mr.vince wrote:Rob Northen did many ST protections (he even started on the ST and then ported this code), I can't speak of particular titles, IFW would know.
Well, if you have any evidence that RN made the on-disk copy protections of these ST titles, then please post it.
The sources we have indicate that Trace had drives produced for them, but based on standard drives, with small modifications...
Duplicator drives, depending on the model, had such features as writing to both sides at the same time, 2x, or even 4x RPM speed. Does this sound as "small modifications" to you? They were heavy duty, as any industrial grade instrument, designed to be working 24 hours a day. And they had a a wealth of analog features.
Quoting from Trace brochures:
Window margin and dropout testing. Azimuth, radial and amplitude built-in testing. Built-in drive cleaning. Automatic adjustment for head wear. Recording amplitude testing and control, etc, etc.
As you can see, they were very special drives. No way just standard drives with small modifications.
In a production process (which sounds to me you never experienced this) the publisher would have kicked you for adding a second step during duplication... This was unusual...Just to add to this: Yes, there were disks that were duped in two passes, e.g. some Thalion titles, or Little Computer People.
Seems like you are answering to yourself. It was unusual, it wasn't the standard, but it happened for different reasons as you admit yourself.
I am not saying I'm sure that this protection was performed in a separate step. I am just saying this is a posibility. And if you look carefully at the protected tracks, and compare the different titles and multiple copies of the same title, then it sounds even as probable.
What we know about the no flux protection: It must have been problematic, because it fails on certain brands of drives, so later versions of the same game (e.g. Treasure Island Dizzy) were delivered with the later, density based, protection.
It might have been problematic in the Amiga. But seems it was quite reliable in the ST. A fair amount of titles were produced with that protection, spawning a not so small period. And if they changed the protection on specific titles, it might have been for other reasons, including because this protection might have been more expensive to produce.
This is a discussion and I'd be pleased to hear your facts.
I don't have any hard facts or proofs about this, and I don't think you don't have either, or at least you didn't show any so far.
Being your baby does not mean people have to remain silent when when they notice something odd. So that does not stop me from saying strong DC erasure sounds like bull to me. This is no disrespect and I don't feel I have to remain silent to respect you.
I didn't say you have to remain silent, did I? I didn't say you can't debate or contradict my posts, did I? I said that whatever you say, do that with respect. Of course that disagreeing with me is no disrespect. You know exactly what you said that was disrespectful.
As you see we shared the source to the decoder lib with the world, so we don't have a problem with sharing information. I am just curious if you know, too.
Sorry, I don't follow the meaning of the question (if there is a question here). If I know what?
Rob Northen ... If you like, we'll ask him and that's it.
(I intentionally moved this to the bottom, to end on a more positive tone)
Yes, I'll love it. Please do it if you can.
Ask him which on-disk protections he made (if he remembers)? And of course, ask him specifically about this one. Did he make it? How it was produced?