RGB Classic Games Forum

I wonder what you guys think about archiving split-file distributions of old shareware or demo versions - either those that are supposed to fit a 3.5" floppy disk or of any other size (smaller or larger than 1.44 MiB), which were designed to speed up the downloading process for slow and/or unreliable connections.

I don't mean the distributions that only came in the split variety (like the early shareware versions of Descent, Strife demo v1.0 etc.), or those which include an installer in the split version versus plain ZIP archive for the single-file version (e.g. Hexen demo, Abuse shareware v1.05), but those where the developer/publisher was mindful enough to provide both a single-file and a split-file version of the same release (Apogee/3D Realms, id Software etc.). I suppose that the "completist" answer is yes, but unless you intend to copy the files on real floppies, even the nostalgic factor is sort of diminished. Besides, in many cases when this method of distribution was used, the single-file version is simply the same as the individual parts of the split file version, but packaged into a single archive, so there is really no added value in keeping the split-file release.

However, the other side of this is that as the split-file versions have become effectively redundant in the modern PC gaming world, these files are at a much greater risk of completely disappearing, unless measures are taken to preserve them. Also, even if the majority of users apparently does not need a bunch of floppies to install a game, someone with a functional old PC that does not have a CD-ROM drive or a USB port might still have use of such files.

I would say we should archive split distributions for exactly the reason that you named: Keeping versions that work on authentic systems.

The only argument for not preserving them is minimizing effort on reaching the goal of archiving all versions, while ignoring their distribution form.
As we've put so much effort into finding distributions that are at least authentic to some degree (zipped, with good timestamps, etc.) it should be natural that we also preserve the split variants when we come across them.

I'm more interested in preserving every version than every archive. We have situations like Nitemare-3D where there were half a dozen releases of each version based on who distributed it (Author-direct, Walnut Creek, etc.), but that note in one of the files was the only difference. We get into the same issue with MVP Software, where there were ZIP and self-extracting ZIP releases of the same version. And yes, many versions of many games came in split and combined versions. The scope of trying to archive all of the different versions of each version starts to seem like one of those paintings that contain a painting of the painting, which contains a painting of the painting, going on and on forever. I want to archive "everything", but not the everything within the everything. If I go too many levels deep into the painting, I'll go mad.

Well, in this particular case the situation isn't really complicated. There's usually one single-file version and one split-file version for each release. The files within may be identical (the single-file being just all the parts zipped into one archive), or the single-file might be a single solid chunk that cannot be fit onto floppies.

The question here is simply, do these split versions have any relevance/collector value now, when floppies aren't widely used. The trick is that, somewhat paradoxically, said collector value increases as the files become more rare - and they become more rare because of not being very useful. Split versions also seem to be less likely included on magazine cover disks. Apparently, magazine editors mostly had the resources to download or otherwise obtain non-split versions.

On a side note, I never intended this discussion to be of any relevance to what and how is archived at RGB Classic Games. Hosting split versions here would certainly be an unnecessary complication, and a waste of time and resources better spent elsewhere. It's just a question I ask myself, with no definite answer.

Ah, that's different then. If it doesn't create work for me, I'm for archiving as much digital history as possible.