, for a 2.0 version. I know I won't use 2.0 unless I
can have a dynamically-sized RAM disk. — Art
John,
Why would you ask for a upgraded VDO: after hearing that Commodore prefers
that he did not do it? Doesn't make much sense to me.
I like VDO:, but perhaps there are *good* reasons for this wish from
Commodore. Perhaps before deciding Commodore could not possibly do a
better job, you ought to check with them.
You are a developer right? 🙂
-mark=
Commodore's idea of a recoverable ramdisk is RAD:, which I find to be less
than adequate.
-sja
Commodore's rational for asking me not to improve RRD was faulty. They
figured if I didn't improve it, less people would use it as time went
on…which meant that when 2.0 broke it – less people would complain. I
don't think it has worked out this way.
Really, I dream of having enough spare time to devout to programming for
the fun of it (like the old days).
pk
Because Commodore isn't God, and they certainly aren't experts at
marketing? Perry hasn't detailed Commodore's request, and I've never heard
CBM talk about it, so we're both talking about something we don't
understand. I've told Perry I think he should sell VD0:. I told him that
years ago, but he went shareware, and used the publicity to promote ASDG,
which is a valid way of starting a business. I'm sure Perry has reasons
for doing what he's doing, regardless of what CBM thinks. Why did CBM
bother introducing RAD: at all? It didn't surpass Perry's VD0:.
OK, that'll save me some time. Thanks!
— CJC —