Hello, * On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:59:10AM +0100 Groepaz wrote: > the major problem with that approach is that it doesnt work on disks that are > completely filled with data (which isnt really unlikely, lots of cracks and > demos use the dirtrack for files, for example) - which rules it out as a > generic solution. I think another big advantage is that it modifies the data contents themselves. This is something I personally do not want to have. For me, one use of a disk image is to preserve data that was once on a real disk. Here, changing the disk data that should be preserved is no option. Also, someone suggested changing the BAM, because it can be rebuilt by "V"alidate. No, I do not like this, because the BAM contains info, too. There can be an error (accidentially or intentionally) that might serve a purpose. Thus, please, DO NOT MODIFY THE DATA CONTENTS SOMEONE MIGHT WANT TO PRESERVE. I do not like to have it optional, because people will not know about these options, and they might accidentially use it. If people do not like a container format, another option might be to add another file beside the original one. For example, have a file MYSUPERDUPERDISK.d9060 and a meta-file MYSUPERDUPERDISK.d9060.meta (or, if you want to play with ADS on Windows, use MYSUPERDUPERDISK.d9060:meta ;) Regards, Spiro. -- Spiro R. Trikaliotis http://www.trikaliotis.net/ Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2014-01-28 20:01:22
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.