[jaclaz]

dencorso, on 16 July 2011 - 06:27 PM, said:

rloew, on 16 July 2011 - 06:06 PM, said:

The NT Boot Sector may be modifiable to support FAT12 but I suspect that NTLDR will not work.

Well, that's a can-of-worms I'm saving for later.
I can always hope NTLDR will work, until proven wrong by a test.
But first we must know whether the boot sector will find NTLDR, to give it a chance to work (or fail)...

Why it shouldn't work?
I mean NTLDR does work on a "normal" FAT12 floppy, I don't see any "normal" reason why the bootsector shouldn't find NTLDR.
Making NTLDR based floppies to boot machines with a corrupted NTLDR or BOOT.INI is (was) a normal task:
http://support.micro...kb/305595/en-us
http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy33.htm

jaclaz

[dencorso]

Well... since we've agreed that a filesystem is a bunch of bytes (or whatever) that can be divided in a System Area and a Data Area (we did agree to that, didn't we?), I'm thinking that there's one more concept I'd like to find a common terminology for:
(i) By looking at the floppy disk format list I posted, we can easily see that the maximum a common "1.44 MB" FDD can actually format is a 83 * 21 * 2 * 512 floppy, which means 1,784,832 bytes or 1.70 MiB (before adding the filesystem), the so called "1.74 MB" floppy.
(ii) The "2.88 MB" floppy uses a special FDD, which can create twice the sectors the normal one can.
So I conclude that the most extreme floopy format possible (although I've never heard about anyone ever having formatted a floppy like this) should be a 83 * 42 * 2 * 512 floppy, which means 3569664 bytes or 3.40 MiB (before adding the filesystem), which might be called a "3.49 MB" floppy.
Hence, I propose that we use floppy disk format or floppy disk image to refer solely to formats or images having up to 3.5 MiB of total capacity, and that anything above that should be called a superfloppy. Of course, floppy formats or images must represent a single device, starting in a boot sector (or be fully zeroed). Of these, all that have a capacity >= "1.44 MB" would receive a Medium Type Byte = 0xF0.
Anything having a MBR and partitions (regardless of being a ZipDisk, a pendrive, or other hardware, or their respective images) would be called a "hard disk image/device" or "hard-disk-like image/device", and have Medium Type Byte = 0xF8.
Please let me know your opinion.

[rloew]

dencorso, on 03 August 2011 - 09:17 PM, said:

Well... since we've agreed that a filesystem is a bunch of bytes (or whatever) that can be divided in a System Area and a Data Area (we did agree to that, didn't we?), I'm thinking that there's one more concept I'd like to find a common terminology for:
(i) By looking at the floppy disk format list I posted, we can easily see that the maximum a common "1.44 MB" FDD can actually format is a 83 * 21 * 2 * 512 floppy, which means 1,784,832 bytes or 1.70 MiB (before adding the filesystem), the so called "1.74 MB" floppy.
(ii) The "2.88 MB" floppy uses a special FDD, which can create twice the sectors the normal one can.
So I conclude that the most extreme floopy format possible (although I've never heard about anyone ever having formatted a floppy like this) should be a 83 * 42 * 2 * 512 floppy, which means 3569664 bytes or 3.40 MiB (before adding the filesystem), which might be called a "3.49 MB" floppy.
Hence, I propose that we use floppy disk format or floppy disk image to refer solely to formats or images having up to 3.5 MiB of total capacity, and that anything above that should be called a superfloppy. Of course, floppy formats or images must represent a single device, starting in a boot sector (or be fully zeroed). Of these, all that have a capacity >= "1.44 MB" would receive a Medium Type Byte = 0xF0.
Anything having a MBR and partitions (regardless of being a ZipDisk, a pendrive, or other hardware, or their respective images) would be called a "hard disk image/device" or "hard-disk-like image/device", and have Medium Type Byte = 0xF8.
Please let me know your opinion.

