Skip to content

Software Preservation Society

Preserving how the disk was made to be read

The Software Preservation Society works on preserving original software media, including protected floppy disks. Its IPF approach describes disk data and layout, while raw captures retain a different layer of evidence.

A protected floppy may refuse to run even when all its ordinary files have been copied. The program can inspect track layout, unusual data or timing that a file copy never preserved. The Software Preservation Society, also known through the earlier CAPS name, addresses that deeper part of software preservation.

Its Interchangeable Preservation Format, or IPF, describes both disk data and how it is arranged. That differs from treating a disk as only a numbered list of decoded sectors.

Capture first, interpret afterwards

Low-level capture tools such as KryoFlux record information from the drive below the filesystem’s view. A stream capture retains observations of magnetic transitions and timing. Analysis then asks what structure those observations represent.

Jean Louis-Guerin’s technical investigation describes the SPS workflow as reconstructing a disk’s mastering description. The resulting IPF can describe layout and protection properties without being a verbatim container for every raw timing measurement. (IPF Documentation 1.6, sections 1.4–1.5.)

A physical floppy leads to a raw capture, analysis and an IPF description of the data and its arrangement. Raw captures remain separate evidence.
Original diagram of two related preservation layers. A raw observation and an analysed description answer different questions; one filename should not stand for both.

Preserve the protection’s evidence

Disk protection could depend on properties outside an ordinary sector image. Retaining a description of those properties allows a compatible consumer to reproduce the reads expected by the software.

WinUAE, for example, lists IPF among its supported floppy-image formats. The image and its decoder still need a suitable emulator around them: describing a disk is not the same as emulating every part of the computer.

A description is also an interpretation

Louis-Guerin identifies his document as an investigation drawing on source material and discussions, with cautions about possible errors and speculative details. It is useful technical evidence, but should not be mistaken for a guarantee that every disk or every image has been preserved perfectly.

Keeping raw captures, analysis and a usable preservation image distinct makes later checking possible. A future investigator may have a better explanation for an awkward track. The earlier observations can still matter even when today’s interpretation is enough to run the program.

Sources

Checked. Verified against primary sources and signed off by a person.