[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 13-sector Disk ][ boot code AND CiderPress on DOS 3.1
- Subject: Re: 13-sector Disk ][ boot code AND CiderPress on DOS 3.1
- From: pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)
- Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 12:12:24 GMT
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
- Organization: Unknown
- References: <KlhPi.6739$4V6.6681@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net> <470e8eeb$0$14134$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net> <GMzPi.4533$y21.1769@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net> <470ff848$0$14132$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
- Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.sys.apple2:4326
In article <470ff848$0$14132$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
Andy McFadden <fadden@fadden.com> wrote:
> Chris Mosher <chris@mosher.mine.nu> wrote:
>> CiderPress will not recognize a freshly initialized 3.1 nibble disk image.
>> The reason, I
>> discovered, is that the 3.1 INIT function doesn't write data fields for
>> sectors that it
>> doesn't have any data for (it only writes address fields).
>
> This is one of those situations where you either have to weaken the
> heuristic to support a rare case, or just not handle a rare case. I
> usually managed to combine a weaker heuristic with some sort of backup
> test, or (for filesystem recognition) use weaker heuristics when manual
> intervention is involved.
>
> The test as written was expecting to work around damaged tracks and sectors
> on formatted disks, and identify which of several encoding schemes was
> used (e.g. Muse sector-number-doubling), and wasn't expecting to find
> partially-formatted DOS 3.1 sectors. I'll add "support for DOS 3.1 sectors"
> to the "to do" list.
>
> The list is long and hasn't shrunk recently, so I'm glad you found a
> workaround. The real fix might involve scoring address and data fields
> separately, with data fields on 13-sector disks being weighted less than
> address fields. (The risk is incorrectly identifying a copy-protected
> disk with valid address fields but altered data fields. We also need to
> see *some* data fields or we won't know if it's supposed to be 5+3 or 6+2.)
If you don't see any data fields at all, you can generally rule out
the 6+2 alternative, because a 6+2 disk almost always has data
fields. And if you see no more than 13 address fields on that track,
you can definitely rule out the 6+2 alternative.....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/