XWUU@PURCCVM.BITNET (03/27/91)
Recently I read on this group that someone was looking for CAD programs for the C64. I found what I thought to be a CAD series at FYU.FI (Finland) and downloaded them. They are listed as a series; CAD401.SDA thru CAD403.SDA. I assumed that SDA meant that the programs would be self dissolving... no such luck. I have tried to inlink, unarc, unzip, and otherwise "Undo" the file compression/archiving, but nothing seems to work. Any other lucky souls who have been able to open these files? Kirk A. Janowiak XWUU@PURCCVM
neusoft@vax1.mankato.msus.edu (03/29/91)
In article <91086.104828XWUU@PURCCVM.BITNET>, XWUU@PURCCVM.BITNET writes: > Recently I read on this group that someone was looking for CAD programs > for the C64. I found what I thought to be a CAD series at FYU.FI (Finland) > and downloaded them. They are listed as a series; CAD401.SDA thru CAD403.SDA. > I assumed that SDA meant that the programs would be self dissolving... > no such luck. I have tried to inlink, unarc, unzip, and otherwise "Undo" the > file compression/archiving, but nothing seems to work. > > Any other lucky souls who have been able to open these files? Ya, some nim-rod thought it would be clever to uuencode them, not once, but twice. To unencode them, firt, go back to JYU.FI and download them, this time being sure to download them as text, NOT binary. Now, this is the fun part. If your system has a UUDECODER, I would strongly urge you to use it (a UUDECODER for the 64 is available at milton, but with those file sizes and four files, it would take an awful lot of time!). Now, UUDECODE these files, and when your done, you should have four more files (somthing like CAD401.SDAUUE etc.). Now UUDECODE those files, and the result is for .SDA files, which (finaly) are the true SDA files. I did manage to get the files extracted, but was very disapointed with the almost useless product that resulted. If your expecting somthing like Autocad to appear when you load it, don't even bother. As far as I'm concerned, it wasn't even worth the effort, their are many other better (and faster) programs available, but I supose for some it might be useful. -Mike neusoft@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
72560.3467@CompuServe.COM (Howard Herman) (04/04/91)
To: >INTERNET comp-sys-cbm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm In article, XWUU@PURCCVM.BITNET writes: > [deleted] . They are listed as a series; CAD401.SDA thru CAD403.SDA. >I assumed that SDA meant that the programs would be self dissolving... >no such luck. [deleted] Unlike the .SFX which will self-dissolve on BOTH, a 64 and a 128, an .SDA file will self-dissolve on EITHER a 64 or a 128, but not both. If it didn't work in one mode, try the other. --- Howard Herman INET: 72560.3467@CompuServe.COM
nrossi@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Nick Rossi) (04/04/91)
In article <"910404022753.72560.3467.EHE77-1"@CompuServe.COM> 72560.3467@CompuServe.COM (Howard Herman) writes: >Unlike the .SFX which will self-dissolve on BOTH, a 64 and a 128, an .SDA file >will self-dissolve on EITHER a 64 or a 128, but not both. >If it didn't work in one mode, try the other. I have seen a lot of comments about .SFX with regard to the 128. Is there a way to create SFX files on a 64? Are they any better than SDA? >--- >Howard Herman >INET: 72560.3467@CompuServe.COM ------------------------------ +---------------------------------+ Nick Rossi, '93 | SONY | ------------------------------ | | Harvey Mudd College | Because caucasians are just | (ooo HELL is a place on earth) | too damn tall. | ------------------------------ +---------------------------------+
rknop@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Robert Andrew Knop) (04/05/91)
nrossi@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Nick Rossi) writes: >I have seen a lot of comments about .SFX with regard to the 128. Is there >a way to create SFX files on a 64? Are they any better than SDA? The LHA program which creates SFX's runs under Chris Smeet's CS-DOS for the 128, and as such I would be surprised if there is a 64 version. Additionally, the 128 version requres a 1750 to be able to run, so I guess this isn't an easy thing to do. From reading the docs I got the idea that it would be possible to write it without a 1750, but it would be quite slow. -Rob Knop rknop@tybalt.caltech.edu