Guess again. Amigas Format 1802240 Bytes on a HD (1.44MB) Floppy using their standard Format. Non-Standard formats can easily reach 1966080 Bytes or more.

USB Drives can be used with or without a MBR. They still use 0xF8.

I think that 0xF0 is needed for Floppy-like Drives (Drives that mount as A: or B:). Otherwise use 0xF8.
DOS 7 handles A: and B: Drives differently than C: or higher.

[dencorso]

OK. Except for formats having their own 0xFX code, 0xF0 for what will become A: or B: and 0xF8 for all other cases is a rule-of-thumb that makes sense to me.
However, 1966080 Bytes is 1.88 MiB, which is still < 3.5 MiB... and I don't think Amigas can use a "2.88 MB" drive.
Or are you suggesting we should put the floppy/superfloppy frontier at 4 MiB GiB? What is a superfloppy for you?
Please elaborate.

[jaclaz]

dencorso, on 03 August 2011 - 11:54 PM, said:

OK. Except for formats having their own 0xFX code, 0xF0 for what will become A: or B: and 0xF8 for all other cases is a rule-of-thumb that makes sense to me.
However, 1966080 Bytes is 1.88 MiB, which is still < 3.5 MiB... and I don't think Amigas can use a "2.88 MB" drive.
Or are you suggesting we should put the floppy/superfloppy frontier at 4 MiB GiB? What is a superfloppy for you?
Please elaborate.

There is the 2M formats too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2M_(DOS)

the max capacity on ED disks is

Quote

~4,100,000 bytes (4004 KiB)

(4 Gib is seemingly a bit too much )

                                 +------------------------------------+
                                 ¦   Double  ¦   High    ¦ Extrahigh  ¦
 +-------------------------------+-----------+-----------+------------+------+
 ¦ Absolute record before 2M     ¦  820.0 Kb ¦ 1394.0 Kb ¦     --     ¦      ¦
 ¦ Maximum 2M capacity (2MF /M)  ¦  902.0 Kb ¦ 1558.0 Kb ¦     --     ¦ 5.25 ¦
 ¦ Minimum 2MGUI capacity        ¦  976.6 Kb ¦ 1639.8 Kb ¦ 1203.1 Kb  ¦ (5¼) ¦
 ¦ Physical limits (82 tracks)   ¦ 1001.0 Kb ¦ 1668.2 Kb ¦ 1228.8 Kb  ¦      ¦
 +-------------------------------+-----------+-----------+------------+------¦
 ¦ Absolute record before 2M     ¦  984.0 Kb ¦ 1722.0 Kb ¦ 2880.0 Kb  ¦      ¦
 ¦ Maximum 2M capacity (2MF /M)  ¦ 1066.0 Kb ¦ 1886.0 Kb ¦ 3772.0 Kb  ¦  3.5 ¦
 ¦ Minimum 2MGUI capacity        ¦ 1176.0 Kb ¦ 1972.0 Kb ¦ 3944.0 Kb  ¦ (3½) ¦
 ¦ Physical limits (82 tracks)   ¦ 1201.2 Kb ¦ 2002.0 Kb ¦ 4003.9 Kb  ¦      ¦
 +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+

jaclaz

[rloew]

dencorso, on 03 August 2011 - 11:54 PM, said:

OK. Except for formats having their own 0xFX code, 0xF0 for what will become A: or B: and 0xF8 for all other cases is a rule-of-thumb that makes sense to me.
However, 1966080 Bytes is 1.88 MiB, which is still < 3.5 MiB... and I don't think Amigas can use a "2.88 MB" drive.
Or are you suggesting we should put the floppy/superfloppy frontier at 4 MiB GiB? What is a superfloppy for you?
Please elaborate.

