Date   : Wed, 10 Jan 1996 22:02:35 +0000 (GMT)
From   : James Fidell <james@...>
Subject: Re: Snapshot formats

Roger Walker wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Jan 1996, Tom Seddon wrote:
> > I don't have anything to add to the memory snapshot debate, but what 
> > about some kind of standardised disk image format?
> [<cut cut>]
> 
> This is something I've been thinking about too.
> I've started doing some 8271 emulation and was going to have a flat file
> of 100 or 200K with the disk data within it.  But this rules out any
> copy protected software, which seems a shame.  The other way I was thinking
> was to have a list of sectors with a file offset or sector size
> something like :-
> 
> 400 sectors
> sect 0, track 0 = 0x100
> sect 1, track 0 = 0x100
> ....
> sect 9, track 0 = 0x100
> 
> With some form of binary packing...
> 
> Ideas please.... Roger Walker.

Is there any way to include the sync. bytes to "frame" the sectors
so that it is possible to tell how big the sectors should be without
needing extra information ?

I'd say that you should cater for the sync. bytes and any other
information that can be read from the disk surface to get the most
complete emulation -- I'm sure that some forms of copy protection relied
upon this "out of band"-type data for it's operation.

James.

-- 
 "Yield to temptation --             | Work: Somewhere at Netcom UK (soon)
  it may not pass your way again"    | Play: james@...                 
                                     | http://www.OiT.co.uk/~james/
        - Lazarus Long               |              James Fidell