On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Dwight K. Elvey wrote:
> I can understand the need for both raw bit stream and extracted
> data. I propose that it should always include both types of information.
> The raw bits are needed to actually rebuild a particular format
> but often the information in the data is all that one needs to extract.
> In the case of the H8/89, we have working machines to read and write
> the format. We just need the data that fills the sectors. In the case
Sure. You can always take the imagefile and process it into a binary file
that you then upload to the machine.
I am not liking the concept of mixing ASCII and binary.
> of the H8/89, I've written a bootstrap that can be entered through
> the monitor commands. In some cases, the machine has no monitor or
> bootstrapping method. In these cases, it would be necessary to create
> the disk on another machine. Having the raw bits of clock and data
> would then be valuable.
Sure, and this can still be encoded and then decoded on whatever target
machine makes the most sense.
> The disadvantage here is that as newer chips come out, the older
> development boards are obsoleted. Still, having the raw data means
> that one can recreate the disk in the future, with some effort.
I envision that the spec will allow data at the raw bit level to be
encoded as well. The meta tags in the header of the imagefile will then
describe the what the data actually is.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
Received on Wed Aug 11 2004 - 14:19:38 BST