There never was a "2.88 MB" drive for the Amiga, but the principles used can be applied to the PC. I'm not sure that you can put three 8KiB Sectors in a single track but I think you probably can put one 16KiB Sector and one 8KiB Sector on a track. It is possible to put one 24KiB Sector on a track but you would need to do Error Detection in software.
Even putting 11 1KiB Sectors per track would achieve 3.52MB.

I never thought about the distinction between floppies and superfloppies. I always treated standard floppy formats as "floppies", anything else as "superfloppies", or I suppose possibly "subfloppies". I have never used a superfloppy. I called the up to 36MB El-Torito Images "extended floppies" as they use the standard floppy Geometry except for the number of Cylinders.
Only the A:/B: vs. C: distinction is really important.

[dencorso]

To me, common floppies formatted to 32 MB by LS-240 drives and those 40 MB click! from Iomega are superfloppies already. So the 36 MiB FAT-12 image we are discussing from the start of this thread *is* a supperfloppy image, not a floppy image. And it'll get A: on boot, and it has a single logical device starting in a boot sector, so it has all the characteristics of a floppy (or superfloppy). And that's why the original thread had superfloppies in the name, which ended up causing the split of the original thread into two threads. But then it dawned on me that it's not at all clear what idea each of the participants in this discussion has about what is a superfloppy. And I realized that not even to me it's actually clear how big a floppy may become, before starting to be a superfloppy. So I posted about reaching a consensus about it. It was relevant enough to cause a thread split, even if it may be irrelevant for practical purposes (I mean: actual usage or the way they are seen by any given OS).

[jaclaz]

If we have to draw a line somewhere, I would draw it, as hinted, right after the 2M 4003.9 Kb size, since that is "the biggest floppy you can have on actually largely mass produced hardware using standard floppy media" (a bit lousy as definition , but not worse than many others ).

While the LS-120 did have some diffusion, the LS-240 had so short a lifetime that the actual numbers are really low AFAIK (and only the LS-240 could make the 32 Mb floppy).

But I am with rloew, to me *anything* which first sector is a MBR and holds a partition table is a "HD-like device" and *anything* which first sector is a bootsector is a "floppy-like device".

jaclaz

[dencorso]

OK. But the table you provided is for 82 tracks. And almost all FDD made after 2000, including my quite unremarkable Samsung SFD-321B Rev. T4 (manufactured in Feb 2002), and the Mitsumi D359T7 I've just decomissioned, are capable of formatting/writing/reading 83 tracks reliably. This pushes up the max capacity on ED disks to ~4,150,000. Then I think 4.0 MiB as a round-number limit is a good number, after all. Can we agree on using it to define the frontier between floppy and superfloppy?

Attached File(s)

•  FDD SFD-321B.GIF (41.13K)
  Number of downloads: 3

[rloew]

dencorso, on 04 August 2011 - 01:06 PM, said:

To me, common floppies formatted to 32 MB by LS-240 drives and those 40 MB click! from Iomega are superfloppies already. So the 36 MiB FAT-12 image we are discussing from the start of this thread *is* a supperfloppy image, not a floppy image. And it'll get A: on boot, and it has a single logical device starting in a boot sector, so it has all the characteristics of a floppy (or superfloppy). And that's why the original thread had superfloppies in the name, which ended up causing the split of the original thread into two threads. But then it dawned on me that it's not at all clear what idea each of the participants in this discussion has about what is a superfloppy. And I realized that not even to me it's actually clear how big a floppy may become, before starting to be a superfloppy. So I posted about reaching a consensus about it. It was relevant enough to cause a thread split, even if it may be irrelevant for practical purposes (I mean: actual usage or the way they are seen by any given OS).

I wanted the CD Floppy Emulation thread to be distinct from the SuperFloppy thread because it is about El-Torito Floppy Emulation on Optical Media. There are different considerations for these than there are for other Floppy-Like Devices such as the LS-120, LS-240, Clik etc. It was not about size. I pushed the El-Torito limit in Post #1. Now I have determined that there is no real limit.

jaclaz said:

But I am with rloew, to me *anything* which first sector is a MBR and holds a partition table is a "HD-like device" and *anything* which first sector is a bootsector is a "floppy-like device".

