Floppy imaging -- edumacate me?

dwight elvey dkelvey at hotmail.com
Sun Jul 29 19:54:46 CDT 2007

>From: Dennis Boone <drb at msu.edu>
>Dear all,
>You may be familiar with the phenomenon of a project list years long,
>and with the way it often gets ordered: "project #345 sounds interesting
>Well, this weekend, I finally managed to combine motivation, interest
>and parts, and assemble a working 5.25" + catweasel floppy imaging
>setup.  This moved up the priority list because the machine I usually
>use to image floppies can't do SD, and these old Osborne 1 floppies have
>been on my desk staring at me since someone on IRC asked about Oz-ware
>weeks ago...
>I'm want to have backups of my piles of floppies, as well as to be at
>least a somewhat responsible preserver (in the unlikely event I actually
>managed to hang onto something not already widely saved), and to be able
>to share bits and pieces as seems appropriate.  I'd like to be able to
>both re-create floppies as well as use the data in emulation.  I
>understand the latter is going to require format conversions in a lot of
>cases, and that the necessary converters may or may not exist yet.  I've
>used both ImageDisk and cw2dmk in the past.
>What I'm wondering is this: what about the DMK or IMD formats is going
>to cause me problems later?  I prefer data images to flux images because
>the latter are clearly not directly usable in any emulator.  I
>understand how a flux image enables more accurate re-creation of a real
>floppy, but the scope and implications of that are a bit fuzzy.  I'd
>like to have some feel for how many things I'm going to be unable to
>reproduce later, how they'll go wrong, why images won't be useful to
>others, etc.
>Obviously no single solution is suitable for all applications, my
>mileage will vary, &c.  Both of the above-mentioned are excellent pieces
>of work with many valid applications.  I suppose I'm basically looking
>for war stories which illustrate particular technical issues here -- the
>criteria for making the choices, not the mythical "best answers".
>I've spent some time googling through the cctalk archives without
>finding the kinds of discussion I was hoping for, but I'll cheerfully
>accept hints about how to approach the problem that way.

I don't know what format the Osborne 1 used. Once you know that,
a liitle searching on the web will find how the flux transitions translate
to header and data. As long as there were no errors, you should then
be able to convert them to raw images.


More information about the cctalk mailing list