| |
Hermit
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 208 |
Why releasing small stuff in a whole D64 image?
I'm curious why many of very small (even several kilobytes) of releases are made on .d64 image?
I'm a minimalist (usually with limited internet connection) and if I see a music or one-file demo etc. on ~170kbyte D64 I sometimes don't download it, just because I don't like the 5..10x waste of space and bandwidth in general. (And maybe the pollution it generates in big amounts, a problem nowadays I think, yet not the biggest source of pollution is IT.)
Sorry if my thinking is weird or uncommon (really hope it isn't), but I'm still curious why many people release things on .d64 instead of .prg (or .sid or .tap) if they could fit.
Is it easier to save or load D64 format on their systems or cartridges?
In any way, if you like to release small stuff in .d64, I'd thank you if you at least compress (zip) it or release a .prg beside the .d64, as seen many times, and so they won't distract people like me, and your release will be downloaded and evaluated a bit more times... |
|
| |
Frantic
Registered: Mar 2003
Posts: 1627 |
I like to have all my stuff in a single format rather than several different ones, and d64 works for all purposes. While I respect different points of view, I would guess that the average internet user in these video streaming days considers ~170kb to be "nothing". Just my view. |
| |
Zyron
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 2381 |
Mainly to preserve the filename I guess, and perhaps because you want to include some kind of dir-art.
I used to gzip d64s because then you didn't have to unpack them before attaching in Vice. |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1370 |
I used to find .d64 releases annoying for single filers because it was easier for me to transfer a prg via codenet to my real 64 than to extract the file.
But my c64 is currently broken, and even if it wasn't I could probably script something to pull the prg out if I got my shit together.
I vaguely recall gzipped .d64s being disallowed here at some point? It does seem like a good compromise aside from that. |
| |
bugjam
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2476 |
@Hermit: I think it is good that you brought that topic up, because indeed most people (including myself) would assume that nowadays, everyone has sufficient bandwith to not bother about a few KB. So it is important to remind folks about it.
Preservation of the original file name is the essential point here; I guess needs are different for different people - personally, I prefer .d64 also for ease of use, but needs are different, as ChristopherJam pointed out.
I never bothered to zip images before uploading, but henceforth I will! |
| |
lft
Registered: Jul 2007
Posts: 369 |
Also keep in mind that newer modems support compression. Highly regular data, such as a large stretch of null-bytes, will actually be compressed by a factor of 1:4 during transfer, if you are using a V.42bis modem to connect to your ISP. That is the reason they are marketed as e.g. 38400 bps instead of the actual 9600.
It's not as good as using compressed files as suggested, but at least the overhead is on the order of 40 kB rather than 171 kB. In fact, this technology will allow you to transfer an almost-blank .d64 image in less than a minute.
Mind, at these increased transfer rates, the interrupt latency of your machine might become a bottleneck. For instance, if you are using the Amiga's built-in serial port, rates above 9600 are unreliable because the software layer needs to respond in time to grab each incoming byte from the hardware before the next one arrives. |
| |
bugjam
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 2476 |
There used to be also a problem with .prgs as download, IIRC - in certain instances the endbytes are cut off because they are misinterpreted by the OS, or something. Ninja told me that many years ago, not sure if that problem is still relevant. |
| |
Stryyker
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 465 |
Possibly the increased use of 1541 Ultimate may influence it too. |
| |
iAN CooG
Registered: May 2002
Posts: 3132 |
Quote: There used to be also a problem with .prgs as download, IIRC - in certain instances the endbytes are cut off because they are misinterpreted by the OS, or something. Ninja told me that many years ago, not sure if that problem is still relevant.
More likely, the tool that extracted the prg from the t64 or d64, is bugged and doesn't extract the correct amount number of bytes. Loading a correctly sized prg directly or from a d64 doesn't change anything. |
| |
Dano
Registered: Jul 2004
Posts: 226 |
As for myself i tend to have problems with WinVice breaking the drag'n'drop of files onto it (going back to default settings fixes it though). I'm just a lazy Windows guy, and i guess there's no option to load a prg from the menu?
So d64 always works flawlessly and that makes the point for me. So yes, i am all in for having everything as d64.
Rambling over some 170kb plus or minus just doesn't cut it for me.
In the end there will always be two sides. And people who use vice from the shell won't care about formats anyway i guess.. ^^ |
| |
tlr
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 1703 |
Quote: Mainly to preserve the filename I guess, and perhaps because you want to include some kind of dir-art.
I used to gzip d64s because then you didn't have to unpack them before attaching in Vice.
+1
I also prefer gzipped .d64's although not all tools handle them transparently. Coming to think of it, there should be one that extracts .d64.gz with a single file in them. Shouldn't be too hard to write.
The only other "popular" container that supports original filenames is T64 and that is really badly standardized. Even fewer tools handle that transparently.
I guess that if PETSCII was a part of unicode (perhaps it is?) you could have files with the original name directly in the filesystem, but I wouldn't want to rely on that. |
... 40 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Next |
