AACP - Apple-to-Apple Copy

[D Finnigan]

About 3 weeks ago, I wanted to transfer a Snake game I had written on
the IIgs over to my //e. While I could have used floppy disks, I was too
lazy to get out some disks and connect a drive to the //e.

Because I was also testing out networking between the two machines,
(this Snake game was to be 2-player across 2 machines) I had an SSC in
the //e and the cable connected to the IIgs. After about 10 minutes of
looking through some old PEEKing at Call-Apple compilations, I got the
method to output a listing to TEXT file (POKE 33,33 and all of that).
After trying different baud settings for a while, I finally got the
whole listing transferred over to the //e via the Super Serial Card.

That got me to thinking: there must be an easier way of doing this, but
I don't know if there's any programs written for it yet. Obviously, a
terminal program will suffice, but I want something specific.

Here's what I'm envisioning:
- a simple BASIC or machine language program that sends and receives data
- this data can be a file on disk, or any memory location
- the received file from a remote Apple can be saved to disk, or copied
into mem
- some sort of simple data-compression can be used to save time
- variable baud settings so we can see what the fastest error-less speed is

Any comments on this idea?

(Note that I've posted to 3 groups, but follow-ups should go to csa2.comm)

[schmidtd]

You still need thrower/catcher software on either end. If you
implemented it on top of NadaNet, you could trivially implement memory-
to-memory copy via &POKE; you'd need a little protocol on top of that
to implement a file copy. But it would be doable in Applesoft:
http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/NadaNet.html
http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/AmperNada.html

[D Finnigan]

Post by schmidtd
You still need thrower/catcher software on either end. If you
implemented it on top of NadaNet, you could trivially implement memory-
to-memory copy via &POKE; you'd need a little protocol on top of that
http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/NadaNet.html
http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/AmperNada.html

Good idea; perhaps the first practical use of Nadanet ;-) , but from my
experience, two things are holding it back:
- machines such as the //c which lack game dip sockets
- lack of interrupts

I had a _devil_ of a time trying to get two programs to talk to each
other, and it took me a day or two to realize that there was no decent,
efficient way to solve the problem except for the use of interrupts,
such as by setting SW2-6 on the SSC card.

Though, I have not read in-depth into NadaNet, so it could be that the
absence of interrupts is no detriment at all. In any case, it would be a
good idea to support both methods. That still leaves us with some form
of data-compression. IIRC, ADT implements a form of compression when
sending disk images.

[schmidtd]

On Aug 28, 2:37 pm, D Finnigan <***@macgui.com> wrote:
[...]

Post by D Finnigan
IIRC, ADT implements a form of compression when
sending disk images.

Right. It does RLE on 256-byte packets. I've been thinking about
upping the packet size to 1k or more, but it sure is handy to have a
single-byte run length.

[e p chandler]

Post by D Finnigan
About 3 weeks ago, I wanted to transfer a Snake game I had written on
the IIgs over to my //e. While I could have used floppy disks, I was too
lazy to get out some disks and connect a drive to the //e.
Because I was also testing out networking between the two machines,
(this Snake game was to be 2-player across 2 machines) I had an SSC in
the //e and the cable connected to the IIgs. After about 10 minutes of
looking through some old PEEKing at Call-Apple compilations, I got the
method to output a listing to TEXT file (POKE 33,33 and all of that).
After trying different baud settings for a while, I finally got the
whole listing transferred over to the //e via the Super Serial Card.
That got me to thinking: there must be an easier way of doing this, but
I don't know if there's any programs written for it yet. Obviously, a
terminal program will suffice, but I want something specific.
- a simple BASIC or machine language program that sends and receives data
- this data can be a file on disk, or any memory location
- the received file from a remote Apple can be saved to disk, or copied
into mem
- some sort of simple data-compression can be used to save time
- variable baud settings so we can see what the fastest error-less speed is
Any comments on this idea?
(Note that I've posted to 3 groups, but follow-ups should go to csa2.comm)

KERMIT works for me in transferring single files from PC to Apple 2e.
(It has terminal emulation features, which I don't really use.) It
operates somewhat like command driven FTP. I don't know if KERMIT will
auto-translate text files. You may be able to use one of the KERMITS
as a server, so on the receiving end you just say GET and the server
supplies filenames, etc. On the PC side I use hyperterm. (Copy it to
Vista if your run Vista.)

Using a terminal program and modems is somewhat different from using a
direct (or null modem) connection. Modems have built in error
detection, correction and step-down protocols. So do some of the
popular transfer protocols. The main problem is not over-running the
receiving computer as a 1 MHz Apple 2 is rather slow at data comm. So
even if you use a high baud rate to connect the two machines, the
receiver may hold off the sender while it decompresses data or writes
to disk.

Back in ye old days with a directly wired 4.77 MHz PC and an Apple, I
had good luck with XMODEM up to 19200 baud. (ADT will transfer a disk
at 115200 but the actual thoughput is less..). IMO it's not worth
wasting much time on data compression for single files. Then you have
to unpack them, swap floppies, etc.

-- Elliot

[Bill Buckels]

Post by D Finnigan
(Note that I've posted to 3 groups, but follow-ups should go to csa2.comm)

Comm topics are regularly discussed in csa2.

