ORIGINAL WorkBench checksums - Page 7

prowler · 31 March 2010, 00:31

I have today received seven original Commodore floppy disks from cosmicfrog with read errors. I am going to use my disk recovery techniques to try to restore them.
They are as follows:

The Very First, Amiga 500, English Version, P/N 380921-02 (3 copies)

Amiga Extras 1.3 / Amiga Basic 1.2, International Version, P/N 317788-01 (2 copies)

Workbench 1.3.3, Rev. 34.34, A500/A2000, English Version, P/N 317789-04 (1 copy)

Extras 1.3.3, Rev 34.34, A500/A2000, International Version, P/N 367618-01 (1 copy)

Working on these disks will generate more data with which I can check my own copies of these disks, checksums for which have already been submitted here.

At the same time, I will be checking the two erroneous Workbench 1.3.2 disks I have against my known good copies to see whether or not the discrepancies are the result of partial overwriting. (I suspect that they are.)

Supamax · 31 March 2010, 02:20

Thank you very much prowler!!

I'll wait for your results

.

kolla · 31 March 2010, 04:11

I don't quite see the point in doing checksums of entire disk images, I thought the idea was to have checksums on the files that are on them - because that would be usefull. Especially if the various versions and incarnations also could be included in some database

Supamax · 31 March 2010, 11:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by kolla

I don't quite see the point in doing checksums of entire disk images, I thought the idea was to have checksums on the files that are on them - because that would be usefull. Especially if the various versions and incarnations also could be included in some database

The idea is, by knowing the original checksum of an unmodified disk, to know/be sure that the owner's disk is untampered (or not). I think there's no other way, since there are no preservation projects dedicated to WB floppies...

What you say about the single files is/could be interesting, but... it would deserve/require another (dedicated) thread

.

prowler · 31 March 2010, 23:49

I have successfully generated images with no checksum errors and no missing blocks of all seven of cosmicfrog's original Commodore floppy disks.

The Very First, Amiga 500, English Version, P/N 380921-02 (3 copies) - Two copies have the checksum $1AB58E91, and the third (which I suspect has been modified) has the unverified checksum $ECD28528.

Amiga Extras 1.3 / Amiga Basic 1.2, International Version, P/N 317788-01 (2 copies) - One has the checksum $2F9CEA9F, and the second (which I suspect has been modified) has the unverified checksum $192261E2.

Workbench 1.3.3, Rev. 34.34, A500/A2000, English Version, P/N 317789-04 (1 copy) - This has the unverified checksum $0C842649, so I suspect it may have been modified.

Extras 1.3.3, Rev 34.34, A500/A2000, International Version, P/N 367618-01 (1 copy) - This has the checksum $E8EB34C4. This verifies the checksum reported earlier for this disk, which now meets the requirements to be listed in bold green!

I recently acquired another set of original Commodore Workbench 3.0 disks. While I had the equipment set up, I took the opportunity to make images of those as well and get the checksums.

The Extras 3.0, Fonts 3.0, Locale 3.0 and Storage 3.0 disks have the checksums already listed in bold green for disks with the same part number, but the Workbench 3.0 disk (P/N 370127-02) has the unverified checksum $1129A1CB.

I will try to confirm next whether those disks which were found to have unverified checksums show signs of modification or not. At the same time, I will also have a look at the Workbench 1.3.2 disks with the unverified checksums $C9A13FE7 and $419D5197 I reported earlier, which I now suspect are modified and which I mentioned again in my last post.

cosmicfrog · 31 March 2010, 23:53

I`m sure the Workbench 1.3.3 has errors on as it would`t boot my 1.3 A500 well it would and then complain about read errors

prowler · 31 March 2010, 23:57

Hey Cosmic,

I got valid images of all your disks at the first attempt.

I would give the floppy drive in that A500 of yours a good clean if I were you.

Supamax · 01 April 2010, 00:03

Thanks, prowler, for your contribution (present and future

).

I'll update the list ASAP!

Quote:

Originally Posted by LocalH

I don't have my either of my Amigas up at the moment, so I can't image them and check the CRC32, but as soon as I get a chance I will do so.

