Just to say that Pi/Po scans [made with Kprobe or Nero Cd speed 3.x, doesn’t matter] are unreliable under OS Windows 98, and possibly under Windows Me.
The Pi/Po values of same disc can be considerably lower if other processes are loading the CPU.
On the other hand Win2k / XP are more reliable
How can you notice it?
The scan are highly dependent on CPU load and hence, the way OS shares the time among processes running.
Under Win98se/Me, if you scan Pi/Po running only Kprobe2 or Nero CDspeed ‘alone’, you will have more reliable values.
Well, I don’t now exactly but you can test it yourself: just scan [same discs] with and without parallel processes running. The most load to your CPU, the better [lower, but FALSE] Pi/Po values.
It is likely to be related to sampling rate or so. Experts would explain it