Re: Need help, 5.25 disks and IIgs

[labelas@hotmail.com (Labelas Enoreth)]

In article <19990817023453.05154.00000247@ng-fn1.aol.com>,
supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:

> labelas@hotmail.com (Labelas Enoreth) wrote:
> 
> >Well, some of the files were copied from a mac onto a prodos disk, but
> >they had been residing on a prodos drive on the mac. Others had been made
> >right on the IIgs. I think a few of them had had improper file types when
> >on the mac, so I used ctc to change them from 'TEXT BINA' to whatever the
> >type was for the disk image, I think it was BINA though not sure, may have
> >just been p<gibberish> and the type to pdos.
> 
> PC Exchange puts a resource fork on files whenever they move
> from HFS to ProDOS.  Even if they are later moved from ProDOS
> to ProDOS, if they had ever been on HFS first and moved with
> PC Exchange, a resource fork will be placed.
Hmm. well, I believe I made them in the IIe environment on the ProDOS
drive directly, no involvment of HFS. (This was when I was using the LC
III with the IIe card in it...I don't think I could have saved the images
to a HFS drive if I wanted to) But, they still had wierd filetypes when
the drive was viewed in the MacOS finder, I think it was BINA/pdos or
something along those lines. And the stuff which I downloaded was
compressed and I then decompressed it on the ProDOS drive, in the IIe
environment. As for the resource forks, I have heard many say this, and I
am not...exactly...arguing....but...I am under the impression that PC
Exchange does _not_ simply add a resource fork to a file when you copy it
to HFS and back. Perhaps it adds some sort of extended information (like
the type/creator and such) but I have yet to experience an actual adding
of a resource fork by the MacOS for simply copying it over, if I did not
modify it in some way. All of the utilities I have still say that it is
purely a single dataforked file. (ResEdit even says "This file has no
resource fork, do you wish to add one?" where if it had an empty resource
fork it would open it...unless it is an Apple II style resource fork, and
different? I have no real experience with gs resource forks) For that one
problem (the error...um, $4B I think? Maybe?) that DOS33LAUNCHER was
giving me I discovered it was simply a case of a bad filetype (so it
didn't know how to launch it or whatever...a proper filetype got rid of
the error, though the disk will still not boot)

> >>      When you consider all of the bother and wasted time due to resource
> >> forks, there is no way whatever advantage they were supposed to offer will
> >> ever come remotely close to compensating. Like most kludges, the resource
> >> fork was a bad idea.
> >
> >Well, if it weren't for the resource fork, mac stuff would probably be a
> >lot less graceful to deal with. And easy to tweak. However, if the IIgs
> >didn't really use it in any meaningful way than perhaps it would have been
> >better off without it. But I know I use ResEdit on my Mac very often.
> 
> The IIGS makes extensive and VERY meaningful use of resource
> forks, thank you.  There are plenty of resource editors on the
> IIGS.  Without resource forks, GS/OS programs will be much
> less graceful.
Well, I wasn't the one who said that. As I said, I have no idea on the GS
resforks...I know that a lot of stuff would be a lot more agonizing
without them though...
  
> >>      Regarding DOS 3.3 Launcher and associated programs like Copier, if you
> >> use a disk image created by some other utility, it must have ProDOS sector
> >> ordering and filetype User#1. Something else which may snag a former IIe
> user
> >> is that you need to use a different version of Copier when you move to the
> >> IIgs.
> >
> >Yeah, I'm using the right version of copier, I redownloaded it to make sure.
> >As for the images, I thought DOS3.3 launcher wanted .do format images? not
> >.po? Well, I'll check again. But I also tried imaging it right there with
> >the copier prog as well...and for the filetype I used the copier utility
> >to set the proper options and it gave it the correct filetype for me.
> 
> DOS 3.3 Launcher wants .po images.  .PO images of DOS 3.3
> or DOS 3.3 compatible (Proto-DOS, etc.) disks.  The DOS 3.3
> Copier produces .po images.
Hm. Well, the disks produced with Copier worked no better than the ones
with DISK2FILE so I'm out of ideas...

Thanks for the help though, and if you have any more ideas or advice...
I'll give it another whirl with some ideas I've had, and at the very least
come back with a detailed description of _how_ it crashes into the monitor
so perhaps someone can shed light on it.