ATARI ST DISK IMAGE

All about ST/STE games

Moderators: simonsunnyboy, Mug UK, ICS, Doctor Bob Gordon, Moderator Team

ATARI ST DISK IMAGE

Postby punk_neil » Tue May 15, 2007 6:26 pm

hi cud any one help me please as i have on my pc st disk image and wanted to put these on to floppy to play on my atari but cos of the differnt formats cant seem to figher this out so any help wud be nice thanks[/b]
User avatar
punk_neil
Atarian
Atarian
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:04 pm

Postby bullis1 » Tue May 15, 2007 7:07 pm

I can't really understand what you're trying to ask.

However, if the disk image you have ends with an extension of .ST or .MSA, then you can use Makedisk (for DOS) or Floimg (for Windows). I've only ever used Makedisk. Both of these tools will allow you to write an Atari ST floppy image to a disk. Make sure you are using the right kind of disk though! Floppy disks that are HD format will not work unless you cover up their HD hole.
User avatar
bullis1
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
 
Posts: 2235
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:32 pm
Location: Canada

atari st disk image

Postby punk_neil » Tue May 15, 2007 9:22 pm

Sorry ill try again lol on my pc i have a emulator for the atari st and tos files when i go to properties it says st disk image i formatted a floppy disk using my atari to try to copy the files to the disk but windows says disk corrupt. so i formatted the disk in windows copied the st disk image onto it. placed it into my atari and the atari dosnt recognise it. just wondering is this possible? thanks
User avatar
punk_neil
Atarian
Atarian
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:04 pm

Postby unseenmenace » Wed May 16, 2007 7:20 am

You can't just copy the image file onto the disk you need to use some kind of imaging utility to extract the contents of the image file onto the disk so all the data can be accessed properly by the ST. If that is already what you've been trying to do then it may be a limitation of your PC's drive/disk controller or you may be formatting the disk wrong or using a bad disk. If you have TOS 1.4 or newer on your ST you can format DOS compatible 720KB floppies from the GEM desktop or if you are formatting them on the PC you need to use a command prompt to specify 720KB capacity for the format command. Be wary of using HD floppies as even though covering the extra hole (not the write protect one) makes the PC think its a DD disk they aren't always reliable when formatted to 720KB. If you have any use DD floppies instead but HD ones are often OK.
UNSEEN MENACE
Several STFM's, 4MB STE, 2MB TT with 1.2GB Hard Drive and 14MB Falcon with 540MB Hard Drive,
Lynx 2 and Jaguar with JagCD
Member of GamebaseST and AtariLegend team
Check out my website at http://unseenmenace.110mb.com
User avatar
unseenmenace
Atari God
Atari God
 
Posts: 1958
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:33 pm
Location: Margate, Kent, UK

Postby ppera » Wed May 16, 2007 10:51 am

Don't even try floppy formatted under TOS desktop under Windows XP.
Even newer TOS 1.4, 2.06 produces not exactly correct MS DOS floppy (FAT size is still wrong). This is one thing what is constantly and blatantly ignored from most of Atari experts (sorry for such formulation, but it is what we have).
Format floppy with some util which has PC compatible formats on ST, ot format on PC.

But all it has not much with imaging.

Jump to link at bottom and read some more details, download software - there is even format proggy for ST.
ppera
 

Postby unseenmenace » Wed May 16, 2007 7:21 pm

Curious then that I've used floppies formatted on my ST with my PC without any problems. I'm not saying you're wrong but it worked for me.
UNSEEN MENACE
Several STFM's, 4MB STE, 2MB TT with 1.2GB Hard Drive and 14MB Falcon with 540MB Hard Drive,
Lynx 2 and Jaguar with JagCD
Member of GamebaseST and AtariLegend team
Check out my website at http://unseenmenace.110mb.com
User avatar
unseenmenace
Atari God
Atari God
 
Posts: 1958
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:33 pm
Location: Margate, Kent, UK

Postby bullis1 » Wed May 16, 2007 7:43 pm

Yeah, same here. If there are any issues with using Atari formatted floppies on PC, then none of them are fatal or result in any data loss.

Edit: Not in my lifetime, anyway. However, PPera is talking about WinXP, which I rarely come in contact with.
User avatar
bullis1
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
 
Posts: 2235
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:32 pm
Location: Canada

Postby punk_neil » Wed May 16, 2007 11:57 pm

hi thank for ya help but cud u help me out again the dd disk im using is 711 KB un the min image i have is 720 going up into the 800 kb ...? any help sorry lol
User avatar
punk_neil
Atarian
Atarian
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:04 pm

Postby simonsunnyboy » Thu May 17, 2007 5:19 am

Do not put .ST or .MSA files with filecopy on a floppy. Use Makedisk or a similar tool to write such disk images to a disk, they will erase the contents and reformat the target floppy.

