Wiki editing discussion

Pagina 67/90
60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72

Van gdx

Prophet (3768)

afbeelding van gdx

20-04-2020, 11:45

You don't understand what I'm writing. I say that SceneTools is enough no need to add a layer. No need to specify these tools as if they were from MSX-DOS. Ie do as we started (M, Multimente, SofaRun, etc in Scenetools section). Describe them as programs from de MSX scene, not as instructions.

Van Grauw

Ascended (9343)

afbeelding van Grauw

20-04-2020, 11:51

mars2000you wrote:
Grauw wrote:

"It's an external MSX-DOS 1 tool created by Stefan Danes."

I think you should remove the word external here.

Ok, It will take less space in the server database Smile

The reason why I say this is because tools are by definition "external". Also the significance of the word external here is not clear to the casual passer-by who happens upon this page (external to what?). As I understand it is to contrast with "built-in command", but we’re already calling this a tool or utility and not a command so no need to add the word external as well.

If you want to indicate that some tool is provided with MSX-DOS2, then I would simply say so; "This tool / utility was included on the MSX-DOS 2.xx system disk." or something along those lines, and then make a topic about the MSX-DOS2 system disk which lists its contents and the tools which were included.

Van gdx

Prophet (3768)

afbeelding van gdx

20-04-2020, 11:51

Sorry if I am difficult to read. There are errors in my messages that I wanted to correct but I can not do it for several days.

Van mars2000you

Enlighted (5699)

afbeelding van mars2000you

20-04-2020, 12:03

gdx wrote:

You don't understand what I'm writing. I say that SceneTools is enough no need to add a layer. No need to specify these tools as if they were from MSX-DOS. Ie do as we started (M, Multimente, SofaRun, etc in Scenetools section). Describe them as programs from de MSX scene, not as instructions.

There's a big difference between the advanced tools you mention (and it can also include MemMan) and the more simple tools that look like external commands. Some of them (CLS and ECHO) are even MSX-DOS 2 internal commands, even if there are differences. The KEY tool is very similar to the KEY instruction in MSX-BASIC.

And it's not an useless new layer. Many people will be interested to find in this category (and later in the MSX-DOS 2 Tools category) many links to the tools for this operating system. All SceneTools are not MSX-DOS 1 and/or 2 Tools!

Van mars2000you

Enlighted (5699)

afbeelding van mars2000you

20-04-2020, 12:00

Grauw, I had understood your opinion about the word 'external' .... I just wanted to add some humor in a too serious discussion Smile

Van gdx

Prophet (3768)

afbeelding van gdx

20-04-2020, 12:41

mars2000you wrote:

There's a big difference between the advanced tools you mention (and it can also include MemMan) and the more simple tools that look like external commands.

The only difference is the complexity of the programs. Simple tools look like external commands but are not really. It's as ambiguous as that because basically DOS (CP/M) was created only to manage the disks. This ambiguity was removed from MS-DOS using EXE files. External commands are commands made with the MSX-DOS and together. The rest are programs some of which can be also called external commands or tools for MSX commander, M, Multimente, etc. but in the wiki, it makes more sense to stay general.

Van mars2000you

Enlighted (5699)

afbeelding van mars2000you

20-04-2020, 12:48

Tools that use the DOS command line to execute a simple or more complicated task. The ambiguity is even in the MSX-DOS 2 reference manual as all commands (internal or external) are explained in the alphabetical order and that the HELP command allows to have on screen the same explanations for all the official commands (internal or external).

At least for ASCII it seems that commands is the appropriate word.

Van gdx

Prophet (3768)

afbeelding van gdx

20-04-2020, 13:02

You will no doubt quickly realize that your table is useless when the tools will are piling up.

In addition to the number of tools, it will be difficult to differentiate between MSX-DOS 1, 2 or Nextor (or all three, or only two of the three) and FAT12 / FAT16 or both, then MSX1, 2 or Turbo R (or all three, or only two of the three).

And then, about 50HZ, 60HZ, MSX2, etc., what can you call those DOS commands?
Your criterion is just: "They are not a complex program so they are MSX-DOS tools"? Are you serious, really?

Van mars2000you

Enlighted (5699)

afbeelding van mars2000you

20-04-2020, 13:09

gdx wrote:

Your criterion is just: "They are not a complex program so they are MSX-DOS tools"? Are you serious, really?

You are not serious, I've added the appropriate category for the 4 advanced tools mentioned before + a note about MemMan in the DOS 1 Tools page.

Of course, I will update the table, I don't think it's your problem.

Van gdx

Prophet (3768)

afbeelding van gdx

20-04-2020, 13:13

You don't want to hear anything so wait a few days and I'll show you that your table is a stupid idea. Wink

Pagina 67/90
60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72