That is not what I said. I said Devices that Mount as A: or B: are Floppy-Like. Devices that Mount as C: or above are HD-Like.
USB Drives generally Mount as C: or above, so are HD-Like, but they can use a MBR or not use a MBR.
I will agree that a Drive that uses a MBR is HD-Like because it cannot be Mounted as A: or B:, but the Converse is not necessarily true.

[dencorso]

Some BIOSes (and the one for the Asus A7V600-X is a case-in-point) when set to boot an "USB ZipDisk" will boot a pendrive having an MBR and exactly one partition, regardless of if that partition is active or not, as A: (and, of course, will do so also with a real USB ZipDisk). After the device is booted all sectors preceeding the Partition Boot Record (PBR = the Boot Sector of the given Partition) will be unaccessible. It seems that those BIOSes use the MBR to locate the PBR and then will set it as LBA 0, thus rendering the preceeding sectors unavailable.

So this creates problems to use how a device mounts at boot as a criterion to define floppy-like and HDD-like. I prefer the presence of the MBR makes a device HDD-like and its absence makes it floppy-like, regardless of the way it can boot, for the above reason.

[Multibooter]

dencorso, on 03 August 2011 - 09:17 PM, said:

The "2.88 MB" floppy uses a special FDD, which can create twice the sectors the normal one can.

A 2.88MB floppy belongs rather to the category "superfloppies" than "floppies". Like an LS-120 diskette, an unmodified 2.88MB floppy cannot be read, written to or formatted by a regular floppy drive, and the magnetic media used (Barium ferrite) is different from regular floppies. A 2.88MB floppy disk is similar to an LS-120 diskette: you can stick both into a regular floppy drive, but the regular floppy drive will not be able to do anything useful with it.

I don't like the term "superfloppy", it was probably used more by advertising folks. Here an ad in InfoWorld, of 21-Oct-1991, by Toshiba about their 2.88MB superfloppy http://books.google....pf2n44vUc&hl=de [it's on p.53] The 2.88MB floppy was perhaps the first superfloppy. The term "super floppy" is ambiguous http://www.pcmag.com...&i=52221,00.asp

Imation trademarked "SuperDisk" for their LS-120 diskettes in March 1997 http://electronics.z...erdisk/29599892 perhaps because it sounded like the term "super floppy", used by the other companies advertising their wares. BTW, my own memory somehow associates the term superfloppy with Iomega, maybe Iomega used it most effectively in their advertising, e.g. "Check out the new Zip® 250MB USB drive, the latest SuperFloppy solution from Iomega®." http://www.iomega.co...zip_usb250.html

Quote

Hence, I propose that we use floppy disk format or floppy disk image to refer solely to formats or images having up to 3.5 MiB of total capacity, and that anything above that should be called a superfloppy.

In my ongoing search for a software tool to low-level format a bulk-erased LS-120 diskette I checked out a formatting tool called Media Preparation (by Shuttle Technology, Nov.1997, can supposedly low-level format Flopticals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floptical ), which in the help file contained the following text, not sure whether it helps: "Large Floppy format is a single non-bootable partition. This formatting standard is the de facto Windows 95 standard for removable media and was originally called "Large Floppy" by IBM. The operation involves creating a fresh boot record, root directory and File Allocation Table (FAT). Large formatted media can be read by all operating systems that support FAT file system".

This post has been edited by Multibooter: 05 August 2011 - 01:12 AM

[dencorso]

Wow!



Now, using your common garden-variety FDD as the criterion is something that sure hadn't crossed my mind at all.
Which, BTW, also puts the frontier at 2.0 MiB, the maximum the common drive can format/write/read...
It does make sense, however, I guess.

