roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (08/15/90)
If you had to send some data in machine-readable form to somebody
(perhaps many, unspecified, people), but had no idea what kind of machine
they had, what format/media would you use to maximize the probability that
it would be readable by the recipient? The quantity of data is small enough
that storage capacity of the media should not be a significant problem, yet
large enough that a paper printout (requiring them to re-key the data) is
impractical. Perhaps 2-20k characters of difficult to type data (I have in
mind DNA sequences, but columns of numbers fall into the same catagory).
My first guess was a plain ascii file on a 720k 5.25" DOS floppy.
It has already been pointed out to me that some people can't read 720k
disks, so I'd do better with a 360k floppy. Anybody have any better ideas?
--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"vu0310@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (R. Kym Horsell) (08/16/90)
In article <1990Aug15.165518.16675@phri.nyu.edu> roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > > If you had to send some data in machine-readable form to somebody >(perhaps many, unspecified, people), but had no idea what kind of machine >they had, what format/media would you use to maximize the probability that >it would be readable by the recipient? The quantity of data is small enough Having worked in industry and college environments for a couple of decades, I have stuck this kind of problem over and over again (usually from the other end -- someone brings along a tape or floppy and says "I want to upload this but I don't know what format it is..."). If this were the 60's or 70's I'd advise punched cards. If this were the 70's or 80's I might advise 1600 bpi, 9 track tape, fixed-length records, fixed-length blocks of 4000 bytes or so (longer ones are trouble for some machines), ASCII character set, no volume or file labels (or, if you must, ANSII labels). This being the 90's you might try to forget media entirely and let the user/customer upload via anonymous login/ftp. -Kym Horsell
diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com (diamond@tkovoa) (08/16/90)
In article <1990Aug15.165518.16675@phri.nyu.edu> roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > If you had to send some data in machine-readable form to somebody >(perhaps many, unspecified, people), but had no idea what kind of machine >they had, what format/media would you use to maximize the probability that >it would be readable by the recipient? The most common interchange medium is still ANSI standard 9-track tapes. ANSI standard Quarter Inch Cartridges (QIC) are probably second.(*) If you don't know what kind of machines the recipients have, I would send both. (I once wrote a tape when the only ANSI standard specified 800 bpi, 9 tracks. A few years later, trying to find a machine that could read 800 bpi ... so much for ANSI standards ...) > My first guess was a plain ascii file on a 720k 5.25" DOS floppy. >It has already been pointed out to me that some people can't read 720k >disks, so I'd do better with a 360k floppy. Anybody have any better ideas? Oh yes, if your "universe" is IBM(tm) PC computers and others that are compatible with them, then 360k floppies also sound like a good idea. If you don't know what kinds of machines the recipients have, I would send all three. Maybe a 3.whatever-inch Macintosh(tm) format floppy as well. (*)Although my articles are personal opinion, not my employer's opinion, the guess about QICs is especially so. -- Norman Diamond, Nihon DEC diamond@tkou02.enet.dec.com This is me speaking. If you want to hear the company speak, you need DECtalk.
