27 April 2009, 01:50 | #61 |
Da Digger :)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Monza, Italy
Posts: 2,822
|
|
27 April 2009, 05:44 | #62 | |
(Amigas && Amigos)++
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Anrea
Posts: 999
|
Quote:
As an example, I got some 3.1 "official" disks, but one of them instead of being the e.g. Install disk, I got 2 copies of the e.g. Storage disk!! Even though the sticker said it was the Install disk. Which leads me to believe that someone had copied them and passed them off as originals. Just food for thought that the original should be thoroughly checked. |
|
27 April 2009, 17:16 | #63 | |
Da Digger :)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Monza, Italy
Posts: 2,822
|
Quote:
A CRC32 gets a green color only if two different users confirm it. This should give a reasonable sufficient "certainty"... but the list is always open to corrections, of course. |
|
28 April 2009, 13:47 | #64 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney / Australia
Posts: 83
|
@Supamax I've checked and the part numbers do indeed start with 310. However looking at them again, I'm inclined to think that Calgor might be right - it's possible the disks are not Commodore originals, with printed stickers.
|
28 April 2009, 18:03 | #65 |
Da Digger :)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Monza, Italy
Posts: 2,822
|
Mmmm... if the labels were created from scratch and then printed, perhaps the "author" put "1" instead of "7" (hence the 310xxx instead of 370xxx). Could you perhaps upload a scan of one label?
|
14 May 2009, 21:12 | #66 |
Da Digger :)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Monza, Italy
Posts: 2,822
|
Hi,
I dumped my friend's floppy: Extras 1.2 + Basic 1.2, International, A500/2000, P/N 380706-09 Its CRC32 code is $46383329, identical to the one previously obtained from my floppy. So it meets the requirements to be colour-coded bold green . Last edited by Supamax; 15 May 2009 at 03:19. |
15 May 2009, 03:21 | #67 |
Da Digger :)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Monza, Italy
Posts: 2,822
|
Hi,
I dumped my WB 2.05 floppies: WORKBENCH, CRC32 $54E22B1D, P/N 367959-01 FONTS, CRC32 $0F4D1BBD, P/N 367968-01 EXTRAS, CRC32 $5AE9927A, P/N 367960-01 They were given to me with the A600HD I bought on eBay, so I cannot be sure they were not modified. They meet the requirements to be colour-coded black . |
05 July 2009, 10:27 | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,667
|
Dumped my Workbench 1.4 alpha 15 set:
Autodocs: 0xF6A12912 Kickstart: 0x140E9D67 Support: 0x45A2E1E4 Workbench: 0xB532C6CD I can assure that they are unmodified. |
07 July 2009, 00:57 | #69 | |
Da Digger :)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Monza, Italy
Posts: 2,822
|
Quote:
thank you very much! I updated the list. Could you perhaps tell us some more info taken from the disk labels? (p/n, version, country, Amiga model, etc.) Last edited by Supamax; 07 July 2009 at 01:13. |
|
08 July 2009, 21:16 | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,667
|
No p/n, as those are beta disks. Country US, Amiga model A1000.
