> On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Aley Keprt wrote:
>
> > I must say again, that I mean internal compression of SAD,
> > which won't compile the file header.
>
> But isn't it easier just to compress the whole thing with zlib?
>
> > I'm author of SAD, so I think I am allowed to make the
> > new version of SAD. SAD has a header, there will be
> > version 2 ID-byte, so any program will see it.
>
> Not so very long ago you were complaining about people making up their own
> file formats.
>
> > ad Microsoft:
> > Not only Word, but many other programs (I use e.g. Corel Draw)
> > declare new file format versions, when NECESSARY.
> > This is normal, programs are developed during a long period
> > and new funcions come each day.
> > If somebody says "Microsoft did new DOC format '97, and no
> > program can read it. It was bad," it is stupid.
> > Microsoft MUST use new format, since it is the first real unicode,
> > which is internationally necessary.
> > ANY software can have newer versions of files, which other programs
> > can read. This is LIFE!
>
> Yes obviously. I didn't say anything different, don't patronise me.
>
> BUT
>
> the new incompatible files should have been given different extensions. If
> somebody gives me a .doc file, I don't know if I can read it or not until
> I waste my time trying. You don't think this situation is bad?
>
> Anyway, a well thought-out file format usually shouldn't need to be
> backwards incompatible. Look at html, for example (Old readers can't
> interpret new features, but they can properly extract all the useful data
> they can handle).
>
> Andrew
>
Okay, you like HTML because it is open?
I don't want to make SAD 20times longer (HTML
is very long). I want to make a compression.
If you don't agree that progress is necessary, and
new "things" cannot be used by old "users", I can't
discuss with you.
If I will make new SAD comaptible with old one (as you mentioned
HTML), I can't compress it. Don't you know?
ad new fileformats:
I really wrote that people whouldn't make new file formats (so
often). Look to music modules. There was MOD, then S3M, IT.
But there are tens of other silly file formats. I worked on
the scene for years and I am confused with it.
Making SAD version 2 is necessary, you can't call it
"making new file format", but just "fixing bugs in SAD v.1".
THe "bug" is the file size. I wrote many times, that I made
SAD a long time ago, when there were neither SimCoupe,
neither its DSK. Of course, DSK was in Linux, but I didn't
know it (nobody knew Linux, when I made SAD).
In addition, DSK is not able to handle all Sam disks.
SAD can handle more types of Sam disks (I use
84 tracks, which is possible on Linux, but SimCoupe doesn't
support 84trk DSK files.)
This is my *final* mail to this topic.
I don't have enough time to read and answer the same stupid
questions ("why have you made SAD") again and again.
---
btw. I haven't found that famous ZLIB yet. Where is it available?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aley [eili] Keprt - student, programmer (multimedia soft. etc.)
phone: +420-68-538 70 35
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** http://get.to/aley
----------------------------------------------------------------
