11 Aug
2004
11 Aug
'04
7:18 a.m.
From: "Jules Richardson"
<julesrichardsonuk(a)yahoo.co.uk>
---snip---
As for file size, if encoding as hex that at least doubles the size of
your archive file compared to the original media (whatever it may be).
That's assuming no padding between hex characters. Seems like a big
waste to me :-(
---snip---
Jules
Hi
It mightseem a waste but i would expect to see a proper archive
file to be 200% to 500% larger than the original data. Having the
data in something that can be printed directly on paper is a
must. This means something like HEX values or binary or whatever.
Still, anything as non-printable bits is useless.
JMHO
Dwight
11 Aug
11 Aug
7:34 a.m.
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Dwight K. Elvey wrote:
It mightseem a waste but i would expect to see a
proper archive
file to be 200% to 500% larger than the original data. Having the
data in something that can be printed directly on paper is a
must. This means something like HEX values or binary or whatever.
Still, anything as non-printable bits is useless.
Agreed.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
7442
days inactive
7442
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
dwight.elvey＠amd.com -
vcf＠siconic.com