Err, I forgot... what was it again

why does Sony Optiarc not update the firmware of their 52XX drives again?

:doh: :a

Optiarc should be able to answer you that…

Exactly. But I think it’s still worth a discussion here as well. I was forced to stop discussing a theoretically possible difference between the 72xx and 52xx drives in hardware here at the forum once. This occured because of my guess that maybe there could be a pre-selecting of the best laser units for the 72xx drives. As said, it’s just a guess, but personally I do believe in that, because I read that once.

Let’s take the 7240S for example: Firmware improvement from 1.03 to 1.04 was only regards to non-RAM capabilities of the drive. If the 5240S really is only different in not supporting RAM, then it would have been worth a lot to make available 1.04 for the 5240S as well. There seems to be something that makes the 5420S not worth to even care about for Optiarc.

Of course, the whole thing is as much funnier as the fact is real that those tests have shown that the checksum of bits read from RAMs must not be the same all the time with Optiarc drives.

[QUOTE=anikk;2559894]
Of course, the whole thing is as much funnier as the fact is real that those tests have shown that the checksum of bits read from RAMs must not be the same all the time with Optiarc drives.[/QUOTE]Huh? :confused: What tests? Linky?

Michael

This is a report by a user who was a newbie to the forum back then afaik.

The issue found broader as well as more recent resonance of course. I just have to search myself. I’ll be back.

more: http://club.myce.com/f86/nec-4550a-incorrect-reading-dvd-ram-183474

issue remained undiscussed further, possibly unresolved. I’ll be back with more.

Thanks.

Seems I need to do some tests with my 7200A (I know, it’s old, but the only Optiarc I own).

Michael

Here I contributed a clear and go for RAMs written on LG drives myself: http://club.myce.com/f86/optiarc-ad-5200a-261111

Written on Panasonic RAMs never appeared as test results in the thread. But at least member [B]Alex[/B] had them.

I was not able to confirm that issue.

Test setup:
Windows XP SP3, InCD 6.6.5.100 as DVD-RAM UDF driver

Optical drives:
LG GH22LP20 FW: 2.00 @Promise PDC 20579 as writer
Optiarc AD-7200A FW 1.09 @USB (GL811E) as reader
Test data: contents of a Windows 7 install disc (531 files from few Bytes to 2,6 GBytes) in a folder on the HDD.
Test Media: Panasonic 3x DVD-RAM, formatted as UDF 1.50

Using MD5summer, I created a set of MD5 checksums for the source folder. Then this folder was copied to a Panasonic 3x DVD-RAM (that’s where InCD does its job) using Windows Explorer. When finished, the disc was put into the Optiarc.

Read check 1: The MD5 sums were verified against the files on the DVD-RAM. [I]No errors[/I].
Read check 2: The folder on the DVD-RAM was copied to the HDD. Then again verification of the MD5 sums against the files in that folder. [I]No errors[/I].

Michael

Great test. Many thanks. :bow:

OK, this is the second test with a disc made with an LG drive! I did one back then. I took a large video file and copied it ten times or so to two different HD drives. Then I made a single-bit for single-bit comparison between all those daughter files with CDCheck. My test resulted in 0 errors as well. So that’s very good that at least LG seems to be done now.

What I can confirm in addition is that copying files several times results in 0 bits difference with discs made with the following drives: AD-7200S, AD-7240S. I forgot to report it back back then. Sorry for that. It was just then that I re-connected my retired 7200 for a test as well. The same test with the 7260 is coming up but the upcoming system in my sig is not put together yet. But it seems that - like LG made discs - ones made with Optiarc drives is done as well already.

But the question should still remain in the name of 100% data safety: Why did the problem occur with the discs made by a Panasonic drive! It’s problematic that there could not be found any explanation back then. There may have been one, but to be honest I didn’t understand the suggestion of the mods in that thread. If the OP was able to make a RAM he has had drivers on the machine the disc had been made on! If the OP had no Panasonic RAM drivers on the Read-PC he (a) was able to read an FAT-RAM or (b) he was not able to read an UDF-RAM at all and not falsely. But most of all, data integrity is not brand-dependent. Panasonic UDF = Toshiba UDF. I’m confused…

Hi,[QUOTE=anikk;2560054]Great test. Many thanks. :bow:[/quote]You’re Welcome :wink:

OK, this is the second test with a disc made with an LG drive!
Not all LG drives are equal. The drive I was using to write the “test disc” has a Panasonic chipset. At the moment I am repeating the test with my GSA-4163B (Renesas chipset) and using UDF 2.00 as file system.

(…)
But the question should still remain in the name of 100% data safety: Why did the problem occur with the discs made by a Panasonic drive!
If I understood those articles correctly, then these questionable discs were made with a Panasonic DVD recorder - not a computer hardware, but a standalone home entertainment device.

If the OP was able to make a RAM he has had drivers on the machine the disc had been made on!
Standalone home entertainment device. No computer drive.
If the OP had no Panasonic RAM drivers on the Read-PC he (a) was able to read an FAT-RAM or (b) he was not able to read an UDF-RAM at all and not falsely.
[I]Reading [/I]UDF (up to version 2.0) is supported out of the box with Windows XP.
Also, you can use DVD writing software like Imgburn or Nerö to write data onto a DVD-RAM without having an UDF write driver installed.

But most of all, data integrity is not brand-dependent.
This is correct. But does data integrity matter with home entertainment hardware? Could also be that Panasonic did something special in order to prevent users from retrieving their recordings. :confused:

Michael

[QUOTE=mciahel;2560088]
Not all LG drives are equal. The drive I was using to write the “test disc” has a Panasonic chipset. At the moment I am repeating the test with my GSA-4163B (Renesas chipset) and using UDF 2.00 as file system.[/QUOTE]Done. Same test as described above.
What has changed:
Write drive: LG GSA-4163B FW A106 @Via VT8237 IDE
Test media (quick) formatted to UDF 2.00 using InCD.

Results:
Both tests were successfull, no checksum errors occurred.

Now testing the AD-7200 as writer… :wink:

Edit: Test done (same method as above), no issues.

Michael

[QUOTE=anikk;2559894]Exactly. But I think it’s still worth a discussion here as well. I was forced to stop discussing a theoretically possible difference between the 72xx and 52xx drives in hardware here at the forum once. This occured because of my guess that maybe there could be a pre-selecting of the best laser units for the 72xx drives. As said, it’s just a guess, but personally I do believe in that, because I read that once.

Let’s take the 7240S for example: Firmware improvement from 1.03 to 1.04 was only regards to non-RAM capabilities of the drive. If the 5240S really is only different in not supporting RAM, then it would have been worth a lot to make available 1.04 for the 5240S as well. There seems to be something that makes the 5420S not worth to even care about for Optiarc.

Of course, the whole thing is as much funnier as the fact is real that those tests have shown that the checksum of bits read from RAMs must not be the same all the time with Optiarc drives.[/QUOTE]

#1 problem is you buy anything Sony.
Even Sony TV’s have connectivity audio/video limitations.
It is greed of the powers at be.
I don’t do anything Apple or Sony.
J