And take a look into the wiki: http://www.atari-forum.com/wiki/index.php/Disk_Imaging
Simon Sunnyboy/Paradize - http://paradize.atari.org/ - STOT: http://www.npoi.de/stot/

Stay cool, stay Atari!

1x2600jr, 1x1040STFm, 1x1040STE 4MB+TOS2.06+SatanDisk, 1xF030 14MB+FPU+NetUS-Bee

Jabber: simonsunnyboy@atari-jabber.org
User avatar
simonsunnyboy
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 4:36 pm
Location: Friedrichshafen, Germany

Postby ppera » Thu May 17, 2007 11:48 am

punk_neil wrote:hi thank for ya help but cud u help me out again the dd disk im using is 711 KB un the min image i have is 720 going up into the 800 kb ...? any help sorry lol


You don't need to copy image on disk as file. You need to write image on floppy with special program. It is already said here: use Makedisk if have Win 98 or use FloImg under Win XP.

711KB is exactly what is formatted on ST - it should be 713KB free space.
Different FAT size is like troyan in some manner - will not make or show problems always, but it can happen.

Btw, Win 95 works well with floppies formatted even with TOS 1.00. With 800KB floppies too. I tested it some months ago. Things changed a lot from 1995...
ppera
 

Postby PaulB » Thu May 17, 2007 12:35 pm

ST and MSA files are files that contain the entire contents of a floppy disk. Instead of reading and storing files separately the entire disk has been stored sector by sector. So you need a program to write the disk image file (st or msa) back to a floppy again.

If you have Windows XP, go to this page, read what is says for you to do and download the FloIMG Program. This will enable you to write the image file back to a floppy. http://www.ppest.org/atari/floimgd.php
User avatar
PaulB
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
 
Posts: 2167
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2002 10:56 pm
Location: You Kay

Postby ijor » Sat May 19, 2007 5:18 pm

ppera wrote:Different FAT size is like troyan in some manner - will not make or show problems always, but it can happen.


Are you sure about that? Windows driver seems to be designed for accepting any FAT size specified in the boot sector.
ijor
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
 
Posts: 2394
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 7:52 pm

Postby ppera » Sun May 20, 2007 8:02 am

ijor wrote:
ppera wrote:Different FAT size is like troyan in some manner - will not make or show problems always, but it can happen.


Are you sure about that? Windows driver seems to be designed for accepting any FAT size specified in the boot sector.


As I said Win95 worked fine with Atari ST floppies - even without E9 at start of bootsector. But MS changed lot in floppy driver - it started with Win95 OSR2 actually - then I observed that Gemulator works not good with all floppies (which worked well in Win95). Every newer Win version has more and more limited floppy support.
ppera
 

Postby ijor » Sun May 20, 2007 5:45 pm

ppera wrote:
ijor wrote:
ppera wrote:Different FAT size is like troyan in some manner - will not make or show problems always, but it can happen.


Are you sure about that? Windows driver seems to be designed for accepting any FAT size specified in the boot sector.


As I said Win95 worked fine with Atari ST floppies - even without E9 at start of bootsector. But MS changed lot in floppy driver - it started with Win95 OSR2 actually - then I observed that Gemulator works not good with all floppies (which worked well in Win95). Every newer Win version has more and more limited floppy support.


I'm talking about modern Windows (XP, etc), not about Win95. And I'm not talking about E9 or the media type byte, but about the different FAT size. This has (almost) nothing to do with floppy support or the floppy driver.

You say the different FAT size can create incompatiblity problems. There is no way I could be sure 100%, but I don't see any incompatibility issues in the XP driver.

So how/when the different FAT size can be a problem? Are you just assuming it might be a problem? Or you found a specific case/situation?
ijor
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
 
Posts: 2394
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 7:52 pm

Postby ppera » Tue May 22, 2007 2:13 pm

ijor wrote:I'm talking about modern Windows (XP, etc), not about Win95. And I'm not talking about E9 or the media type byte, but about the different FAT size. This has (almost) nothing to do with floppy support or the floppy driver.
You say the different FAT size can create incompatiblity problems. There is no way I could be sure 100%, but I don't see any incompatibility issues in the XP driver.
So how/when the different FAT size can be a problem? Are you just assuming it might be a problem? Or you found a specific case/situation?