Thanks, mate!

prowler · 01 April 2010, 22:46

Hi Supamax,

Okay, the following data can be dismissed:

The Very First, Amiga 500, English Version, P/N 380921-02 :
Checksum $ECD28528 reported above is erroneous. That disk's .info file has a datestamp of 12-Dec-05.

Amiga Extras 1.3 / Amiga Basic 1.2, International Version, P/N 317788-01 :
Checksum $192261E2 reported above is erroneous. That disk has had some of the original content deleted to make room for Amiga Forever data sharing (Amiga side) software.

Workbench 1.3.2, Rev. 34.28, A500/A2000, United Kingdom, P/N 317789-03 :
Checksum $C9A13FE7 included in the master list is erroneous. That disk seems to have contained some sort of games disks catalogue or database at one time which has since been deleted, so it's not visible from the Workbench or Shell. I found it in the disk's image with a binary file editor.

I am still investigating the Workbench 1.3.2 checksum $419D5197, the Workbench 1.3.3 checksum $0C842649 and the Workbench 3.0 checksum $1129A1CB.

prowler · 07 April 2010, 23:34

@Supamax,

I've just received this Workbench 3.0 disk set and manual which I won on eBay at the weekend:

The Install disk has a home-made label which carries the description "HD INSTALL Version 3.0" and part number "370137", and not "Install Disk Version 3.0" and "370126-02", respectively, as on twizzle's disk, illustrated in this post:
http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=538137&postcount=17

The Install disk in the set I've just bought has the checksum $853DECFF, which is different from those reported by twizzle and asm1 for their disks in this thread:
http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=44344
However, the disk's files have consistent time and date stamps as revealed by the Shell which suggests that the disk has not been modified and nothing suspicious is evident in the disk image either.

The Workbench, Extras, Fonts, Locale and Storage disks in this set have the same checksums as those listed in bold green in the master list, but they have the part numbers 370127, 370128, 370191, 370129 and 370150, respectively, i.e. no -XX part.

@cosmicfrog,

Having analyzed the disks you sent me, I can confirm that:

(1) two of The Very First disks have original checksums, and the third is a slightly modified version of an original disk,

(2) one of the Extras 1.3 disks has an original checksum, and the other is a greatly modified version of an original disk, and

(3) the Extras 1.3.3 disk has an original checksum.

I have not yet been able to confirm whether the Workbench 1.3.3 disk is original or not. There are differences between your disk and mine, but I cannot yet tell which of the two is more original.

I can restore the modified The Very First and Extras 1.3 disks, but, since I can read all your disks without error, I am not able to tell which of them you regard as faulty.

The Workbench 1.3.3 disk dilemma I hope to resolve in the next few days.

Supamax · 07 April 2010, 23:50

Thanx mates for your contributions

.
I'll update the list as soon as possible!

prowler · 08 April 2010, 00:09

I've just messaged the seller to see if he can tell me anything about the circumstances of the home-made label on the Install disk. It's got to be worth a try.

Supamax · 08 April 2010, 00:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by prowler

I've just messaged the seller to see if he can tell me anything about the circumstances of the home-made label on the Install disk. It's got to be worth a try.

Did he sell them as "Originals"? If so, he has to specify why one of the disks has a home-made label... (just my opinion)

prowler · 08 April 2010, 00:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Supamax

Did he sell them as "Originals"? If so, he has to specify why one of the disks has a home-made label... (just my opinion)

No, he didn't mention that they were "originals", but I was curious to get hold of another Install disk, despite the slightly strange appearance of that disk's label.

He had already confirmed that the set included an Install disk, in response to a question from another eBayer, but gave no other details.

I have asked him specifically whether the part number 370137 and description HD INSTALL are valid for that disk.

I'm still pleased with the purchase. The more data we can get, the more confidence we will have in the information presented in the master list.

Supamax · 08 April 2010, 01:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by prowler

I'm still pleased with the purchase. The more data we can get, the more confidence we will have in the information presented in the master list.

I'm very grateful to you!

The question that bothers me (since we Amiga users are really a lot) is why this thread doesn't catches the attention of much more m8s.

