| |
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... |
|
... 40 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Fred
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 285 |
@Bugjam: I think you just created the solution here. If a full spread disk is uploaded because of the few cases you mentioned and the uploader also uploads a clean disk with the release only then everybody is happy.
And to come back to where this whole thread is about, this will also solves Hermit's issue of low bandwidth since D64 files with only a few files in it will cause lower bandwidth since the web server can better gzip it. So better mark the spread disk so people know what they download. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11357 |
Quote:I think you will not like that your own entries are replaced with full disks with your release that were spread at that time, or have multiple spread disks with your demos uploaded to the same CSDb entry, do you?
yes, thats exactly what i would like to see. and i seriously hate it when ppl rip apart the disk of some crack just to create an empty d64 with one file in it and "COOLHACKERJOE" in the header. (even better: they do that using some bugged gui shit and screw up the prg even. and of course noone tests the resulting d64 either.) fucking lamers. |
| |
Fred
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 285 |
Would be nice to have a separate field for a release where you can specify the scene base disk id or multiple ids so people don't have to upload spread disks. And also the ability to download the disks from the entry which means someone needs to host the files. This is a much cleaner way than uploading spread disks on CSdb. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11357 |
how is linking to a 3rd party "cleaner"?
i am not going to support all-i-want-to-do-is-doubleclick-lamers for that matter. fuckthatshit. |
| |
Fred
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 285 |
Because people are now uploading releases to entries that don't belong there (I know that you totally disagree with this).
Anyway, if we keep uploading full disks, then we can better separate them from "clean" releases and then reference to it. Or separate the release downloads from spread disks downloads on the entry page so that people know what they download.
And an ability to view D64 and T64 files on CSDb would also be welcome. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11357 |
"clean releases" dont exist for lots of those entries, thats the whole point. most onefile cracks for example were spread with other onefile cracks on the same disk - by the one who cracked them. |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4723 |
Quote: "clean releases" dont exist for lots of those entries, thats the whole point. most onefile cracks for example were spread with other onefile cracks on the same disk - by the one who cracked them.
That info is important, but there are fields to fill in with that info. In my world every entry has a d64 with only the release in question on it. Argument? Because this is an archive of releases for the C64, not a disk collection database. There are other places that host full collections with untouched disks.
This matter will not be solved here either. We moderators will have to discuss, after the input in this thread, and then be more clear in the guidelines. Then end this discussion.
We do understand that we can't please every user here, but on the other hand that is not the goal with this database. The integrity of the database itself is the main matter. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11357 |
as if anything will come out of this discussion :=) |
| |
hedning
Registered: Mar 2009
Posts: 4723 |
Quote: as if anything will come out of this discussion :=)
<3 |
| |
CommFor
Registered: Mar 2017
Posts: 19 |
Just removed my recently posted 86 games in PRG format and changed them with D64 files.
Each D64 file contains one game in PRG format.
Done with Style's DirMaster.
Rules are rules :) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 - Next |
