<adamreplacethiswiththeyearthiswaspos...@polyex.com> wrote:
> I have a CFFA card for my Apple IIe from dreher.net. It is great
> product, does everything as advertised. I have gone down the road of
> trying to boot some older non-prodos games etc. I am pretty sure,
> judging by other posts, that I am not alone in doing trying to do this,
> and hopefully my post will help other newbies. I have followed the
> directions on both products and have been successfull. Overall I have
> found that DOSLauncher 2.2 is the better choice, and would like to get
> others views on this as I don't claim to be an expert in all of this
> after only playing with both pieces of software for only about a week.
> The reason I prefer to use DOSLauncher is simply that at least for me,
> it is far easier to go from a disk image of floppy disk to booting it
> from my CFFA card. The support of .dsk images like you find on Asimov
> makes it very easy. My procedure if I don't feel like pulling the CFFA
> card out of the computer and copy the disk image directly to it via of
> Ciderpress, is to simply boot into contiki which is installed on the
> CFFA, download the disk image from the contiki app called web
> downloader to my CFFA drive (this can be a little weird, as you can not
> browse the file names or path). I then simply set the launch options
> for the disk image from the DOS 3.3 COPIER application (this seemed
> critical as all it seems to do is set the filetype to say whether to
> slow down to 1mhz but for some reason if this procedure is not done on
> a downloaded disk image (not necessary if your ripping a disk), I
> noticed some disks would not boot, but would if you ran the DOS 3.3
> COPIER on them?!?). Anyway, this makes it fairly easy if a little
> boring (if you have lots of disk images to set, it can be laborious to
> have to type the name of each one with no wildcards allowed). I then
> add the DOS launcher program to my PROSEL menu with an argument of the
> disk image. Thats it. I used DOS.MASTER, but I wont go into the
> procedures, but found it to be far more difficult to not only get up
> and running.

> If anyone else has comments on all this, like perhaps DOS.MASTER is
> more compatible, I would love to hear your experience as I am running
> both pieces of software.