I just mentioned Win95 as illustration how Windows changed. Yes, I had data and FAT corruption couple times when wrote on Atari 720K desktop formatted floppy under Windows XP. I made lot of testings last year.
Driver is just crappy made, rigid and slow - and it has something with FAT size, which is almost 'hardcoded in'. Win XP driver works reliable only with PC 720K or 1440K floppies .
Work with floppies is slow and with too much seeking, what just erode them. I write everything with my program even on regular PC 720K floppies.
ppera
 

Postby ijor » Tue May 22, 2007 6:39 pm

ppera wrote:Yes, I had data and FAT corruption couple times when wrote on Atari 720K desktop formatted floppy under Windows XP.


And how do you know it was because of the different FAT size?

Driver is just crappy made, rigid and slow - and it has something with FAT size, which is almost 'hardcoded in'.


Again, the floppy driver has no relation whatsoever with the FAT size. It doesn't parse or interpret the FAT, it doesn't even care if there is a FAT or not. As a matter of fact, you can put a different (non-FAT) filesystem in a floppy if you want, and the XP floppy driver won't mind as long as the media byte is correct.

The FAT is handled by the global XP FAT filesystem driver. The same driver that handles FAT partitions in hard disks, removable or not. And obviously, it is not hardwired for any FAT size.

Win XP driver works reliable only with PC 720K or 1440K floppies .
Work with floppies is slow and with too much seeking, what just erode them.


It might be not efficient, but not (necessarily) because of the floppy driver. The floppy driver doesn't decide when to seek. The floppy driver seeks according to requests from higher level drivers. Modern Windows is not designed to work from floppies, so floppy sector caching is not as agressive as you could configure in Win 9X or DOS. If you want, you could easily implement an XP filter driver caching the whole disk.

Chances of damaging the disk by extra seeking are very small. For sure that TOS 1.0 seeks floppies much more than XP. But even if this would damage the disk, it still won't be because of the different FAT size.
ijor
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
 
Posts: 2394
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 7:52 pm

Postby Lautreamont » Tue May 22, 2007 8:58 pm

ijor wrote:The floppy driver doesn't decide when to seek. The floppy driver seeks according to requests from higher level drivers.

It remembers me the "drive shaker" on Linux, a long time ago:
your computer could be on for weeks, months, years and its unused floppy drive could become dusty and unreliable.
Someone wrote a program to shake the dust by seeking the drive periodically.

People on Windows avoided the dust by naturally rebooting after a crash.
Lautreamont
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
Obsessive compulsive Atari behavior
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:11 pm
Location: Friceland

Postby ppera » Wed May 23, 2007 11:11 am

It is deduction - when everything is same except one parameter - then that one parameter is responsible for different results.

Same is by judging Windows XP floppy handle - to call it so. I don't care how it is divided in which layers.

Lack of cashing is not reason for slow work. I do not use cashing, and it is still much faster.
Last edited by ppera on Thu May 24, 2007 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ppera
 

Postby Cyrano Jones » Wed May 23, 2007 5:58 pm

Hey Ijor,

You cant teach someone who does not learn.

Sage advice for modern times there.
C'mon people, it's not rocket science.
User avatar
Cyrano Jones
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 8:28 pm

Postby ppera » Thu May 24, 2007 1:52 pm

Yeah. Please teach me...
After I spent months in testing Win XP behaviour with floppies.
After I installed Win 95 in 2006 just to see how it will work with diverse floppies, some will teach me...

Thank you very much, 'big name' of Atari scene. Your time is over, I think. Better said, you kill it yourself with such comments...

I know that all that crappy floppy behaviour is almost unbeliveable.
No problem. Thrust to M$. After all they are serious firm, I'm just an amateur.
ppera
 

Postby Cyrano Jones » Thu May 24, 2007 5:19 pm

I'm not trying to teach you anything. Ijor is. And he knows far more about this than anyone else around. I would not even dare to say I know 1/10th as much about this subject as he does.

Its a shame with all those months of "testing" you never actually realised what was wrong. Whats worse is you telling people incorrect information, as if its FACT when in fact its a GUESS.

I think you should stop spreading mis-information and start getting your facts straight before producing Atari "guesswork" material.
C'mon people, it's not rocket science.
User avatar
Cyrano Jones
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 8:28 pm

Postby ppera » Thu May 24, 2007 6:28 pm

ijor wrote:... As a matter of fact, you can put a different (non-FAT) filesystem in a floppy if you want, and the XP floppy driver won't mind as long as the media byte is correct....


I passed over it last time... But, isn't it proof how floppy handling is poor, unreliable - basing only on media-byte? So little work and care for data integrity in multi-billion project?

