Re: Is ProDOS supported in OSX?

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <j0HRa.16476$EZ2.13168@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
Michael Pender <mpender@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
> Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote in message
> news:bf5t9q$1hks$1@merope.saaf.se...
>> In article <ehgRa.10802$kI5.677@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
>> M. Pender <mpender@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> and stopped from deteriorating with little pain other than the
>>>> actual time involved to actually do the process.
>>>
>>> That's *still* a lot of pain.
>>
>> OK, if you don't think your old data isn't worth the time to copy
>> it to newer media, then it cannot be worth much.  NASA had a different
>> view than you, and did take their time copying their old tapes to newer
>> media.
> 
> You're missing my point--the value of the data isn't at issue.
 
If the value of the data is uninteresting, why bother storing the data
at all?
 
> Its that the cost of the *labor* to load all the old data and copy
> it to new media is going to *far* exceed any savings from reducing
> the amount of physical space occupied by the 9 track tapes.
 
So you claim -- did you throw any figures on this backing up your claim?
These figures should include estimates of the cost of the data transfer,
and the cost of the additional storage needed to store 9-track magnetic
tapes vs the equivalent amount of data on CD-ROM's or DVD's.
 
 
> The mean lifespan of a CDROM or DVD isn't significantly different than
> that of 9 track tape.
 
I don't know about that.  Try to leave a CD and a 9-track tape
outside for several months, no matter what the weather's like
(strong sunshine, heavy rain, perhaps even snow).  Which one of
the two do you think will be most easily readable after such a
treatment?
 
But physical lifetime isn't at issue here really.  It's rather the
"logical lifetime" which is at issue: how long will readers for the
medium continue to be available?  And if it gets unavailable at
some point, how much does it cost to maintain your own obsolete
reader in order to be able to read your obsolete media?
 
Finally, you're missing the most important point when you say:
 
# You're missing my point--the value of the data isn't at issue.
 
The reason we bother to store these media at all is the value of the
data, isn't it?  To ensure against data loss due to slow spontaneous
self-destruction of our media, the data must be copied onto new media
regularly.  If the most cost effective new media turned out to be
9-track tapes, then the data should be copied from the old 9-track
tapes to the new 9-track tapes at least once every 20 years or so.
Which means we won't save the labor cost of copying onto new media
anyway....
 
 
>>> By your argument I should copy my 3.5" DSDD floppies to 3.5" DSHD
>>> floppies because a new format is out
>>
>> You don't need to do that each and every time a new format is released
>> of course.  But when support for your older media becomes scarse, or
>> when the media itself ages too much, then it's time to copy it to newer
>> media.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
>>> because Apple is too brain-dead to maintain compatibility with older
>>> media formats on the new machines?
>>
>> Yelling about Apple being brain-dead won't help you.  And the GCR
>> format was a dead-end anyway, since the rest of the microcomputer
>> industry went MFM for their floppies -- and media compatibility
>> between different kinds of systems are a Good Thing.  That's why
>> Apple had to give up GCR disks.
> 
> Dude, chill--I'm not yelling.
 
OK, you didn't write in capital letters ... my apologies... :-)
 
> I agree that media compatibility between different kinds of
> systems is a good thing.
> 
>>> To me that's just an argument for buying a used Mac as opposed
>>> to a new one.
>>
>> OTOH it's a lot of pain to have to maintain a lot of old hardware
>> just because you don't want to move your old files on to newer
>> media.  No, one old Mac is of course not "a lot of old hardware",
>> but if you us ethis logic for another few decades, you will
>> probably end up with numerous pieces of old hardware.
> 
> Its hardly "painful" to buy a Powermac for ~$15 and have it available
> so I can transfer files from my Apple II to my PC, or out onto the web.
 
As long as it works it's OK.  But what if it stops working?  How do you
intend to repair it then?
 
My own old Apple II is getting flakier and flakier.  My only remaining
40-track disk drive no longer works, so now I only have 80-track disk
drives working - which means I cannot write 40-track disks such that
they are easily readable by other 40-track drives.  But getting that
Apple II to start at all gets harder, and usually invilves removing
and re-inserting several expansion cards, cables, and sometimes some
chips as well.  However, it won't matter that much if it fails
permanently some day, because now I've transferred everything I
possibly could want to use into newer media, either as .DSK images
or as individual files.
 
>>> So then should I transfer all my old files to Zip disk?  Or CDROM?
>>
>> Yep -- that medium is very widespread and will probably be easily
>> accessible for at least another decade or so.  CDROM-only readers
>> are on their way out, but all DVD readers can read CDROM disks as
>> well.
> 
> I agree with much of what you said in concept, but there's still a
> question of degree.  An average user can't make a reliable guess
> as to which media formats are likely to survive versus which are
> going to be left behind almost immediately.
 
Predicting the future is of course hard, but even the average user
can remain alert and notice when a particular medium he uses seems
to fall out of use.  When that happens, it's time to copy the data
you don't want to lose onto newer media.
 
