ppera wrote:Ijor: at one point, you said that Pasti can not detect always that content is changed. Then again say that Pasti can indeed detect...
I never said that Pasti (or anything in earth, for that matter) can always detect with 100% certainty if a disk was modified or not. Did I? What I said is, and what I believe is the whole point, that we can detect if the disk is mint (not damaged and not modified), with a high level of certainty, in almost every case.
Making alone program - OK. Not publishing at least format specs - not OK for me.
As I said already in my reply to Belboz, I do agree. Specs should, and will be open.
If you took all that job on your shoulder, then do it, and don't expect that everybody will agree with your approach... But imaging alone thousands of floppies is insane for me. Maybe you could do something more challenging for your skills...
It wasn't my plain, but we all (see below what I mean by "we all") learnt that nobody else will do it, and we (all) learnt it the hard way.
There are preservation projects for many platforms. If you bother to check them, you'll see that in all cases the hard and boring work is performed by very few people: the project authors/mantainers and very few contributors.
I'm not complaining, and it is not that bad as it seems. It doesn't need a constant massive contribution from the whole community. If you take the software available at a handful of big collectors, then you get most of the available titles.
One idea: why not use Pasti just as verifier that floppy is not protected - then just make ST or MSA image... ?
Not sure exactly for which purpose you mean. If you mean for the purpose of writing it back, or any other use; then yes, I agree that would be useful (and again, I replied already that to Belboz).
If you mean to preserve it like that, then no, I don't agree. You never know for sure if you won't ever need a more detailed description of the disk content. I'll give you an example. There are a few games that seem to be unprotected, they were designed as unprotected, and if you want, you can consider them unprotected. But because of bugs in the loader, the game will crash if it would load too fast, or too slow. That's means that a different skew/interleave would be enough for the game to not load.
In some cases this is obvious. In others it is not. The main point is, again, that you can't never know for sure if the extra information would be useful or not. So it pays to preserve the image in a detailed format.
You can always convert the image to a simpler format, and you can do that automatically, but you can't the other way around. So you don't lose anything by preserving with a more detailed format. If you want, you can keep both types of images in your hard disk or CD/DVD. The extra space that you would need is not significant for current standards.
Btw, if you check other threads in this subforum, you would see that we already verified and checked many unprotected titles. We also published MD5 tables of those ST images. If you check good enough, you will also see that most of those verified ST images are available on the net.
The truth is that the list of verified unprotected titles is not as big as it could be. We didn't give this too much priority. In many cases I am not completely sure if the disk is protected or not, and I don't bother too much about it. In some cases it is "unprotected" but it can't be saved as a plain ST/MSA image (because, for example, it has a different geometry on each side of the disk).