Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!stride!l5comp!scotty
From: scotty@l5comp.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Reading MacDisks on Amiga
Message-ID: <133@l5comp.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-May-87 05:53:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: l5comp.133
Posted: Tue May 19 05:53:11 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 23-May-87 02:15:41 EDT
References: <8705080543.AA18112@cory.Berkeley.EDU> <112@l5comp.UUCP> <3038@well.UUCP> <124@l5comp.UUCP> <2140@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner)
Organization: L5 Computing, Edmonds, WA
Lines: 54
Summary: Mac disks eat bandwidth again. :)

In article <2140@hoptoad.uucp> farren@hoptoad.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes:
>Won't work on the Amiga without disabling the multi-tasking.  To do
>this kind of control requires taking over the machine so you can
>always toggle the signal at the right time, something which the
>multi-tasker pretty much guarantees won't happen while it's running.
>A dumb idea anyhow, as the timing is extremely device specific - the
>timing that will work on an NEC drive probably won't on a Fujitsu, and
>vice versa.
I point you to Disk-2-Disk from Central Coast Software. They seem to have done
the impossible feat you describe. They had to deal with multi-tasking, different
drives, AND different media.

>topics being discussed are, basically, a waste of time.  It has long
>since been determined that the Amiga drives cannot read Mac disks.
Really? Well maybe YOU have given up but others are actively working on this
subject at both the commercial and non-commercial level. And as Leo says, how
about some references so we don't have to take yer word for it? If it's been
proven WHO proved it, WHEN did they prove it, and HOW did they prove it?

>Period.  Further discussion is less than useless, and will, in fact,
>just confuse those who aren't as familiar with the Amiga capabilities
>as some of us are.  It is important to keep in mind that the purpose
>of this forum is to provide useful information and intelligent
>commentary on the Amiga, its capabilities and its possibilities.  By
>engaging in "discussion" which is misleading or downright wrong, you
>are filling the bandwidth with fog.  I, for one, don't appreciate it.
Again, I've yet to see anything from YOU (or yer others in that 'us') that
proves that the Amiga can't cut it. The Amiga is a VERY flexible machine,
I think it still has a few tricks left. As for filling the bandwidth with
'fog', I think "you can't do that because XXX so drop it" is VERY bad stuff.
This is the kind of thinking that stretched out the dark ages. Far better to
ask "but wouldn't that interfere with XXX" and have someone have an answer for
your fears than try to slap people down and be proven wrong. I don't think 
there's anyone out there arrogant enough to claim they know EVERYTHING about the
Amiga. 

One man's fog is another man's Manna. There's alot of 'waste' from my viewpoint
on Usenet. But I don't attack it, I figure it's part of the cost of getting
what I can get. All networks, not just Usenet are like this. And quite frankly
a 'frivolous' discussion can yield pay dirt just as easily as one steered from
the start for pay dirt.

I, for one, don't appreciate such obviously wrong blanket personal
condemnations as you just made. I think several people have learned something
from the discussion so far. I don't think it has been misleading nor downright
wrong. I also didn't start the #$@! thing so don't lay the whole thing at MY
doorstep in ANY case. >8-<

Scott Turner

-- 
L5 Computing, the home of Merlin, Arthur, Excalibur and the CRAM.
GEnie: JST | UUCP: stride!l5comp!scotty | 12311 Maplewood Ave; Edmonds WA 98020
If Motorola had wanted us to use BPTR's they'd have built in shifts on A regs
[ BCPL? Just say *NO*! ] (I don't smoke, send flames to /dev/null)