jt@aix.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Julian Thomas) (08/16/90)
We all know that there is really no universal format. One approach might be to shotgun it, and what choices you end up with depend on what you know about the computing habits of your colleagues. Also, a 720k 5.25" diskette is fairly non-standard. I would be tempted to go with several disks (these are my personal views): a. 5.25" DOS formatted 360kb b. 3.5" DOS formatted 720kb c. Mac format With these, almost anyone should be able to find some way of getting the stuff into their computing environment. -- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* JTdidit - from Julian Thomas uunet.uu.net!ibmps2!aix!jt Inside IBM: jt@giverny.aix.kingston.ibm.com or JT at PLKSE Snailmail: 83AA/581 IBM DSD Kingston Compuserve: 72355,20 MCIMAIL: 173-6393 "God made integers, all else is the work of man" - Leopold Kronecker
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/17/90)
Actually, you would do pretty well with a 5.25 inch, 360K format DOS floppy with the file as a binary there, if it's less than 360K. Almost everybody has access to a machine that can read one of those. Even people with the nicer 3.5 inch disks are very likely to have a machine around with both kinds of disk to do a file transfer. Or a transfer program. You may have to add the 3.5 inch anyway, because all-Mac shops would have some trouble. And in fact, most, but not all IBM-PC shops probably have one machine around today that can read a 3.5 inch disk. Modern Macs can read the 3.5 inch disks with the Apple File Exchange. Atari STs can read them fine, too. Almost complete safety thus comes from using both. No need for an extra Mac disk due to the AFE. The suggestion of 9-track tape is ludicrous. Today, the vast majority of computer users would not know what to do with it. Only people at big shops that have mainframes and minis (and that is now a *very* small proportion of the computer user community) could read it, and many of them might have no easy way to move the file to the destination machine. On the other hand, people with minis/mainframes are now usually quite capable of uploading an IBM-PC file. Many are using Micros as terminals anyway. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/17/90)
> If you had to send some data in machine-readable form to somebody > (perhaps many, unspecified, people), but had no idea what kind of machine > they had, what format/media would you use to maximize the probability that > it would be readable by the recipient? I don't know much about the tape formats, but a single file on a low density QIC cartidge would cover that. I would send 4 floppies: IBM-PC format, 3.5" 720K. IBM-PC format, 16 sector/track, 5.25", 320K. tar format, 16 sector/track, 5.25", 320K. CP/M format, 8", 250K. The first can be read by Amiga, Atari ST, and Macintosh users as well as IBM-PC 3.5" format. The second can be read by the rest of the IBM-PC users, plus CP/M users with 5.25" disks. The third can be read by pretty much any UNIX system with a 5.25" floppy drive. The fourth can be read by pretty much any CP/M system that couldn't read #2. If you lay the file out right, it will also be readable by UNIX systems with 8" drives if they're willing to diddle the file some. With a bit of care you could probably put an appropriate tar header in the boot track, then another one just before the data for the file... that'd be a neat hack. To UNIX it would look like 2 files in a tar archive, the first containing all the CP/M disk structure... -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com (currently not working) peter@hackercorp.com
gordon@sneaky.UUCP (Gordon Burditt) (08/20/90)
> If you had to send some data in machine-readable form to somebody >(perhaps many, unspecified, people), but had no idea what kind of machine >they had, what format/media would you use to maximize the probability that >it would be readable by the recipient? The quantity of data is small enough Asynchronous serial links, 8 bits, no parity, 1 stop bit, connected to a 2400 or 1200 baud modem. 2400 baud is preferred because (1) it's faster, and (2) as far as I know there is no difference between the European and American version of the standard for 2400 baud. (There is for 1200 - lots of modems support both types, but you have to tell it which one ahead of time. I believe the situation is worse for 300 baud.) The protocol used would be one of kermit, x/y/zmodem, or uucp (or a simulation of it). > My first guess was a plain ascii file on a 720k 5.25" DOS floppy. Since Pizza Hut started mailing MAGNETS through the U.S. Postal service as part of an advertising campaign, I am not optimistic about sending any kind of magnetic media through the mail. I am also not enthusiastic about data interchange between different types of floppy drives, either. Given machine A with one each 3.5 and 5.25 low-capacity drives, and machine B with one each 3.5 and 5.25 high-capacity drives, and A and B are within 10 feet of each other, you are supposed to be able to exchange data between them on either size disk, but in practice you had to hunt for a machine C on a different floor with two same-size drives of differing densities (or maybe you could transfer 10 copies of the file and hope one was readable, but usually the directory had read errors in it). Gordon L. Burditt sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon
harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison) (08/21/90)
In article <1990Aug15.165518.16675@phri.nyu.edu> roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) writes: > If you had to send some data in machine-readable form to somebody >(perhaps many, unspecified, people), but had no idea what kind of machine >they had, what format/media would you use to maximize the probability that >it would be readable by the recipient? The quantity of data is small enough I would recommend MS-DOS 360K disks. Many machines can import the files directly, and almost every site has a PC that can Kermit the files to the host. -- Mark Harrison harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (214)518-5050 {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison standard disclaimers apply...