After all, WB and KS disks images are not (yet) preserved and are not downloadable (due to licence issues) in a certified "100% unmodified" form (apart from a very few "[!]" TOSEC .adf images).
So this thread is (AFAIK) one of the only (if not the only) way to know if a user's WB/KS disk has been modified or not...

So... come on you potential contributors! Dump your disks!

prowler · 08 April 2010, 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by prowler

I've just messaged the seller to see if he can tell me anything about the circumstances of the home-made label on the Install disk.

No luck, I'm afraid.

Those disks, along with some other Amiga stuff he's selling, belonged to his late uncle.

Graham Humphrey · 11 April 2010, 22:20

Stickied at Supamax's request due to the importance of this subject

Hopefully more people will help out as said above.

prowler · 11 April 2010, 23:02

Thanks, Graham!

Let's hope it helps...

Foul · 19 April 2010, 20:03

maybe we can add crc checksums for kickstart roms ? it would be cool.

prowler · 19 April 2010, 21:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foul

maybe we can add crc checksums for kickstart roms ? it would be cool.

That would be better done in a separate thread, IMHO, but it's Supamax's decision, of course.

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

31 March 2010, 00:31	#121
prowler Global Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Sidcup, England Posts: 10,300	I have today received seven original Commodore floppy disks from cosmicfrog with read errors. I am going to use my disk recovery techniques to try to restore them. They are as follows: The Very First, Amiga 500, English Version, P/N 380921-02 (3 copies) Amiga Extras 1.3 / Amiga Basic 1.2, International Version, P/N 317788-01 (2 copies) Workbench 1.3.3, Rev. 34.34, A500/A2000, English Version, P/N 317789-04 (1 copy) Extras 1.3.3, Rev 34.34, A500/A2000, International Version, P/N 367618-01 (1 copy) Working on these disks will generate more data with which I can check my own copies of these disks, checksums for which have already been submitted here. At the same time, I will be checking the two erroneous Workbench 1.3.2 disks I have against my known good copies to see whether or not the discrepancies are the result of partial overwriting. (I suspect that they are.)

31 March 2010, 02:20	#122
Supamax Da Digger :) Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Monza, Italy Posts: 2,822	Thank you very much prowler!! I'll wait for your results .

31 March 2010, 04:11	#123
kolla Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Trondheim, Norway Posts: 1,893	I don't quite see the point in doing checksums of entire disk images, I thought the idea was to have checksums on the files that are on them - because that would be usefull. Especially if the various versions and incarnations also could be included in some database

31 March 2010, 23:49	#125
prowler Global Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Sidcup, England Posts: 10,300	I have successfully generated images with no checksum errors and no missing blocks of all seven of cosmicfrog's original Commodore floppy disks. The Very First, Amiga 500, English Version, P/N 380921-02 (3 copies) - Two copies have the checksum $1AB58E91, and the third (which I suspect has been modified) has the unverified checksum $ECD28528. Amiga Extras 1.3 / Amiga Basic 1.2, International Version, P/N 317788-01 (2 copies) - One has the checksum $2F9CEA9F, and the second (which I suspect has been modified) has the unverified checksum $192261E2. Workbench 1.3.3, Rev. 34.34, A500/A2000, English Version, P/N 317789-04 (1 copy) - This has the unverified checksum $0C842649, so I suspect it may have been modified. Extras 1.3.3, Rev 34.34, A500/A2000, International Version, P/N 367618-01 (1 copy) - This has the checksum $E8EB34C4. This verifies the checksum reported earlier for this disk, which now meets the requirements to be listed in bold green! I recently acquired another set of original Commodore Workbench 3.0 disks. While I had the equipment set up, I took the opportunity to make images of those as well and get the checksums. The Extras 3.0, Fonts 3.0, Locale 3.0 and Storage 3.0 disks have the checksums already listed in bold green for disks with the same part number, but the Workbench 3.0 disk (P/N 370127-02) has the unverified checksum $1129A1CB. I will try to confirm next whether those disks which were found to have unverified checksums show signs of modification or not. At the same time, I will also have a look at the Workbench 1.3.2 disks with the unverified checksums $C9A13FE7 and $419D5197 I reported earlier, which I now suspect are modified and which I mentioned again in my last post.

