Thread: DMS vs. ADF
View Single Post
Old 15 October 2001, 03:28   #10
Give up the ghost
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: U$A
Age: 25
Posts: 4,662
Icy, if all you do is emulate, then that works best for you. I am not trying to 'convert' you to DMS and frankly couldn't care less what format you use! You referred a lot to loading files and which programs support this and that, which is something I was not even discussing. I wasn't really even talking about emulation.

And I never claimed this to be the 'old days'. But by that same token, I could throw the same line back at you for using Amiga games software from the 'old days', but I'll at least do you the courtesy of not patronising you, which I should expect in return! If you don't like command line switches, fine. I have no problem with them and if you know your way around AmigaDOS, using aliases can reduce any long command line to a mere keystroke.

You don't seem to have enough knowledge of DMS to be bagging on its compression. I have never in my history of Amiga and DMS usage ever compressed a disk with DMS that I could not decompress (outside of the file having a R/W error from disk. Every DMS I have ever created has been tested back after creating and never once has any compression encoding caused any problems. I'd be interested in any examples you may have to the contrary. If you are referring to DMS2ADF not being able to decode deep compressed DMS files, that is hardly the fault of the Amiga version, is it?

You completely lost me on the renaming DMS's part. You may have to try and translate that one for me, as I could make no sense of that comment. As for the speed of decompressing an ADF over a DMS, DMS also has an option for no compression, should you desire it.
...since many more programs require an ADF format than a DMS one, it makes sense to use what is A) supported more widely...
Then why play Amiga games at all when PC games are supported more widely? Why not always take the high road and follow what the general public decides to use?
Twistin'Ghost is offline  
Page generated in 0.05070 seconds with 9 queries