So is everything including child abuse. Linux issues and MacIntosh issues
seem to creep into here as well... and of course ebay auctions.

comp.sys.apple2.comm
comp.sys.apple2.usergroups
comp.sys.apple2.gno

For RFD you can also add comp.sys.apple, comp.os.mac, alt.comp.os.mac,
alt.sys.mac, comp.os.mac and many more if you wish.

20-something subscribers for each in Google Groups, compared to
400-something for csa2.

I don't much care for google groups and prefer using Outlook Express as my
news reader. It is entirely possible (but unlikely) that the type of person
who likes to use google groups also doesn't like to bother with sub
groups,,, but a more relevant point is that non-barney-googlers may also be
subscribed to those RFD suggestions of yours so the numbers may be greater.

Also even alt.comp.cygwin sees no posts despite its newness and relevance so
maybe usenet itself will eventually be an RFD target.

I then put it to you...

1. is it better to consolidate all posts into one general group or
2. keep things of a like kind in their own place or
3. will it matter in the end?
4. all of the above?

Bill

PS - If someone calls me a clown again for suggesting that the appropriate
subgroups be used
they will also be called a clown.

http://www.grudge-match.com/History/TOC8.shtml

[Nick Westgate]

Post by Bill Buckels
So is everything including child abuse. Linux issues and MacIntosh issues
seem to creep into here as well... and of course ebay auctions.

Yeah, the low traffic means we're pretty OT post tolerant here.

Post by Bill Buckels
For RFD you can also add comp.sys.apple, comp.os.mac, alt.comp.os.mac,
alt.sys.mac, comp.os.mac and many more if you wish.

Sure.

Post by Bill Buckels
a more relevant point is that non-barney-googlers may also be subscribed
to those RFD suggestions of yours so the numbers may be greater.

Probably, but since they don't post much (e.g. nothing this year
except for the FAQs and spam) the Google headcount is the only measure
I can see. When someone does post, only 20-something (plus unknown non-
Googling non-responding) people see it, as opposed to at least 400-
something Google users in csa2. Which is more likely to get a
response? ;-)

Post by Bill Buckels
1. is it better to consolidate all posts into one general group

I think so.

Cheers,
Nick.

[John Flanders]

I've been lurking in these apple newsgroups for 15 years (I used to use an
A2+ to read news - now I'm strictly a linux guy) and I havn't posted
anything for at least 10 years. But I still read them, and at least they
have a dedicated and enthusiastic bunch of users!

Point being that not everyone is a google gremlin!!! and I just wanted to
add a few words after all these years!

John
--
Just as sure as gravity holds me to the ground
the Lord will lift me up! jf'96

Post by Nick Westgate

Post by Bill Buckels
So is everything including child abuse. Linux issues and MacIntosh issues
seem to creep into here as well... and of course ebay auctions.

Yeah, the low traffic means we're pretty OT post tolerant here.

Post by Bill Buckels
For RFD you can also add comp.sys.apple, comp.os.mac, alt.comp.os.mac,
alt.sys.mac, comp.os.mac and many more if you wish.

Sure.

Post by Bill Buckels
a more relevant point is that non-barney-googlers may also be subscribed
to those RFD suggestions of yours so the numbers may be greater.

Probably, but since they don't post much (e.g. nothing this year
except for the FAQs and spam) the Google headcount is the only measure
I can see. When someone does post, only 20-something (plus unknown non-
Googling non-responding) people see it, as opposed to at least 400-
something Google users in csa2. Which is more likely to get a
response? ;-)

Post by Bill Buckels
1. is it better to consolidate all posts into one general group

I think so.
Cheers,
Nick.

[Nick Westgate]

Post by John Flanders
Point being that not everyone is a google gremlin!!!

You are missing the point of my post.

The google group member headcount is the only easily available
_metric_ of how many people read a group. Even if only 50% of readers
use google, that should give us a percentage of the total users, and
this 50% (or whatever) probably applies across groups. So csa2 is
orders of

Anyway, simply look at the content in the groups mentioned.
It's mostly spam.

Cheers,
Nick.

[John Flanders]

Never used google groups - never needed to, but then I'm just one of
those old geeks who still think there was (and is) nothing wrong with
Apples DOS 3.3 and even CPM, and I'd even go so far as to say that the
CPM rip-off MSDOS was alright. It's too bad MS became way too big and
commercial for themselves!! (sorry, a non comp.sys.apple topic rant!)

Anyway - I'm still glad there are some newsgroups like this one that are
not too badly spammed, and have some very intelligent and devoted
members!! :-)

John
--
Just as sure as gravity holds me to the ground
the Lord will lift me up! jf'96

Post by Nick Westgate

Post by John Flanders
Point being that not everyone is a google gremlin!!!

You are missing the point of my post.
The google group member headcount is the only easily available
_metric_ of how many people read a group. Even if only 50% of readers
use google, that should give us a percentage of the total users, and
this 50% (or whatever) probably applies across groups. So csa2 is
orders of
Anyway, simply look at the content in the groups mentioned.
It's mostly spam.
Cheers,
Nick.