New Safedisk (2.60.52)

vbimport

#1

Operation Flashpoint: Resistance seems to be protected by this new version of Safedisk (according to YAPS).

It copies fine with CloneCD and Liteon 48125W.


#2

Of course it does. SD 2.60 only tries to fool betablocker users, because the week sectors are outside of its standard scan range.

Writers which can cope with high DSVs can write it as they can SD 2.51


#3

high DSV what???

sorry it that the same as 2 sheeps…lol


#4

There had been a thread in the advanced clonecd forum. I saw that you were active in that thread, so you should know what DSV is)

All that about “correct efm encoding” is pure nonsense, and every writer can do it. Just read the thread again (will take some time)…but you can say that a two-sheep-writer can handle higher DSVs than a one- or none-sheep-writer.


#5

i read it…but i hope you understand that not everybody understood everything…

the last few posts i only read but didn’t get it anymore…
and reading all posts it know for sure there are moe people who didn’t get it…

but glad that i know ;
high dsv = +/- 2 sheep

i learned something

(but to be honest; i think we should say “high dsv” only in the advanced sections of this forum)


#6

(but to be honest; i think we should say “high dsv” only in the advanced sections of this forum)

The problem is that “supports correct efm-encoding” is crap information, since every writer can do it.
Maybe we should introduce this information into non-advanced forums as well…


#7

Originally posted by alexnoe
[B](but to be honest; i think we should say “high dsv” only in the advanced sections of this forum)

The problem is that “supports correct efm-encoding” is crap information, since every writer can do it.
Maybe we should introduce this information into non-advanced forums as well… [/B]

The trouble is that although both “high dsv” and “supports correct efm encoding” are pure technobabble to the average user (including me;) :stuck_out_tongue: ), “supports correct efm encoding” is what is used in the supported hardware sections of both clonecd’s and cdmate’s websites to indicate the writer’s ability to handle safedisc 2 so that expression, even if technically incorrect, probably is more useful for the average user.

Perhaps a better solution would be to place FutureProof’s post of known safedisc 2 killers as a sticky at the top of each of the newbie, burning software and clonecd forums. If people read it , it would save a lot of repetitive questions and it could easily be updated from time to time.


#8

very good idea

but the story should be filtered, because the story in the advanced clonecd thread has a lot of theories. Only the facts should be published, i think

but still a good idea:bow:


#9

Originally posted by alexnoe

The problem is that “supports correct efm-encoding” is crap information, since every writer can do it.

Yes you’re right. However, the term that Olli uses, and which everyone is apparently confused about, is “Correct EFM Encoding of Regular Bit Patterns”. Leave out the regular bit pattern phrase and it’s meaningless.