Hola Levente, > > I'm still a bit unclear on the purpose of this scheme. While I certainly > > appreciate the technical merits, my question relates to the practical uses > > of the scheme. So, let's say that after a long development time it works > > 100% perfectly: > > > > 1) Who is going to use it? > > 2) What are they going to use it for? > > I think your questions come from your nationality. ...No, I don't blame > you. It's simply because you Americans use your C64's and other > equipments in a lot more standard way than us Europeans do. Heh heh, I don't know about _that_ :). I think "standard" on the 64 is synonymous with "it works". > However, I'm, like you, just a person with my own thoughts and aims. > Since the programs I use don't work with some incompatible hw, I don't > like these hw's either. If I have just one chance to both use a HDD with > a good organized directory structure, plus substitute tons of disks and > being _still able to run the programs without additional copying > overhead, I try to do so. ...Well, these are just my thoughts. Other > > What kind of software are we talking about here? Games are all I can think > > of that need a disk image. > > And demos. And basically _all European C64+1541 custom software. There > are a lot, you can bet. (The reason is simple: they do their job better > than programs utilizing standard routines). So, if I may paraphrase you somewhat, your answer to my questions is that the .d64 feature would provide a means for 64 users with lots of floppies -- in particular custom floppies -- to keep them organized on a hard drive, instead of sitting in stacks in the house (in essence, to archive disk collections). Is that a reasonable summary? > Again, what you're talking about, is the American Commodore user > majority. I can assume, you're right in the US, but the European user > has definitely no 1581 and/or CMD drives, does not use his C64 for > "work" at all, and indeed uses a lot of C64+1541 dependent features. Well, perhaps, but I'm thinking in large part of myself. Currently I have a 128D and an FD-2000. Lately I have been thinking of getting a hard drive. I use my 128 for development, demos, and some games from time to time. The FD can create 1541 partitions, but I never use them. I tried once, as I thought they'd be useful, but soon stopped using them. Most of the useful software I had on floppies (utilities, assemblers, etc.) could just be file-copied onto a larger partition. Games can work, but I find that I usually restrict my attention to a few games at a time (and hence only have a few floppies out at a time), and it was just as convenient to run from the 5.25 floppy. A more serious drawback is that only single-sided disks can be effectively used. The reasons I'd like a hard drive are to keep stuff organized (the obvious reason), but also to make downloading easier. Currently I download to a 1581 disk on an Amiga (using c1581). It would be much more convenient if I could copy the programs I want to keep onto the hard drive; currently I have a bunch of 1581 floppies lying around, which is disorganized and wasteful of disks. Finally, I also like the idea of having my most-useful programs "at my fingertips" -- currently the assembler is on one disk, the utility programs on another disk, etc. This brings another point which I feel is worth mentioning: although I have tons of floppies with utility programs, I find that only a small number of them are really useful. And as I said earlier, they can just be filecopied. So I've found it useful to collect all the useful utilities in one place (as opposed to having every single utility I own in one place). I certainly think the .d64 idea would be useful with demos (and games). I often discard a program if it is !zipped, simply because it requires effort to unzip (and uses up a floppy). With a second drive I might have to try 1541 partitions again, but a straight .d64 read would be useful. But either method is still stuck with single-sided programs. Of course, for NTSC people there's the additional aspect that any trackloader PAL demo will fail anyways. I also have to think that getting things like the timing to work exactly right in the hardware will be incredibly difficult (although maybe you're thinking about using an old 1541 board). > emulators, I like to try C64 programs on a real C64). I suppose, the > interfaced HDD will also be once hooked to PC's, making it possible to > share files. > > Then if so, your work of sharing complete disk data is very simple. You > simply copy the disk image files to the CBM Hdd and it's done. There are Yes, I agree, it would be very convenient in these cases. > no troubles creating and filling new partitions. It's as simple as it > just could be. Unlike partitions, from the viewpoint of the HDD's OS you > can handle these images just like any regular files. That's why I prefer > using disk image files for emulation. > > Also, that's why I don't want to create own commands like CP. Why to > create inconsistences, if we indeed have a lot others to solve? Well, you're already creating commands like "CD" :). To answer your question, though, it helps to keep things more organized. I would guess that (like mine) your home PC is organized into different partitions, instead of just one great big partition with lots of subdirectories. In the case of the 64, I don't know that it's a big deal either way. > > For myself, I'm trying to imagine what I would use these features, or more > > generally this hard drive, for, given what I currently use my 64 for. > > Hmmm, seems like you're satisfied with your peripherals. Well, not completely, as outlined above. My concern is that this type of feature will be less-useful than supposed (perhaps not, though). Moreover, since it seems to be a rather difficult and time-consuming effort, I am also concerned that it would either delay the project for a long time, or perhaps cause it to never get finished. There are an awful lot of Big Programs for the 64 that are quietly gathering dust. As I stated earlier, I find that I do not use the 1541-emulation capabilities of my current FD, because alternate methods provide a better solution. I use the FD in a very standard way -- plain old load and save -- and find it to be an extremely useful perhipheral (of course, JiffyDOS makes it much easier to use and reasonably fast). I do not know if I am representative of 64 users in general -- perhaps someone out there uses 1541 partitions all the time, for example. So what's more useful? A big, ultra-compatible, ultra-sophisticated and configurable setup? Or a simple but usable scheme? I don't know; that's the question I'm asking. I lean towards simple and usable, though, and I think it perhaps more in the spirit of the 64. > Once again, these are just _my thoughts. Well of course :) > I know, I follow them, but you > and all _YOU people have an option to make me stop doing that. Hmmm, no need to stop you from having thoughts and ideas :). -Steve - This message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list. To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe | mail cbm-hackers-request@dot.tcm.hut.fi.
Archive generated by hypermail 2.1.1.