Defending the ADFS
by Steven Flintham (15A)
Prompted by the "Please recycle"
article last issue, I would like to
attempt to defend the ADFS. Firstly,
the storage capacity issue. Yes, I
admit, disks are quite cheap now, but
it is important to remember that this
isn't the whole story. If you are
writing a program which needs large
data files, you can't switch disks over
in the middle of a file - it has to be
on one disk. Also, if you only have low
capacity drives (like me), the 160k on
ADFS compared with 100k on DFS is like
a miracle. And, being a bit lazy, I
much prefer having as much on each disk
as possible, rather than having to
rummage through a disk box. (Call me
ahead of my time, but having to do that
sort of thing seems a bit antiquated in
today's technological society!)
Secondly, the
"files-lost-in-directories" issue.
Personally, I don't find this to be
much of a problem at all, but that
could be because I organise my disks
differently to everyone else - but it's
not likely. As far as I'm concerned,
there are two main "types" of disks on
a home computer system. There are those
which contain completed software and
associated files - disks full of games,
disks holding wordprocessors and their
files etc - and those on which programs
are being developed. On the first type,
there is often no need to divide into
directories - just because the facility
is there, you don't have to use it.
Even if you do use it, (on a
wordprocessor disk, for instance, to
keep the printer drivers/segment
programs away from the documents) there
will usually only be one directory
accessed on a regular basis (the
documents directory, in this case), so
as long as the !Boot file leaves you in
this directory, it's quite hard to lose
a file.
On the second type of disk, I tend to
create directories in the root for each
program on the disk (I tend to start
developing something in a fit of
excitement, hit a problem and leave it
for a while, so it's not really
practical to use a disk for each) and
then just stay in that directory. Once
again, as long as you remember to set
the directory initially, it's hard to
lose files - and if you do forget,
there IS the CATALL program. However, I
can't remember the last time I lost any
files so badly I had to use it.
However, I will admit that ADFS does
have some disadvantages - the COMPACT
command is rather annoying, as is the
lack of a format and verify built into
the ROM. However, the latter are not
required all that frequently, and if
you have sideways RAM to spare, my ADFS
Utilities ROM solves the first problem
(plug, plug!).
Altogether, though, I do prefer the
ADFS to DFS - certainly the Acorn DFS
at any rate. With a third-party DFS
such as the Watford DFS, the gap is
much narrower, and if I was not using a
Master the DFS would win easily, simply
because it takes significantly less
user RAM.
0E7 (Fred Nevin) adds the following
comments:
I have always used ADFS. I only use
disks in DFS if received as such
therefore I am a comparative stranger
to this storage system. I have always
used ADFS ever since I first managed to
purchase a Disk Drive and put my Data
Recorder into retirement. Only recently
have I come to grips with DFS, having
to do some shuffling of programs, and
have learnt one or two things, a lot of
which reflected my lack of knowledge on
how the system operates. It is very
similar to ADFS but with subtle
differences in the commands and one
tends to automatically use ADFS
commands and then sit in front of the
VDU for five minutes or so wondering
why nothing has happened.
Working on the old axiom "if you can't
beat them join them" makes me think I
have a sneaking agreement for quite a
lot of the things Chris says, but on
reflection I can categorically bring to
mind what to me is the greatest
advantage of ADFS over DFS, that is the
number of files that can be stored
under ADFS as opposed to DFS. This
became very clear when shuffling files
from ADFS to DFS. Of course the answer
is to have a good Utility to keep track
of all your Directories and Files on
disk.
Editor: In my own opinion the ADFS is
very much superior; on an 80T DS drive
you get 240K extra on a disk and that
is a lot. Certainly as far as using
word-processors go, all my letters etc.
go on a single disk, and that includes
entire 8BS disk magazines,
questionnaire results, letters to PD
libraries, address database programs
and label printers, personal
correspondance, Play-by-Mail game
letters (LOTS of them), etc. After all,
640K is 100,000 words of text and that
is a fair number (Though I do use it
all and it runs out very quickly if
used unwisely. I doubt I could cope
with all that lot under DFS).
I don't do any rummaging through disk
boxes to find something; if every
directory in the $ is labelled with
what's in it, (or in the case of
programming, one project in each
directory, as Steven says), you CAN see
the total contents of a disk in one go;
and no "*.2" needed either. A logically
organised ADFS disk (no more than a
dozen entries per directory except for
a good reason, like it was copied
straight from DFS) is an awful lot
easier to understand than a list of 31
horrible little seven-letter filenames.
So I have one disk for letters etc.,
one for my own programming (I doubt
I'll fill 640K very quickly since I
delete abandoned projects), two for
utilities (about fifty programs on
each, maybe more), and 2-3 more for
games (you can get about thirty
full-size commercial games on an ADFS L
disk, just about).
Of course all my PD for distribution is
on DFS 80T DS, since everyone else uses
this, but I wish it wasn't; I'd be
using about one-third the number of
disks, and it'd take a lot less time to
copy.
Of course if you can get disks for free
(some people have all the luck) then it
is less important, and I suppose an
organised directory structure is not
vital if you're recording large sound
samples, but it still seems a waste.
Apart from aything else, you can't use
wildcards to load things, which would
slow me down a fair bit.
To add one final point, the ADFS
versions of 8BS have been very popular
among Master users (I admit the Beeb
lacks the necessary RAM for efficient
operation), and I don't think anyone
has requested a return to DFS.