31 March 2010, 23:53	#126
cosmicfrog The 1 who ribbits Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: leek, Staffs, UK Age: 56 Posts: 3,557	I`m sure the Workbench 1.3.3 has errors on as it would`t boot my 1.3 A500 well it would and then complain about read errors

31 March 2010, 23:57	#127
prowler Global Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Sidcup, England Posts: 10,300	Hey Cosmic, I got valid images of all your disks at the first attempt. I would give the floppy drive in that A500 of yours a good clean if I were you.

01 April 2010, 22:46	#129
prowler Global Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Sidcup, England Posts: 10,300	Hi Supamax, Okay, the following data can be dismissed: The Very First, Amiga 500, English Version, P/N 380921-02 : Checksum $ECD28528 reported above is erroneous. That disk's .info file has a datestamp of 12-Dec-05. Amiga Extras 1.3 / Amiga Basic 1.2, International Version, P/N 317788-01 : Checksum $192261E2 reported above is erroneous. That disk has had some of the original content deleted to make room for Amiga Forever data sharing (Amiga side) software. Workbench 1.3.2, Rev. 34.28, A500/A2000, United Kingdom, P/N 317789-03 : Checksum $C9A13FE7 included in the master list is erroneous. That disk seems to have contained some sort of games disks catalogue or database at one time which has since been deleted, so it's not visible from the Workbench or Shell. I found it in the disk's image with a binary file editor. I am still investigating the Workbench 1.3.2 checksum $419D5197, the Workbench 1.3.3 checksum $0C842649 and the Workbench 3.0 checksum $1129A1CB.

07 April 2010, 23:34	#130
prowler Global Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Sidcup, England Posts: 10,300	@Supamax, I've just received this Workbench 3.0 disk set and manual which I won on eBay at the weekend: The Install disk has a home-made label which carries the description "HD INSTALL Version 3.0" and part number "370137", and not "Install Disk Version 3.0" and "370126-02", respectively, as on twizzle's disk, illustrated in this post: http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=538137&postcount=17 The Install disk in the set I've just bought has the checksum $853DECFF, which is different from those reported by twizzle and asm1 for their disks in this thread: http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=44344 However, the disk's files have consistent time and date stamps as revealed by the Shell which suggests that the disk has not been modified and nothing suspicious is evident in the disk image either. The Workbench, Extras, Fonts, Locale and Storage disks in this set have the same checksums as those listed in bold green in the master list, but they have the part numbers 370127, 370128, 370191, 370129 and 370150, respectively, i.e. no -XX part. @cosmicfrog, Having analyzed the disks you sent me, I can confirm that: (1) two of The Very First disks have original checksums, and the third is a slightly modified version of an original disk, (2) one of the Extras 1.3 disks has an original checksum, and the other is a greatly modified version of an original disk, and (3) the Extras 1.3.3 disk has an original checksum. I have not yet been able to confirm whether the Workbench 1.3.3 disk is original or not. There are differences between your disk and mine, but I cannot yet tell which of the two is more original. I can restore the modified The Very First and Extras 1.3 disks, but, since I can read all your disks without error, I am not able to tell which of them you regard as faulty. The Workbench 1.3.3 disk dilemma I hope to resolve in the next few days.

07 April 2010, 23:50	#131
Supamax Da Digger :) Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Monza, Italy Posts: 2,822	Thanx mates for your contributions . I'll update the list as soon as possible!

08 April 2010, 00:09	#132
prowler Global Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Sidcup, England Posts: 10,300	I've just messaged the seller to see if he can tell me anything about the circumstances of the home-made label on the Install disk. It's got to be worth a try.

11 April 2010, 22:20	#137
Graham Humphrey Moderator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK Age: 37 Posts: 11,168	Stickied at Supamax's request due to the importance of this subject Hopefully more people will help out as said above.

11 April 2010, 23:02	#138
prowler Global Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Sidcup, England Posts: 10,300	Thanks, Graham! Let's hope it helps...

19 April 2010, 20:03	#139
Foul Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Perigueux/France Age: 49 Posts: 1,516	maybe we can add crc checksums for kickstart roms ? it would be cool.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)