[jaclaz]

dencorso, on 04 August 2011 - 10:48 PM, said:

Some BIOSes (and the one for the Asus A7V600-X is a case-in-point) when set to boot an "USB ZipDisk" will boot a pendrive having an MBR and exactly one partition, regardless of if that partition is active or not, as A: (and, of course, will do so also with a real USB ZipDisk). After the device is booted all sectors preceeding the Partition Boot Record (PBR = the Boot Sector of the given Partition) will be unaccessible. It seems that those BIOSes use the MBR to locate the PBR and then will set it as LBA 0, thus rendering the preceeding sectors unavailable.

Yes this is perfectly consistent with "2nd" version of the ZIP, with the ARMD jumper set, see here:
http://www.msfn.org/...et-of-floppies/

@rloew
Yes, I know what you mean, but the fact a device is mounted a A: or B: may depend on several factors, like BIOS (or bootmanager) and/or actual OS drivers (if any), so it is not an "objective" way unless you actually tried the device on a given machine and you see which letter it gets under a given OS.

@Multibooter
Since the ED 3840K floppy (as image) is inside the El-Torito specs, I doubt you can consider it a "super-floppy", after all:

• it is is inside the specs
  
• it is supported by most CD burning or .iso making application
  
• the actual hardware "existed" and was produced in great quanitites, I remember a period when ALL original IBM's, desktop and laptop had an ED floppy drive.

As a (completely void of any relevance , but interesting as a reference ) example the known bootmanager Syslinux/Isolinux considers these as "normal" floppies, and all the rest as "super" or "queer" :

Quote

If the disk image is less than 4,194,304 bytes (4096K, 4 MB) it is
assumed to be a floppy image and MEMDISK will try to guess its
geometry based on the size of the file. MEMDISK recognizes all the
standard floppy sizes as well as common extended formats:

163,840 bytes (160K) c=40 h=1 s=8 5.25" SSSD
184,320 bytes (180K) c=40 h=1 s=9 5.25" SSSD
327,680 bytes (320K) c=40 h=2 s=8 5.25" DSDD
368,640 bytes (360K) c=40 h=2 s=9 5.25" DSDD
655,360 bytes (640K) c=80 h=2 s=8 3.5" DSDD
737,280 bytes (720K) c=80 h=2 s=9 3.5" DSDD
1,222,800 bytes (1200K) c=80 h=2 s=15 5.25" DSHD
1,474,560 bytes (1440K) c=80 h=2 s=18 3.5" DSHD
1,638,400 bytes (1600K) c=80 h=2 s=20 3.5" DSHD (extended)
1,720,320 bytes (1680K) c=80 h=2 s=21 3.5" DSHD (extended)
1,763,328 bytes (1722K) c=82 h=2 s=21 3.5" DSHD (extended)
1,784,832 bytes (1743K) c=83 h=2 s=21 3.5" DSHD (extended)
1,802,240 bytes (1760K) c=80 h=2 s=22 3.5" DSHD (extended)
1,884,160 bytes (1840K) c=80 h=2 s=23 3.5" DSHD (extended)
1,966,080 bytes (1920K) c=80 h=2 s=24 3.5" DSHD (extended)
2,949,120 bytes (2880K) c=80 h=2 s=36 3.5" DSED
3,194,880 bytes (3120K) c=80 h=2 s=39 3.5" DSED (extended)
3,276,800 bytes (3200K) c=80 h=2 s=40 3.5" DSED (extended)
3,604,480 bytes (3520K) c=80 h=2 s=44 3.5" DSED (extended)
3,932,160 bytes (3840K) c=80 h=2 s=48 3.5" DSED (extended)

Anyway, as said, no problem whatsoever, we can draw "the line" (if needed) wherever you prefer.

jaclaz

[Drugwash]

