[OFFER] Diskeeper 5.0 Workstation

[johnleakedfan]

I would like to offer This Application (you can read about it from my older topic here http://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewto ... 67&t=31963)

You will read requirements and stuff about it in the topic posted above, it is the Workstation Edition for Workstations, not Servers


http://www.mediafire.com/download/0u7z4 ... er_5.0.iso


IT IS ABANDONWARE, it is from 1999

[rhobariii]

If you can, make an MDF out of this disc.

[mrpijey]

Pointless since it's not an original disc...

[rhobariii]

Oh. I thought he dumped an original into ISO.

[johnleakedfan]

Pointless since it's not an original disc...

it was from the original CD image i had and created into ISO

[DiskingRound]

Pointless since it's not an original disc...

it was from the original CD image i had and created into ISO

Please dump it to MDF using Alcohol 120% or Daemon Tools if you can. Also, high-resolution and properly aligned scans would be greatly appreciated! Thanks
Edit: Again, another unoriginal disc... do you have the original CD?
Edit 2: We'll see...

[mrpijey]

It's hardly from an original disc as it was dumped in 2014-06 using UltraISO... so no, please do not make any MDFs or anything from this disc as we won't keep it. However if you have the original disc then yes, we'd like a copy of it.

[Battler]

- mrpijey: And how exactly does it being dumped in 2014 with UltraISO prove it didn't come from an original disc? And again, considering this seems to be in a reasonable state (original installer on an almost original disc), I can't see why we can't preserve it.

[mrpijey]

It may come from an original disc, and it may not. Original dates could be lost, exes could have been patched, installer files modified, files could have been added or removed, whatever. This may be as authentic as a RELOADED disc or whatever warez group release these days which always comes as a third party disc dump (which is more than often modified as well) and not original. That's why we won't put it on the FTP because there's no real way to say the contents is 100% authentic to the original. As you very well know we try to get proper and authentic releases here and not fill the FTP with "maybe this is an original but we won't know, so we keep this and 30000 other releases we don't know if they are originals or not-files"...

There's a reason why we want proof of the disc being original, and absolutely preferred; disc scans. That's why we want MDF dumps which can be analyzed for original disc markers and proper subchannel data, something we can't do with an ISO.

[Battler]

- mrpijey: Well, when a museum gets an ancient document or other artifact, they also don't know whether it's authentic, a fake, they don't know when it was made, etc. That's precisely why they do research on the item they get. And very often, even after researching, there's no certainty. So they just go by the best estimates. I don't see why we can't do the same here.

You want 100% evidence that something is original, but that's not always possible to obtain. And the older the software is, the harder it becomes. And the same is really with physical artifacts. How do we know that what looks like a letter from 1250 is really that and not a fake created in the 21st century by a fraudster who bought old vellum or parchment from the correct period, created ink according to period techniques, and then wrote that letter in the language and calligraphy of the time? We often can't, all we can know is when the animal lived from which the vellum was created. That's why we need to go by what analysis tells us and assume it is correct until we get evidence it is not. That's established scientific practice - going by the best guess until further evidence proves it wrong.

Here instead you seem to do the opposite - you refuse to assume something could be original unless you get absolute evidence it is. Sorry but that way you'll just end up rejecting the vast majority of all contributions because absolute evidence isn't always easy to obtain, and the older the product is, the harder it becomes to obtain it.

Also, I'm sure we can find other Diskeeper 5.0 release online which we can compare with this one and therefore get a better idea of how original ours is.

[mrpijey]

Um, I think you misunderstand me...

In the case with artifacts it's easy to detect if it's fake or not. Comparing to paper documents or physical objects is not the same really, it's far easier to forge software and mask its copy properties than a real physical object. And trust me, no museum wants fake stuff either so they go to great lengths at not obtaining fakes. So are we.

And we already got evidence that the disc is not original. We can't save every piece of software in any form or shape just because want to, because that would not only take an insane amount of time and effort, but also take a lot of resources. Resources that are neither cheap nor infinite.

If you can prove the contents of the disc is unaltered then I'll add it as a disc. Otherwise I will have to add it as a folder dump, but not as a disc. That's why we won't save an MDF of it, which is what I replied to.

please do not make any MDFs or anything from this disc as we won't keep it.

I never said we won't keep the release, I just said we won't keep the MDF or any other image format since it's not original. We are not about to add MDF dumps of non-original discs...

[Battler]

- mrpijey: Then I misunderstood you, sorry for that.