In article <hBMJa.165789$eJ2.91515@fed1read07>,it
salfter@salfter.dyndns.org (Scott Alfter) wrote:
As for other people/organizations and their data, if it's a sufficiently large amount (like all those 9-track tapes that NASA has accumulated),
isn't always feasible to keep migrating the data to newer formats....
Those 9-tracks you're talking about could be stuffed onto optical (CD or
DVD) and stopped from deteriorating with little pain other than the
actual time involved to actually do the process.
provisionMaintaining some degree of backward compatibility (or at least a
for adding it) is reasonable enough, don't you think?
No question, it's reasonable. But by the same token, is it reasonable to expect to remain backward-compatible with everything that's ever been
done, however good, bad, or indifferent it might be? Especially when
doing so will effectively "hold you back" from improvements that could
have been added, if it weren't for the fact that you can't fit 'em
inbecause you've got 429 flavors of legacy drivers already shoehorned
into the code?
Also: the "enormous amounts" of data on these tapes were enormous
back then -- but compared to today's media it wasn't that enormous....
I can see that possibly there is data on those tapes they could need,
but I would think that with all the new ideas and innovations made
in the past 10 years, most of that data would be obsolete. Wouldn't
you agree?
With a scanner with an ADF, I'd think that you could automate most of the process of reading in punched cards. It won't be as fast as a cardreader,
but it'd be faster than anything that would involve manual intervention. (Maybe it'd even do a better job with lace cards than a card reader. :-) )
Given time, Apple will probably eliminate floppies entirely. So then
should I transfer all my old files to Zip disk? Or CDROM? Or
floptical? Or magneto-optical? Perhaps QIC-80 tape?
Perhaps Apple should think about improving the operating system so
that basic driver support doesn't have to be "shoehorned" into the
code.
IMHO the problem is not the inherent stupidity in eliminating the
floppy drive, but in offering a 3.5" USB drive that doesn't support
the same media as the drive it supposedly replaces.
In <ehgRa.10802$kI5.677@nwrddc02.gnilink.net> M. Pender wrote:
Given time, Apple will probably eliminate floppies entirely. So then should I transfer all my old files to Zip disk? Or CDROM? Or
floptical? Or magneto-optical? Perhaps QIC-80 tape?
Um, Apple eliminated the floppy drive from all their new Macs almost _
five_ years ago. Apart from JWolf, no one really noticed.
Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> wrote in message news:L1QJa.4966$%3.261752@typhoon.sonic.net...
In article <hBMJa.165789$eJ2.91515@fed1read07>,
salfter@salfter.dyndns.org (Scott Alfter) wrote:
As for other people/organizations and their data, if it's a sufficiently >>> large amount (like all those 9-track tapes that NASA has accumulated),...
it isn't always feasible to keep migrating the data to newer formats.
Those 9-tracks you're talking about could be stuffed onto optical (CD or
DVD)
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.
By your argument I should copy my 3.5" DSDD floppies to 3.5" DSHD
floppies because a new format is out
because Apple is too brain-dead to maintain compatibility with older
media formats on the new machines?
To me that's just an argument for buying a used Mac as opposed
to a new one.
Given time, Apple will probably eliminate floppies entirely.
So then should I transfer all my old files to Zip disk?
Or CDROM?
Or floptical? Or magneto-optical? Perhaps QIC-80 tape?
Your argument asks the user community to spend a lot of time and money
based on a guess as to which products are going to survive, when even
the folks at Apple don't always have a clue (e.g. Apple III, Apple Lisa, Apple IIc+, etc.)
Failure to *offer* minimal backward compatibility is the stupidity
of Apple, not that of people who have a lot of media.
Maintaining some degree of backward compatibility (or at least a
provision for adding it) is reasonable enough, don't you think?
No question, it's reasonable. But by the same token, is it reasonable to
expect to remain backward-compatible with everything that's ever been
done, however good, bad, or indifferent it might be? Especially when
doing so will effectively "hold you back" from improvements that could
have been added, if it weren't for the fact that you can't fit 'em
inbecause you've got 429 flavors of legacy drivers already shoehorned
into the code?
Perhaps Apple should think about improving the operating system so that
basic driver support doesn't have to be "shoehorned" into the code.
IMHO the problem is not the inherent stupidity in eliminating the
floppy drive, but in offering a 3.5" USB drive that doesn't support
the same media as the drive it supposedly replaces.
Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote in message news:bd90a5$22t5$1@merope.saaf.se...
...snip...
Also: the "enormous amounts" of data on these tapes were enormous
back then -- but compared to today's media it wasn't that enormous....
Actually, they *are* still enormous in terms of the space required to
store the data,
the labor involved in handling that many tapes to make copies,
and the effort required to destroy or dispose of old (probably
classified) media.
The labor involved is what makes it an enormous amount of work.
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.
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.
The mean lifespan of a CDROM or DVD isn't significantly different than
that of 9 track tape.
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.
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.
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.
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.).
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.
It could be offered as an option, such as a USB 3.5" drive so that
people who don't want to pay the $50 don't have to.