I think a line should be drawn, and fast, because it's been too much talk about sticking "this" or "that" format into one standard or another. Is anyone here member of a Standards Association of some sort?! Personally I'm getting more and more confused by all this information which deviates the course of the initial topic: "bootable CD floppy emulation". Since it should be about booting, why don't we focus on BIOS capabilities instead? I've read about some old Dell BIOS versions that wouldn't clear a carry flag, thus malfunctioning in certain situations and there may be other issues that need dealt with. If the purpose of the current topic is still making the largest possible floppy emulation image, then first find a common denominator for BIOS capabilities. I've had machines that wouldn't boot a ISOLINUX CD but would gladly accept Windows 9x or XP install CD. I've had machines that wouldn't boot any Linux flavor. How exactly does BIOS makes the difference between Floppy and HDD (image): is it the media descriptor (IBM's 11111RED byte)? Does it have any internal limitation on the number of C/H/S recognized for a certain media type (aside from or along with LBA/LBA48)?
More questons I have not yet found a definite answers for:
- why, exactly, choose floppy emulation over HDD emulation?
- why, exactly, make a single huge image instead of the classical 1.44/2.88 image plus creating a RAM drive, when the superfloppy wouldn't be writable anyway?
- what file system would be best for such boot image, considering all capabilities as well as limitations of different file systems?

There's probably more questions waiting for an answer, but that's all that came to my mind, for now. As for BootMaker, it'll still take a few days before I can release a safe version, after the changes I've made. That is, if it's still needed, because I haven't yet heard any constructive criticism about it, other than the labeling issue.

This post has been edited by Drugwash: 05 August 2011 - 10:33 AM

[jaclaz]

Drugwash, on 05 August 2011 - 10:31 AM, said:

More questons I have not yet found a definite answers for:
- why, exactly, choose floppy emulation over HDD emulation?
- why, exactly, make a single huge image instead of the classical 1.44/2.88 image plus creating a RAM drive, when the superfloppy wouldn't be writable anyway?
- what file system would be best for such boot image, considering all capabilities as well as limitations of different file systems?

• Historically, there have been a number of BIOSes that did have problems with Hard disk emulation. An example is (was? ) the BOCHS (read Qemu) one:
  http://reboot.pro/3890/
  http://reboot.pro/3890/page__st__46
  but similar issues are more common that you may think, of course mostly on very dated BIOSes.
  DELL's are notoriously a PITA in about everything concerning booting them but also Acer and other makers have their own "queer" things, examples (not directly related, though):
  http://reboot.pro/10503/
  http://reboot.pro/12942/
  
• Because its fun? Because it can be done? If you mean an actual *need* there isn't any AFAIK, nowadays you can boot a grldr no-emulation CD or a 1.44 floppy emulation one booting grub4dos and you can map almost *anything* to *anything* else. If you want an example of a project that may make use of this, it's here:
  http://reboot.pro/10373/
  http://www.msfn.org/...project-update/
  
• Given the anyway limited size of the possible image with 2/18 or 2/36 geometry, FAT16 is iMHO a good choice, FAT12 is, as seen, a bit stretched out and FAT32 is pointless (besides not being NT 3.5/4.0 and DOS <=6.22 compatible), whilst NTFS sounds "looking for troubles" (unneededly).

Drugwash, on 05 August 2011 - 10:31 AM, said:

As for BootMaker, it'll still take a few days before I can release a safe version, after the changes I've made.

Take all the time you need (and even more ) there is no pressure.

Drugwash, on 05 August 2011 - 10:31 AM, said:

That is, if it's still needed, because I haven't yet heard any constructive criticism about it, other than the labeling issue.