|
10 July 2009, 01:50 | #71 |
Da Digger :)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Monza, Italy
Posts: 2,822
|
|
21 September 2009, 17:25 | #72 |
Da Digger :)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Monza, Italy
Posts: 2,822
|
Hi EAB mates,
does somebody have unmodified (always kept write-disabled) WB disks? This thread is asleep , and I'm sure that a lot of you could give a great contribution here... Any help is greatly appreciated. |
21 September 2009, 20:25 | #73 |
Global Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sidcup, England
Posts: 10,300
|
Hi Supamax,
I've acquired some more original Workbench disks bundled with an A500 I bought recently. They are 1.3.x disks and will provide some more data for confirmation of what we have already. |
09 November 2009, 00:52 | #74 |
Da Digger :)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Monza, Italy
Posts: 2,822
|
|
27 December 2009, 20:55 | #75 | |
Global Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sidcup, England
Posts: 10,300
|
Quote:
These disks have been write-protected from new, and have no sliders fitted in them with which to cover the write-protect hole. Workbench 1.3.2, Rev 34.28, English A500/A2000, P/N 317789-03 $C5692F06. This disk was colour-coded Black and can now be colour-coded Bold Green! $2F9CEA9F - Extras 1.3 / Basic 1.2, International, A500/A2000, P/N 317788-01 $2F9CEA9F. This disk was also colour-coded Black and can now be colour-coded Bold Green! The Very First, English, A500, P/N 380921-02 $1AB58E91. This disk was already colour-coded Bold Green. This is the second original copy of this disk I have acquired, and both have the same checksum! Well, those disks were worth taking time to dump! Last edited by prowler; 28 December 2009 at 23:55. Reason: Typo |
|
28 December 2009, 23:37 | #76 | |
Global Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sidcup, England
Posts: 10,300
|
Quote:
Since the checksums have been reported for two identical and original disks, albeit by the same user, they should still be allocated Bold Green type. (The disks I acquired recently were originally owned by B1k3rdude.) Also, today, while I still have the equipment set up, I have again dumped my Workbench 2.1 ver 38.36 set, and I can confirm that the checksums I originally reported for these are correct. There are two reasons why I decided to check these disks: (1) The checksums for my set do not agree with those reported by Redwood for his set, and (2) I discovered recently, while dumping some Amiga floppies for hitm4n, that images dumped with DMS occasionally produce discrepancies when decompressed to ADF, particularly when the floppy drive had difficulty reading the disks. I remember dumping my Workbench 2.1 set originally with DMS from an external floppy drive connected to my Escom A1200, and decided to recheck them by dumping directly to ADF in case the DMS program had corrupted the images. I didn't really expect there to be any problem with those dumps, but just thought I would check them for the reasons given while I had the opportunity. I'm happy to have cleared that up. Last edited by prowler; 28 December 2009 at 23:56. Reason: Typo (quoted). |
|
28 December 2009, 23:51 | #77 |
Da Digger :)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Monza, Italy
Posts: 2,822
|
Hi prowler,
thank you very much! I updated the list with your last contributions . Last edited by Supamax; 29 December 2009 at 00:02. |
29 December 2009, 15:37 | #78 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York / USA
Posts: 361
|
One point of note - the original A3000 (ROM tower model) shipped with three unique 1.3 disks - SuperKickstart 1.3, Workbench 1.3 (contained modified SetClock to work with the A3000 clock chip), and Extras 1.3 (had AmigaBASIC removed due to 68030 incompatibility). I unfortunately do not have part numbers, CRCs, or even the subversion (i.e. 1.3.2) of these disks.
Rodney |
29 December 2009, 19:47 | #79 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York / USA
Posts: 361
|
Another thought on this effort...
Would it not be enough to compare the CRC32 to _any_ original disk to _any_ downloaded ADF to achieve validation? Case in point: - Booting or opening any folder on a 1.x disk results in updating the .info file for the respective directory, rendering the CRC32 unique and allowing you to detect modification versus the CRC32 of the sample/original floppy - Booting any 2.x+ disk results in the updating of the timestamp of the :T folder, see above This is entirely theoretical at this point, but especially for some of the more rare/esoteric disks, this may be a useful way to allow for confident validation of unmodified originals without necessarily needing *two* original samples (only one plus the "from the 'net" copy). Thoughts? Rodney |
30 December 2009, 00:25 | #80 | |
Global Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Sidcup, England
Posts: 10,300
|
Quote:
After all this time, many Amiga owners have chosen to remove the battery which was powering their machine's RTC, either because of leakage or as a preventative measure, without replacing it. While it is still much more likely that two original disks with the same checksum are indeed unmodified, an increasing number of Amiga owners cold booting their machines with the RTC effectively reset means that two or more modified disks with the same checksum is a real possibility. Note that this in no way refutes the argument that it may be a valid test of the unmodified status of an original disk to compare its checksum with that of a disk image sourced from the 'net. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Amiga Workbench 2.1 Disks Original | mr_magnell | request.Apps | 4 | 21 August 2013 11:42 |
original amiga 3.1 roms and workbench disks | alienkidmj12 | request.Apps | 1 | 10 March 2012 17:25 |
ORIGINAL Workbench (any version) | Supamax | request.Other | 1 | 09 January 2009 22:10 |
Workbench 3.1 - original disk contents | Bloodwych | support.Apps | 7 | 04 December 2007 18:18 |
Problem with original Workbench 1.3.2 | mindtilt | support.Apps | 0 | 18 January 2006 01:42 |
|
|