Re: EDD Plus Project

["Charlie" <charlieDOTd@verEYEzon.net>]

"Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote in message 
BfqdncGNQfVcSRbanZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@comcast.com">news:BfqdncGNQfVcSRbanZ2dnUVZ_uqvnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Charlie wrote:
>> "sicklittlemonkey" <Nick.Westgate@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>> ecc64a46-bbb1-4b0c-9bdf-e4b8d69d465f@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com">news:ecc64a46-bbb1-4b0c-9bdf-e4b8d69d465f@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>On Jan 14, 12:26 pm, "Charlie" <charlieD...@verEYEzon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Could such a system create FDIs?
>>>
>>>Possibly, but the actual format itself is not so important. If the
>>>data is equivalent it can be converted from one format to the other.
>>>Personally I prefer a format that is hack-friendly. Regular Disk II
>>>data bytes interspersed with obvious meta-data bytes for example.
>>>
>>>I have nothing against the FDI format except that it requires a fairly
>>>specialized setup and closed source software. Installing an extra
>>>Apple II card (EDD+ or similar) would seem to align better with the
>>>interests of most Apple II enthusiasts.
>>
>>
>> Actually, I agree with you for the most part.  Having an Apple ][ 
>> centered way to make true duplicates of protected disks would be my 
>> preferred method as well but I'd like to see the images as FDIs if that 
>> is possible.  My reason is that we would then have two different means of 
>> producing the images.  The already available disk2fdi system and the as 
>> yet to be invented Apple ][ system.
>>
>> If the EDD+ / ADTPro / AppleWin or some such Apple ][ system ever becomes 
>> a reality there will probably be a rather small amount actually running. 
>> While that number may be more than disk2fdi systems why shut out those 
>> systems by making yet another format?
>
> That's my concern, as well.  Why invent yet another format when
> at least some support already exists for a satisfactory one?
>
> BTW, I have seen protected disks which can only be represented
> as bit streams, in the sense that there are "nibbles" with their
> high bits *off* (that can be written but not read by a Disk ][
> Controller).
>
> This protection scheme relied upon the bit stream being able to
> be read two different ways, depending on precisely when the state
> machine was reset!

Wow! That's a new one on me.  Do you remember what programs used this 
protection?

Charlie