Andrew Collier wrote:
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?
But the difference with the SAD (v2) is its just
Message -
From: Andrew Collier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no
Sent: 7. záøí 1999 15:04
Subject: Re: SimCoupe 0.783a - ZIP
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Aley Keprt wrote:
Andrew Collier wrote:
Internally packed SAD is still a SAD.
It's a compressed sad -- the user *needs* to know
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
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Aley Keprt wrote:
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?
This is my *final*
btw. I haven't found that famous ZLIB yet. Where is it available?
The zlib home page is http://www.cdrom.com/pub/infozip/zlib/
The official zlib ftp site is ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/pub/infozip/zlib/
--
Paul
Of course Wales has the ability to govern itself, any country has,
and Wales has more
Andrew Collier wrote:
Surely it is better to have different extensions for distinguishable file
types.
It is.
[snip]
No no no, the filename extension should be meaningful to the user (as
well
as to the computer, if the computer takes any notice of it anyway).
Yep. That's the
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Aley Keprt wrote:
Andrew Collier wrote:
Internally packed SAD is still a SAD.
It's a compressed sad -- the user *needs* to know this.
Again: Compressed SAD is still a SAD.
Again: Oh no it isn't. the user *needs* to be able to see, at a glance,
the difference
On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 09:44:25PM +0100, Stuart Brady wrote:
Not releasing the source code when developing is something that simply
isn't done with OSS. Until now, anyway.
I don't think you are right. Rare it might be, but I bet it still happens.
In fact, you may be aware that a few months
Not releasing the source code when developing is something that simply
isn't done with OSS. Until now, anyway.
I don't think you are right. Rare it might be, but I bet it still happens.
I *know* it still happens, because I'm doing it (currently) with Hurricane.
The fact that no-one's asked
Andrew Collier wrote:
Surely it is better to have different extensions for distinguishable file
types.
It is.
[snip]
No no no, the filename extension should be meaningful to the user (as well
as to the computer, if the computer takes any notice of it anyway).
Yep. That's the standard way of
I don't think the long filename should be a problem - how many people
still use DOS outside of Windows95/98/NT any more?
How many people still use the old machine known as a SAM Coupe?
And just as soon as somebody compiles SimCoupe for the Sam Coupe, that
question might become relevant.
I don't think the long filename should be a problem - how many people
still use DOS outside of Windows95/98/NT any more?
How many people still use the old machine known as a SAM Coupe?
And just as soon as somebody compiles SimCoupe for the Sam Coupe, that
question might become relevant.
Paul Walker wrote:
Either way, the answer is more than you'd think. I'm with whoever
suggested .saz, since it follows the .tar.gz - .taz (or .tgz) example. Or
provide two versions of the file, or .. oh sod it, use long filenames. Who
cares anyway?
You should be able to use either, unless of
Paul Walker wrote:
Either way, the answer is more than you'd think. I'm with whoever
suggested .saz, since it follows the .tar.gz - .taz (or .tgz) example. Or
provide two versions of the file, or .. oh sod it, use long filenames. Who
cares anyway?
You should be able to use either,
I don't think the long filename should be a problem - how many people
still use DOS outside of Windows95/98/NT any more?
How many people still use the old machine known as a SAM Coupe?
Paul
--
Luck is my middle name, said Rincewind, indistinctly. Mind you, my first
name is Bad.
-- Terry
Well, if anyone can send me a Mode 3, Mode 1, Mode 2 and Mode 4 screenshot
as PC files, I'm sure I can come up with a converter program
Thanks,
Simon
Stuart Brady wrote:
You are always able to read the contents of an archive, so it can have
any
extension, but I
really preffer hte original one (packed SAD will be still SAD).
IMHO, you shouldn't have the same extension for the compressed image and
for the uncompressed image...
Also,
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Aley Keprt wrote:
You are always able to read the contents of an archive, so it can have
any
extension, but I
really preffer hte original one (packed SAD will be still SAD).
