Re: GS/OS for xgs emulator?

[Rob <roberta@inreach.com>]

Dan Yertzell wrote:
> 
> MikeW50 <mikew50@aol.com> wrote in article
> <19970312155300.KAA02536@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> > In message <01bc2e89$b89e2360$c95092cf@system1>,
> > Dan Yertzell <Dan-Yertzell@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >So many problems could have been avoided if Apple had followed the
> > standard
> > >for disk drives and formats, instead of going their own way.
> >
> > Excuse me: a point of history. Apple's 3.5" disks came first. Their
> format
> > came first. There was nothing for them to follow.
> 
> That's not what I'm talking about.  Where Apple failed to follow the
> standard is in their *analog* disk recording method.  Everyone else
> (mainframes, minis, micros) was using digital recording methods.  This is
> why a PC can directly read a TRS-80 disk, even though the formatting is
> different.  You just program the PC disk controller to read a different
> format, but it is still MFM encoded.  This is also why a standard PC disk
> drive will never be able to read an apple disk.  An apple disk is
> essentially a random access cassette tape, ie an analog medium, not a
> digital medium.
> 
> But this is all ancient history.
> 
> Dan
Standard?  Your talking about a time when there where over a half dozen
different computer formats (IBM, Apple, Commodore, TSR-80, Atari, etc.) 
To come out with something that didn't follow the "standard" was kind of
the standard back then.  To come out with a disk that would be readable
on another computer, 10 years later, was not the most important thing on
Apples' mind at the time.  Who knows, if things had turned out
differently, you could be making statements about how IBM didn't follows
Apple's standard for recording floppy disk.