The 3.5" drive is a standard format used for ~15 years
on 90%+ of the computers out there.
But talking about "idiocy" or "stupidity" won't help you. So
you have three choices:
I don't expect "talking" about it to accomplish anything at all.
Rather, I voted with my feet and bought myself a PC, and another
PC, and another PC, etc.
1. Move the data to newer media. Maybe not ALL your old data, but
those data you don't want to lose.
Done that; I moved my 3.5" floppies to CD.
2. Keep and maintain a piece of obsolete equipment for each obsolete
media format you want to have accecss to.
Done that; I bought an Apple IIgs with 3.5" drives and 5.25" drives.
3. Lose your old data.
Done that; I dumped the stuff I didn't feel like investing the time and effort to preserve.
I agree with much of what you said in concept, it is more a matter of
degree. The mean lifespan of a 5.25" or 3.5" floppy disk is probably
about 10 years.
When they start to degrade its time to transfer them to new media.
However, when the new machines don't offer the ability
to read the old media, then the user is out-of-luck.
In article <j0HRa.16476$EZ2.13168@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
Michael Pender <mpender@hotmail.com> wrote:
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?
Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote in message news:bf8g45$2lit$1@merope.saaf.se...
In article <j0HRa.16476$EZ2.13168@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
Michael Pender <mpender@hotmail.com> wrote:
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?
Provided that the data has some significance, the cost associated with gathering the data is immaterial to the decision of whether or not to
convert the data format because the cost is already sunk.
The cost analysis is the same whether it cost millions of dollars to
gather the data, or whether its just a list of family recipes. It
affects the decision of whether to preserve the information, but
does not go to whether the format should be converted.
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.
I agree that the relevant factors are storage cost and data transfer cost, but I don't recall seeing any hard figures in your analysis either.
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?
Well, why not just douse them with alcohol and light them on fire
to compare which one survives longer? If you're not considering
*proper* storage of the media then the argument is just so much nonsense.
Try leaving a CD on the dashboard of a car in direct sunlight for
an hour; it will be a piece of warped plastic long before a 9-track
tape would suffer significant degradation.
Paul Schlyter <pausch@saaf.se> wrote in message >news:bf5t9q$1hks$1@merope.saaf.se...
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 ~$15 and have it available so I >can transfer files from my Apple II to my PC, or out onto the web.
In article <qmWRa.38301$kI5.27413@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,claim?
Michael Pender <mpender@hotmail.com> wrote:
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
transfer,These figures should include estimates of the cost of the data
cost,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.
I agree that the relevant factors are storage cost and data transfer
but I don't recall seeing any hard figures in your analysis either.
Correct, but I never made any claims about which alternative was the
most expensive. You made such a claim -- please back it up with
figures if you maintain your claims.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----made
Hash: SHA1
I thought I read something here a while back suggesting that the floppy drives used in most PowerPC-based Macs were different in some way that
them less reliable when working with 800K disks. If you're buying a cheap older Mac for purposes of moving data between your Apple IIs and the restof
the world, you might be better off buying a Quadra or other 68K Macinstead.
(I haven't personally verified this problem with my beige G3 because MacOS
X doesn't support the built-in floppy drive, but I know my Quadra 610 will format & write disks that my IIGS can read.)
This is not anything strange. I had to do the same thing back when I >transferred files from the 586 ( a 486 hot chip ) to my 8088 or 386, I had
to format the disks on the older machine first then they worked fine after >writing to them on the more advanced machine. If there is a reasonable >explanation for this, I'm all ears. ;-)
In article <4Gydne_yUJe19YWiXTWJjQ@comcast.com>,
Bill Garber <willy46pa@comcast.net> wrote:
This is not anything strange. I had to do the same thing back when I >>transferred files from the 586 ( a 486 hot chip ) to my 8088 or 386, I had >>to format the disks on the older machine first then they worked fine after >>writing to them on the more advanced machine. If there is a reasonable >>explanation for this, I'm all ears. ;-)
This shouldn't have been an issue with creating disks for your 386, but if >you were moving data on 5.25" DD floppies between an XT (with a DD drive)
and something newer (with a HD drive), you ran into a problem with the head >width of the high-density drive being half that of the double-density drive. >Formatting/writing to a DD disk in a HD drive was an iffy proposition if you >need to read the disk in a DD drive...maybe it'd work, or maybe it wouldn't.
Scott Alfter <salfter@salfter.dyndns.org> wrote in message >news:2%nKa.169806$eJ2.157081@fed1read07...
...snip...
With a scanner with an ADF, I'd think that you could automate most of thereader,
process of reading in punched cards. It won't be as fast as a card
but it'd be faster than anything that would involve manual intervention.
(Maybe it'd even do a better job with lace cards than a card reader. :-) )
I think you're underestimating the whole "hanging chads" incident...
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 712 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 67:01:43 |
| Calls: | 9,014 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 5,288 |
| D/L today: |
54 files (23,554K bytes) |
| Messages: | 464,128 |