IMHO, you shouldn't have the same extension for the compressed image and
for the
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Justin Skists wrote:
I don't think the long filename should be a problem - how many people
still use DOS outside of Windows95/98/NT any more?
I do!
(Then again, I'm a multi-platform software engineer..)
In that case, I'll rephrase the question slightly:
Would it be
Andrew Collier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In that case, I'll rephrase the question slightly:
Would it be likely to cause a problem if future versions of SimCoupe were
to require long filename support in the hose operating system?
Probably make Simcoupe unusable duing the hot summer months
In that case, I'll rephrase the question slightly:
Would it be likely to cause a problem if future versions of SimCoupe were
to require long filename support in the hose operating system?
Only if I get to drive the fire-engine! :)
Seriously, I've no problems with that...
Justin.
From: Nick Humphries [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Correction:
I thought DOS systems viewed long file names as wibble~1.zip or whatever? If
so,
then so long as the files required in the emulator program itself are in 8.3
format, the sight of ~1 would be ugly, but the file would still be useable.
I meant
From: Andrew Collier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Justin Skists wrote:
I don't think the long filename should be a problem - how many people
still use DOS outside of Windows95/98/NT any more?
I do!
(Then again, I'm a multi-platform software engineer..)
In that case, I'll
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Nick Humphries wrote:
Would it be likely to cause a problem if future versions of SimCoupe were
to require long filename support in the hose operating system?
s/hose/host
I thought DOS systems viewed long file names as wibble~1.zip or whatever? If
so,
then so long as
Yes, although I don't know how well this particular system would cope with
a filename containing two dots, like wibble.dsk.gz
wibble~1.gz
(I just tried it)
Anyway I thought in DOS mode under Win95 and Win98 you could use long
filenames transparently - or maybe that was only in NT? I don't use
From: Justin Skists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyway I thought in DOS mode under Win95 and Win98 you could use long
filenames transparently - or maybe that was only in NT? I don't use very
Windows much, you can probably tell...
DOS prompt, you can.. but DOS programs treat them with the twiddles..
Good,
I don't think the long filename should be a problem - how many people
still use DOS outside of Windows95/98/NT any more?
I do! :)
Wow, it seems to my day for arguing with you, doesn't it, Andrew?
*grins*
--
James R Curry - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Balloon Doggies DEMANDED it!
Aley Keprt wrote:
[snip]
I think Aley's just said what I *meant* to say. :-) Sorry.
Do you all know why we still talk about op.systems, instead of SimCoupe?
Since Si works on his own. That's the problem.
If Si will stop working on his own, we can stop talking about this strange
Microsoft stuff,
Maria Rookyard wrote:
You mean like standard rose trees or something?
Just trees. As long as you can swing on them.
--
Stuart Brady
The way I see it, Aley doesn't want to make any new file formats that
people don't like. Aley's also discussing the type of compression to be
used before implementing it. Aley added sad support, but there's
absolutely nothing wrong with adding support for a file format which was
written when
Stuart Brady wrote:
I do, however, urge Si Owen to release the code, no matter how buggy or
incomplete it is. I was under the impression that he was waiting until
he'd got the basics working first, but he seems to be well past that
stage, if he's thinking about disk image formats. Have you got
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Stuart Brady wrote:
1. He's still working on it.
He really should consider releasing the source code whilst he's working
on it, so that the Linux and DOS versions have a chance to catch up.
I notice you didn't mention the MacOS version
Anyway, as we have discussed
From: Stuart Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Simon Cooke wrote:
He might be attempting to make the win32 version better than the others?
SO WHAT?
Oh no... that's a Microsoft tactic, isn't it, so there /can't/ be
anything wrong with it...
Innovation is a good thing. Speaking as a programmer, I know
Stuart Brady wrote:
1. He's still working on it.
He really should consider releasing the source code whilst he's working
on it, so that the Linux and DOS versions have a chance to catch up.
We (DOS/Linux) are already LOST! :-(
I think Si could release a beta version (with or without
Stuart Brady wrote:
I do, however, urge Si Owen to release the code, no matter how buggy or
incomplete it is. I was under the impression that he was waiting until
he'd got the basics working first, but he seems to be well past that
stage, if he's thinking about disk image formats. Have you
From: Andrew Collier [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4. The only person who knows what he's doing on it is Simon himself.