Of course - users should blame himself - MS did not say that Win XP will work with non-PC floppies. But average people thinks different - if it is recognized, it will work fine.

This leads to key question: what is really PC or MS DOS floppy?
You will find on zillion sites about it: is is rigid parametered, and one of them is mentioned FAT size.

On the other side, we have BPB based floppy standard, where parameters are flexible - it is what Atari used. It worked in Win 95 as I said, but not now.

Not to mention almost absurd situation with 800K sloppies, where every thenth sector is skipped. Something like that just can't happen at any decent written floppy driver/handler. Floppy is not hard disk, where we have LBA integrated in drives self. Ignoring essencial parameters as sectors/track will result in mess. It may be similar by FAT size - some parts get it from BPB on floppy, some other parts of floppy handling just assume that we have 3 sector long FAT. So, when it is not 3 s/t comes possibility of mess, but it depends of many things will it apear. That's what I'm talk, not that XP will not work at all with 5 sector long FAT.
Such situation may easy happen in company where lot of people works and they adapt/patch old code.
ppera
 

Postby ppera » Thu May 24, 2007 6:34 pm

Cyrano Jones wrote:I'm not trying to teach you anything. Ijor is. And he knows far more about this than anyone else around. I would not even dare to say I know 1/10th as much about this subject as he does.

Its a shame with all those months of "testing" you never actually realised what was wrong. Whats worse is you telling people incorrect information, as if its FACT when in fact its a GUESS.

I think you should stop spreading mis-information and start getting your facts straight before producing Atari "guesswork" material.


Interesting... Ijor posted specific question for me. I don't see teaching in it. He is just very suspicious.
Ijor is great expert for floppy protections (about what I care very little). But even if he knows everything about Atari regular floppies (what is unfortunatelly not case - considering his postings about HD step rate issues) - it does not means that he knows how it goes in Win XP.

Oh yes, Cyrano, explain me, what was wrong when Win XP screwed up my 5 sector FAT 720K floppy, please...

Interesting is that you are now only second man who claims that I spread incorrect things (first was Darek Mihocka, who spent 10 minutes of his life to reply me about bad work of Gemulator under Win XP). What is with other thousands of people?
Even authors of Steem (whom I don't like according to CJ) admitted that I know more about floppies than them) - Did someone other observed bad second FAT by Steem generated flo. images?
ppera
 

Postby Cyrano Jones » Thu May 24, 2007 6:52 pm

Difference is, I'm right :-)
C'mon people, it's not rocket science.
User avatar
Cyrano Jones
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 8:28 pm

Postby ijor » Fri May 25, 2007 5:56 am

ppera wrote:I passed over it last time... But, isn't it proof how floppy handling is poor, unreliable - basing only on media-byte? So little work and care for data integrity in multi-billion project?
...
Not to mention almost absurd situation with 800K sloppies, where every thenth sector is skipped. Something like that just can't happen at any decent written floppy driver/handler.


And what is the relation with this and the matter of FAT size that we are debating? If you want to start a flame against MS and Windows, go ahead, I don't mind.

It may be similar by FAT size - some parts get it from BPB on floppy, some other parts of floppy handling just assume that we have 3 sector long FAT. So, when it is not 3 s/t comes possibility of mess, but it depends of many things will it apear.


You are just guessing, and you are guessing wrong. As I already explained above, there is a single component in Windows that handle the FAT. And that component is not floppy specific, it is the global FAT file system driver. Because it is not floppy specific, it is obviously not hardwired for any FAT size.

Oh yes, Cyrano, explain me, what was wrong when Win XP screwed up my 5 sector FAT 720K floppy, please...


He can't explain it, I can't, you can't, nobody can. Just because you had FAT corruption a "couple of times", it doesn't mean anything. It could be because of many other reasons. I am sure that many people had disk corruption cases on disks formatted on the PC, so what?

ppera wrote:Yes, I had data and FAT corruption couple times when wrote on Atari 720K desktop formatted floppy under Windows XP...
ijor wrote:And how do you know it was because of the different FAT size?

It is deduction - when everything is same except one parameter - then that one parameter is responsible for different results.


This is ridiculous. You can't make any statistical deduction from a couple of cases.

Lack of cashing is not reason for slow work. I do not use cashing, and it is still much faster.


I would like to know how it is much faster. I regularly read and write floppies under XP, and it is almost as fast as it can be. Obviously, if you compare a full image disk write back vs. creating 100 of files, then no doubts it would be faster.
ijor
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
 
Posts: 2394
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 7:52 pm

Next

Return to Games - General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests