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
> 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 int
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
> 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 SA
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 head
---
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Collier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: 7. záøí 1999 15:04
Subject: Re: SimCoupe 0.783a - ZIP
> On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Aley Keprt wrote:
>
> > > Andrew Collier wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Internally pa
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 diffe
> 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. Th
> > 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 a
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
> 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 u
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, unles
> >> 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 rele
>> 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.
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 o
> 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 Pra
Maria Rookyard wrote:
>You mean like standard rose trees or something?
Just trees. As long as you can swing on them.
--
Stuart Brady
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 stu
> 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!"
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.
>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 u
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 lo
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 me
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 tha
>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.
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 mon
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:
Woul
>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..)
Justin.
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
> > f
> 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...
>
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
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
> "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.
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
> > > > >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 (
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
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 usel
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
> docu
> 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
> 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.
> 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 s
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 discus
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 progra
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
> 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 w
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
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 ag
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, 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 function
> 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
>> 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.
> > 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.
Cle
52 matches
Mail list logo
