Re: BSCII

[toddpw@blend.ugcs.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)]

rhoover@cap.gwu.edu (Robert Hoover) writes:

>Now I am having a hard time with BSCII. I got a shk versoin and 
>un shrunk it and I have a 40 col piecs of junk program that for
>some reason everyone uses...

Actually no one with a IIgs uses that. However there are really no better
versions out for the 8 bit machines. Dave was working on one at one point,
but it was dropped for reasons I'd rather not mention right now.

>I am runninga  //e with a 3.5 2 5.25 and a ram disk. I have at 
>least 2 files that are larger than the 5.25's and have to be put
>onto the 3.5. Now I was going to do this from my ramdisk to the
>3.5 but I keep getting an error in path or name. i as of yet have
>not gotten any of the smaller programs to un bscii eighter.

BINSCII is much happier if you type full pathnames, because the way in
which it sets the ProDOS prefix is not at all obvious. I gave up trying
to remember how it works and just use full pathnames when I need to use it.

>As a not eto the writer of the program I would sudgest that you 
>update the program some so that ramsidk are useable and a little
>docs would be a bonus.

The author of the original BINSCII was Dave Whitney, who works at Microsoft
now in the MS-Mail group. He wrote BINSCII back when he was a sophomore at
MIT, in about three weeks because he "was just sick to DEATH of Executioner."

BINSCII does not know about the ramdisk, so it can't be messing with it.
Probably you just need to use a full pathname and it will start working.

>Oh another item, why in the hell do systems zip and file tat is 
>already shk and bscii ? This just seams to be a waste of time
>because the files have already been compressed...

I don't know anyone who does this, so I can't offer any enlightenment here. I
agree it's rather pointless..

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ ugcs.caltech.edu