My wife wrote a PhD thesis in 1983-1985, using a MicroBee computer as
a word processor, bought specifically for that purpose.  Floppy
drives were then still quite expensive, so she stored the text on
cassette tapes (!).  But soon she borrowed someone else's MicroBee
and transferred the tape contents to MicroBee CP/M disks.  These
disks were MFM disks, but were a bit special - they could store 400K
on 40-track double sided disks while e.g. the IBM PC only stored 360K
on such disks.  Anyway, some years later I found a PC utility which
was able to read (and also write and format) some 400 different CP/M
formats (Apple II CP/M was not among these of course, since GCR disks
cannot be read on the PC), and using that I transferred her files to
PC disks.  Since then they've made it to an archive CD.
 
> My view is that Apple goofed in failing to offer media compatibility
> to the previous generation of computers, that is, the standard 3.5"
> drive.  I don't expect them to offer backward compatibility to
> previous generations (e.g. 8" disks, Hollerith cards, etc.).
 
Didn't Apple have a few generations of Macintoshes where the 3.5"
floppy could handle both GCR and MFM disks?  If you're an owner of
such a system, why not convert your GCR disks to MFM disks?
 
You say "Apple goofed" --- well, that's open to interpretation.  They
certainly made you disappointed.  However, Apple would probably have
lost money if they continued to provide GCR support to those very few
who still wanted it --- and that would probably be considered a
"goof" by other people who aren't interested in GCR disks.
 
>> Now, if you were buying a new computer, would you accept that it was,
>> say, $50 more expensive just because it supported some old media
>> format which you never would use and perhaps didn't even know existed?
>> I don't think so.... :-)
> 
> If I were buying a new computer, I would pay $50 for the ability to
> read all of my old software, documents, etc. on it.
 
Sure, but would you want to pay for the ability to read old software/etc
you don't have and aren't interested in?
 
> It could be offered as an option, such as a USB 3.5" drive so that
> people who don't want to pay the $50 don't have to.
 
So then we would have a MFM-only USB 3.5" drive for some price, and a
MFM+GCR-capable USB 3.5" drive for $50 more.  Guess which one would
sell best?  I believe the MFM+GCR drive would sell so bad that Apple
would be forced to raise its price to perhaps $500 or more, or else
they'd lose money on it.  And then NOBODY would buy it....
 
> The 3.5" drive is a standard format used for ~15 years
> on 90%+ of the computers out there.
 
The drive itself isn't the problem - any 3.5" _drive_ can be used
for either MFM or GCR.  The drive is merely the "tape recorder".
 
The problem is the disk controller chip, and the fact that GCR is NOT
a standard low-level disk format.  GCR was invented for the Apple II
in order to NOT have to buy one of those very expensive disk
controllers available back then, but instead be able to do the
low-level bit shufflings using some simple logic chips plus a state
machine ROM.
 
>> But talking about "idiocy" or "stupidity" won't help you.  So
>> you have three choices:
> 
> I don't expect "talking" about it to accomplish anything at all.
> Rather, I voted with my feet and bought myself a PC, and another
> PC, and another PC, etc.
 
As a matter of fact, I did too .... never liked that a GUI was forced
upon you on the Lisa and Macintosh.  Now GUI's are ubiqutous of course
and I've gotten used to them, but I still want the option of a command
line when I want one.  Interestingly, Mac OS X seems to have revived
the command line, or at least its presence for anyone who wants it,
on Apple computers.
 
>> 1. Move the data to newer media.  Maybe not ALL your old data, but
>> those data you don't want to lose.
> 
> Done that; I moved my 3.5" floppies to CD.
> 
>> 2. Keep and maintain a piece of obsolete equipment for each obsolete
>> media format you want to have accecss to.
> 
> Done that; I bought an Apple IIgs with 3.5" drives and 5.25" drives.
 
Well, you don't need to do both of these to preserve your old data.. :-)
 
>> 3. Lose your old data.
> 
> Done that; I dumped the stuff I didn't feel like investing the time and
> effort to preserve.
> 
> I agree with much of what you said in concept, it is more a matter of
> degree.  The mean lifespan of a 5.25" or 3.5" floppy disk is probably
> about 10 years.
 
If stored carefully, the lifespan definitely exceeds 10 years.  My
original Appe II disks, 23 years old, are still readable.  However, not
all floppies are stored carefully....
 
> When they start to degrade its time to transfer them to new media.
 
Then it's probably a bit too late: you won't note the degradation
until you start to lose some data (unless you run some special
utility which examines the tracks VERY carefully -- but who does that
on all their old disks?)
 
> However, when the new machines don't offer the ability
> to read the old media, then the user is out-of-luck.
 
Yep!  Therefore the user should not get rid of his old machine until
he's transferred the old data he wants to keep to some modern format.
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Grev Turegatan 40,  SE-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW:     http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/
         http://home.tiscali.se/pausch/