That's the problem. At least a todo list and some changelogs would be
better than nothing.
Personally I'd rather he spend time coding, than writing up useless
documantation.
From: Stuart Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. He's still working on it.
He really should consider releasing the source code whilst he's working
on it, so that the Linux and DOS versions have a chance to catch up.
So you're saying that people write bug-free code the first time they write
it?
From: Aley Keprt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Stuart Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. He's still working on it.
He really should consider releasing the source code whilst he's working
on it, so that the Linux and DOS versions have a chance to catch up.
So you're saying that people write bug-free
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Aley Keprt wrote:
4. The only person who knows what he's doing on it is Simon himself.
That's the problem. At least a todo list and some changelogs would be
better than nothing.
Personally I'd rather he spend time coding, than writing up useless
4. The only person who knows what he's doing on it is Simon
himself.
That's the problem. At least a todo list and some changelogs would
be
better than nothing.
Personally I'd rather he spend time coding, than writing up useless
documantation. And (I'm playing devil's
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Aley Keprt wrote:
%!$$ * Aley - look at the context. I'm not talking about documented
code, I'm talking about a todo list and some changelogs which _you_ were
asking for.
What? Stuart Brady was asking, not me.
Sorry, you're right, it was Stuart who asked for the
Go and get DOS because it's the right STANDARD -- if we listened
to that sort of advice, we'd all be living in trees.
You mean like standard rose trees or something?
Maria.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aley Keprt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
You are always able to read the contents of an archive, so it can have any
extension, but I
really preffer hte original one (packed SAD will be still SAD).
IMHO, you shouldn't have the same extension for the compressed image and
Then how do you explain the following in SimCoupe's fdi.h:
#define SAD_FORMAT_ID Aley's disk backup
SAD is *OLDER* than SimCoupe and [EMAIL PROTECTED], so I couldn't discuss it.
Clear?
That's fair enough...
No problem.
I just said I don't want to make any new stadrards as Si does.
That's
Si, on the other hand, has modified the dsk format without telling
anyone (and I really hope he hasn't done anything else). All I have to
say is: get the basics working first, then add the extra functionality
*AFTER* you've released the source code. I really hoped Si wouldn't do
this, but it
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Stuart Brady wrote:
I'm wondering how good a zip/tar.gz format would be for a disk -- i.e,
storing the actual files, and not a plain image of the disk. There's
probably little point if you're going to gzip it anyway. It would
involve replacing SamDOS/MasterDOS functions
From: Stuart Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Then again, Windows programmers are all alike -- they've got no respect
for other platforms. DOS programmers are about as bad, too: Go and get
DOS because it's the right STANDARD -- if we listened to that sort
of advice, we'd all be living in trees.
On Tue, Jul 13, 1999 at 07:34:01PM -0700, Simon Cooke wrote:
The current format has no concept of sector
addressing, it doesn't know about different length sectors.
I was under the impression that the format used for Amstrad disks could do
that. Bickbow. Then
Simon Cooke wrote:
He might be attempting to make the win32 version better than the others?
SO WHAT?
Oh no... that's a Microsoft tactic, isn't it, so there /can't/ be
anything wrong with it...
If you're wondering what I'm babbling on about, it might happen to have
something to do with an OS
since we must discuss the fileformat at first. (I don't want to make my
own standards as Si does.)
Then how do you explain the following in SimCoupe's fdi.h:
#define SAD_FORMAT_ID Aley's disk backup
SAD is *OLDER* than SimCoupe and [EMAIL PROTECTED], so I couldn't discuss it.
Clear?
Aley Keprt wrote:
Si Owen still haven't released anything, so here is anothrer DOS version.
That's because Si Owen has only just returned from holiday - I've not even
had a chance to catch up on the SAM users list yet!
snip
since we must discuss the fileformat at first. (I don't want to make
51 matches
Mail list logo