Well, right now (I mean the preliminary version you posted) doesn't do much, so it's hard to say how what you added to it in the meantime can be bettered or enhanced.
The posted version, besides Writing capabilities, is missing IMHO what I tried (and still try) to add to the worksheet:

• a set of pre-configured settings for most (if not all) floppy and "super-floppy" formats
  
• a set of suggested settings for the "FREE" formats

Your nice app, unless you add these features (and/or other ones) won't have much more practical functionalities (exception made for a nicer interface ) than an existing app, such as Roadkil's BootBuilder:
http://www.roadkil.n.../Boot%20Builder

BTW, your nice program is not necesarily connected to the use of a floppy or super-floppy image on a CD, it could (and should) be IMHO a "general" tool to experiment with floppies and super-floppies.

jaclaz

P.S.: I am attaching last version of the spreadsheet and a small batch that may possible be useful (needs dsfo and dumphex)

Attached File(s)

•  FAT_make_06.zip (48.01K)
  Number of downloads: 7
•  getFAT1xBS.zip (3.53K)
  Number of downloads: 6

This post has been edited by jaclaz: 05 August 2011 - 11:52 AM

[Drugwash]

I'm getting old and productivity is not that high now so development is slow. However, here's a glimpse of what will be:
 v5_preview.PNG (96.37K)
Number of downloads: 11
Obviously, I will try my best to create a good editor. All formats in the drop-down list will automatically yield the proper values and the File system dropdown will add the corresponding boot code and - when possible and allowed by the license - also the required files or otherwise prompt for manual addition by the user. At some point I thought of adding a disassembler, but that's still far from becoming a certainty.
I also plan on reading/editing available HDD/FDD/USB boot sectors but that's also far from implementation.
For now it can edit and save .ima images of either floppy or hard disks. Currently, editing can be done at bit and byte level (hex), since I haven't yet found a reliable way for ASCII editing. String editing is also available but it doesn't update the editor window, that's why I haven't released it yet, since it could create big problems.

If anyone has other suggestions, please speak up; I'd be glad to comply, if and when possible.

[rloew]

jaclaz, on 05 August 2011 - 03:05 AM, said:

@rloew
Yes, I know what you mean, but the fact a device is mounted a A: or B: may depend on several factors, like BIOS (or bootmanager) and/or actual OS drivers (if any), so it is not an "objective" way unless you actually tried the device on a given machine and you see which letter it gets under a given OS.

True.
I define Floppy-Like and HD-like based on the way they are handled by DOS and possibly by Windows 9X.
At the Media end, Floppy = Soft, Flexible Media, Hard = Rigid, Non-Flexible Media.
As for Drives and Controllers, I leave it up to the rest of you to fight over definitions.

Official El-Torito Floppy Emulation Images top out at 2.88MB. Extending the Cylinder Count (unofficial, but common in BIOSes) gets you to 36MB.
I called these "Extended" Floppy Images.

So called SuperFloppy Drives typically use IDE or SCSI Interfaces and more resemble Hard Drives. Only by explicit inclusion in a BIOS's or Option ROMS's design can they be Booted as A: Drives. USB Drives are a similar story.

[Multibooter]

Drugwash, on 05 August 2011 - 02:12 PM, said:

Obviously, I will try my best to create a good editor... For now it can edit and save .ima images of either floppy or hard disks. ... If anyone has other suggestions, please speak up; I'd be glad to comply, if and when possible.

I like the screen shot of BootMaker. It is a little OT, but would it be possible to turn BootMaker into a track-0-writer for removable media, so that it could, for example, write/re-create track 0 on a bulk-erased/de-gaussed removable media disk, e.g. a bulk-erased LS-120 diskette? Such a tool could be very useful for re-initializing the rare special removable media of dual-format drives in general (e.g. also Floptical, Sony HiFD, Caleb UHD144).

This post has been edited by Multibooter: 05 August 2011 - 04:04 PM

[dencorso]

@Multibooter: Well, gdisk can do it, but it'll write an MBR there. So hexediting it subsequently would be in order, to create a floppy-like format. And WinHex template editing will let you do it relatively easily by hand. I think even when unregistered WinHex will allow you to do so, but of that I cannot be sure, since I'm a registered user for a real long time already.