http://www.laughton.com/Apple/meeting.txt



The following document is the minutes for the meeting at 9:00 AM on

October 5, 1978 regarding the current DOS and the DOS for NOTZO 
Basic.
Those present;
Roy Martin (Apple)
Bill Thomas  (Apple)
Dick Huston  (Apple)
Randy Wigginton (Apple)
Paul Laughton (Shepardson)
Kathy O'Brien (Shepardson)
Jef Raskin (Apple)
Please refer to the attached memo of October 4,1978 by Dick Huston

when a bug is referred to by number; i.e., bug #4A.  Refer to the 
second page of the memo when referencing extensions; i.e., 
extension #3.


MINUTES

The meeting started at approximately 9:15.

Bill asked Paul when the bugs listed could be fixed.  Paul 
responded that his work schedule was full for the next 6 months, 
but we would have to consult Bob to be sure.

Next was a bug-by-bug look through the list.  Basically, everyone 
felt all those listed were actual bugs.  There was some controversy 
as to whether bug #1 was or was not actually specified in the 
original spec. Paul felt that bug #1 involved some major rework, 
and was a result of not having a written spec on the DOS.

Nobody who has looked into the DOS is sure why bug #2 exists, 
including Dick, Randy, and Paul.  Paul was not sure how much work 
would be involved in fixing this bug.

Paul felt that bug #3 was trivial and he already knew how to fix 
it. Jef felt strongly that bug #3 was the most objectionable, and 
should be fixed first.  Everyone present seemed to share this view.

Paul said that bugs #6 and #4B are easy to fix.
He also said that bug #4A could be fixed but he was not sure what 
would happen.  Apparently the stack must be reset following an 
error condition, and he could modify the DOS so that the only time 
it reset the stack was when an error condition occurred.

As for bug #5, some controversy arose over whether it was a bug in 
Paul's DOS or in the Apple core routines, or~ even in the state 
machine itself.

At this time, the discussion moved to the extensions/enhancements 
listed on page 2.

Dick stated that most of the items on page 2 are trivial.

Paul questioned the reason for extension #2, and it was stated that 
the user should have the ability to both delete his DOS and to

Both Randy and Paul felt that extension #3 was trivial.

Everybody present exhibited a strong dislike of volume numbers, and 
Paul felt this change would also be very easy.

Paul was unaware of the need for extension #5.  Randy said he could 
provide Paul with a subroutine to acoomplish the necessary task.

Extension #6 was felt to be nice to have but. not terribly important.  
Roy said that in addition to extension~#6A, we should print the 
percent usage of the diskette.

Extension #6B has already been done by Dick.  There was some 
discussion about various methods of implenting extension #6C. 
Everybody felt this capability would be very useful.

Bill felt that a good policy in the DOS would be to not update the 
catalog until a file is closed. Paul said this would be a major 
revision.

Paul said the main problem with our DOS was that our Basics are in
ROM

Paul has recieved questions directly regarding our DOS.  Evidently he 
has been in computer stores, etc. when ~omeone was asking questions 
about the Apple DOS. He also was surprised that we were shipping 
documentation on the Read/Write a track and sector routine.  He felt 
that documentation on interfacing to the file manager portion of the 
DOS was more useful.  Randy pointed out that documentation does not 
exist on the file manager.

Dick said that more documentation from Paul would be very helpful. 
Working without documentation is very difficult.

Bill brought up the point that '1adequate documentation" consisted of 
documentation to the point where one day1s work of programming could 
be reproduced in one day.  He also said that Paul could tape comments, 
and we could type them up in the future.

Paul stated that our contract states that the listing is the extent of 
our documentation.

Bill brought up the point that Apple should only have one route for 
releasing a diskette into production.  Jef agreed that his group 
should have the responsibility.

Paul said that he could spend either3 to 4 days documenting the DOS, 
or he could fix the bugs, and wanted to know which we wanted.

General opinion seemed to be that extensions #6E and #7 are not worth 
doing at present.

At this point, extension #8 was added to the list.  After explaining 
what we anted to Paul, he said it was trivial.


Going back to page 1 to sum up, Dick again emphasized that bugs #2 
and #3 were the most objectionable, and should be fixed first.

Paul still expressed some doubt as to what was causing bug #5, and 
bug #2 was a mystery.

Bill, Randy and Dick all felt obtaining a machine readable source of 
our DOS was the most pressing detail t6 be attended to.  Paul said he 
will get the source to us as soon as possible.

Paul suggested the possibility~of giving us the source in a ma,chine 
readable form, and the changes in handwritten notes.  This was 
acceptable to Bill, Dick, and Randy.  Bill also wanted more complete 
documentation.  Paul said we would have to negotiate a seperate 
contract for documentation.


At this point the discussion turned to the NOTZO Basic DOS.

Bill wanted to know if the DOS going into NOTZO was a change to the 
current DOS. Paul said there was very little change to the present 
DOS.

Jef suggested the possibility of getting rid of volume numbers 
entirely. Everyone present was very pleased with this, and Paul said 
it would simplify the NOTZO DOS.  Jef then suggested getting rid of 
volume numbers in the present DOS.  Most of those present felt this 
was inadvisable.  Bill said we wanted to avoid major revisions to the 
present DOS, and felt we should maintain compatability.

Paul wanted to know whether the file manager portion of the DOS was 
proprietary, and if he could explain to users how to use it. Those 
from Apple felt that it was proprietary, at least until we knew how 
to use it.

Jef said he wanted file and variable names to be of the same syntax, 
in order to save on syntax table size.

Kathy wanted to know if literals for file names must always have 
quotes around them.  Apple agreed that this was a good idea.

Jef said he will come out with a new DOS specification, which would 
have semicolons after the filename and disk drive selection 
parameters.  There was some discussion over whether we should allow 
the disk selection parameters to be in any order or be required in a 
specific order.  Bill, Dick, Randy, and Roy felt it should not be 
required in a specific order.

Kathy brough up the fact that the NOTZO DOS that is spec'ed now is 
above and beyond the original contract, and we would have to 
negotiate a new contract for the DOS portion.  Kathy said that Shep's 
has been asking Apple for a DOS spec for several months.

Noone from Apple was sure what the original spec was for NOTZO



Shep's people said that the original Basic contract included a 
'Tsimple DOS".  Both Kathy and Paul committed to a specification as to 
what a "simple DOS" would entail.

Kathy and Paul were upset that noone at Apple seemed to be the person 
to deal with for NOTZO Basic.  Bill said from now on he will be the 
NOTZO spokesman.  Bill said he would write a letter to Shep to cpnfirm 
this fact.

Kathy and Paul were very distressed over the whole NOTZO Basic 
dealing.

Randy recommended another meeting to settle the NOTZO Basic DOS 
question.  Everyone felt this was acceptable.
update his DOS in case of a future revision.

Basic.

The meeting ended at 10:45 AM.


