It's the apple drive which is not supported not the format itself...
Well, if that is true, and such would imply Kryoflux is NOT compatible with Macintosh 400K or 800K disks seeing that compatibility page only says “Apple DOS” which is an Apple II disk format totally incompatible with the Macintosh.
More specifically, the word “ MacIntosh“ is not mentioned at all on the compatibility page. Could you please explain why not?
I think there was also a way to stick AppleSoft DOS in there, but I never used that. (Probably why they say "DOS" on that list)
The Kryoflux can decode ALL of these to IMG files, when read in using an IBM PC style 3.5" drive.
So it is not just a format for Macintosh.
Here's what that page says now:
Apple DOS 3.2
Apple DOS 3.3+ (including DSK with interleave)
Apple DOS 400K/800K (CLV)
It's all "DOS" and such leaves the reader to think, "Oh, the Mac isn't specifically mentioned, yet DOS is pounded on 3 times. Therefore, the Mac must NOT be included."
I am happy to hear that Mac compatibility is real with Kryoflux (albeit with particular floppy drives only), but it is not a logical deduction to think the Mac is included when you say the word DOS 3 times on 3 separate lines. That page needs an update!
There also was a 800k drive introduced in 1985 for the apple II (ProDOS), months before it was available for the mac!
So it's not a mac format but a apple format which was used on ProDOS, lisa-OS and mac-OS at least...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh ... Disk_Drive
https://apple2online.com/web_documents/ ... drives.pdf
EDIT: Sri SomeGuy didn't see that you mentioned it all before
But I still think if only one word were to be chosen that word should be “Mac“ because the Mac is by far the most popular computer of the three mentioned that people would associate with. And although one could argue that the Apple II series was popular “back in the day,“ the fact remains that many people used the 5 1/4 inch floppy drives, not the 3 1/2 inch which came later. The Mac only used 3 1/2 inch floppy disks.
So to repeat, the compatibility page should be updated for clarity.