michaelb@wshb.csms.com ( WSHB Operations Eng) (08/23/90)
In article <1990Aug17.045225.15087@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > The suggestion of 9-track tape is ludicrous. Today, the vast majority of ^^^^^^^^^ > computer users would not know what to do with it. Only people at big > shops that have mainframes and minis (and that is now a *very* small > proportion of the computer user community) could read it, and many of them > might have no easy way to move the file to the destination machine. Here, here. If you have data that fits on a 360K floppy the expense of sending a 9 track is unjustifiable. The last place I worked we had about six 9 track machines and the only time one got used was to cold boot a dead machine or to dump a hard disk. (I think they have gone to 8mm since I left.) If you had sent us something on a floppy we could have had it on the target machine in less than 1/2 hour. When I got here I set the whole place up on 386 PCs running XENIX. If you sent a 9 track tape to me here I would try to sell it and ask you to resend the data on a floppy. Even guys with minis may not be able to handle it. I am trying to establish a uucp connection with a guy who has a VMS system. When I got my corporate office to send me DECUS UUCP on a tape they sent a 1650 bpi 9 track. I delivered it and got a blank stare. 9 track is NOT the universal standard it once was. Michael -- Michael Batchelor--Systems/Operations Engineer #compliments and complaints WSHB - An International Broadcast Station of # letterbox@csms.com The Christian Science Monitor Syndicate, Inc. #technical questions and reports michaelb@wshb.csms.com +1 803 625 4880 # letterbox-tech@csms.com
rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie (09/06/90)
In article <1990Aug17.045225.15087@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > Modern Macs can read the 3.5 inch disks with the Apple File Exchange. > Atari STs can read them fine, too. > > > Almost complete safety thus comes from using both. No need for an extra > Mac disk due to the AFE. Amigas and Atari STs (and most other machines that use 3.5") can read MS-DOS format 720K 3.5" disks, but I thought the Mac was physically incapable of it because it spun the disk faster on the inner tracks or something like that. I'd be very interested in some way to interchange data between Macs and other machines. - How does the Mac get around the above-quoted problem? - Can the Mac write IBM format disks? - Can an IBM or Amiga be made to read Mac format disks? Any info on the above from anyone would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. "To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem" Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie
ekalenda@cup.portal.com (Edward John Kalenda) (09/07/90)
> Amigas and Atari STs (and most other machines that use 3.5") can read MS-DOS > format 720K 3.5" disks, but I thought the Mac was physically incapable of it > because it spun the disk faster on the inner tracks or something like that. > I'd be very interested in some way to interchange data between Macs and other > machines. The MAC SuperDrive can do MS-DOS format disks. The spin rate on the inner tracks is a function of the software telling the controller to tell the drive how fast to spin. If you have it spin at the same rate on every track there isn't a problem. Ed ekalenda@cup.portal.com
rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie (09/09/90)
Thanks to everyone who sent info. Apparently the situation is as follows: The older Macs slowed down the disk rotation on the outer tracks to get higher storage density. The newer Macs get the same effect by increasing the transfer rate. However, either effect is under software control. But, the Mac uses GCR rather than MFM encoding (everything else uses MFM). The newer Macs _only_ have MFM support, hence they can read/write IBM format disks. However, IBM/Amiga/Atari ST can't read/write Mac format without hardware hacking (no support for higher density on outer tracks). Since I think the 3.5" drives used on workstations can read/write IBM format as well, an IBM 5.25" 360K disk and an IBM 3.5" 720K disk should get your stuff read on most of the sites in the world. -- "To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem" Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin rwallace@vax1.tcd.ie