Instead of me beating this particular dead horse, I'll turn around and beat the X64 horse awhile. The X64 format has a field for "number of tracks". Was this intended to allow partial disk images, e.g. Tracks 1 thru 18 of a D64, or did it serve some other purpose fantastic or mundane? On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Jim Brain <email@example.com> wrote: > On 1/28/2014 12:09 AM, Groepaz wrote: > >> On Tuesday 28 January 2014, you wrote: >> >>> Still, giving people the option of using the last sector of track 18, >>> for example, which is hardly ever used, or tacking a block onto the end >>> of the image and putting data into that block would sure help matters. >>> >> uw. terrible idea imho. having all these d64 variants that can only be >> distinguished by their file size is terrible enough already. >> > I prefer putting the info block on track 18, personally, which does not > affect size. > > > > >> and yeah, why not use x64? support for it is right there afterall :) >> > I don't know why folks don't use it. But, few do. > > I agree it's a more complete format, but it's not used as much. My idea > of putting this same information on track 18 would add this information to > the image, and has the benefit that folks could "see" if the disk came from > an image when they use a real disk. > > Yeah, I know it "corrupts" the image. complaints to /dev/null > > Jim > > > > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2014-03-24 20:00:03
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.