V4 mod

vbimport

#1

there are rumors that there is a new version with far better results in kprobe tests.
Has anyone in this forum tested this version?


#2

Not released yet… but SOON.

While we wait, here are some ‘new’ scans:
http://overseer.info/kprobe/overseer/k15.htm


#3

To all

Now that Zebra has told you about v4 I see no reason why I can’t give you taste of what it does, no details because it is still not released, but an idea of how good it actaully is.

media memorex dvd+r4x at 8x RICOHJPN
401@411@811 HSOK

v3
k-probe 4x 8ecc
pi 290 max avg 129.191
po 6 max avg 0.223

v4
k-probe 4x 8ecc
pi 52 max avg 8.874
po 7 max avg 0.070

media memorex DVD-r4x at 4x CMC
This was HSOK so remember this firmware is not so good for dvd-r

v3
k-probe 4x 8ecc
pi 724 max avg 286
po 8 max avg 0.318

v4
k-probe 4x 8ecc
pi 424 max avg 173.685
po 4 max avg 0.040

Do not PM me, or ask for more details I cant tell you yet but what I can say is Zebra gave me v4 beta about a week age and the change is pure magic.


#4

Is there any official site for Zebra’s mods, or are they just passed around?


#5

there is very long thread all about it 187 pages so far, as well a web page but as lite-on has closed down a number of pages already its better if you search for it rather then I post the url, I am sorry, the server is in australia so it ends in .au


#6

Wish it can write DVD-R at 8x :stuck_out_tongue:


#7

Howdy!

Some owners of an original 811S have problems with the writing quality. Might the Zebra patch improve the burning quality for them? Or is it only designed for upflashing?


#8

I don’t normally like to post in this kind of thread…normally I would make an official announcement…however, this is serious…

If you have a real 811S, leave it’s EEPROM the hell alone…it was factory calibrated to work optimally as is…

Do NOT try modifying it, tweaking it or replacing the EEPROM with any modified or patched incarnation.

The patchers and mod’s that get released are, at this stage, only designed for “repair” on 401S and 411S EEPROM’s to make them work correctly when the drive is acting as an 811S with 811S F/w.

I repeat - DO NOT use these patchers on REAL 811S drives. I dont want to see anyone wreck and void the warranty of a perfectly fine drive…


#9

Thanks, Zebra, for the clarification. I highly appreciate your efforts and great work.


#10

On my way home from job I was thinking; there will be 5 new pages with, “please me too” in V4 MOD thread…

But…:rolleyes:

quote from forum ‘down under’“It’s really like waiting for christmas. Fortunately I live somewhere where you don’t have to wait till morning to get your presents.”


#11

About the naming convention of this mod. Let’s stick with version IV or MKIV. Which one is it?

Oh ya, what does the MK stand for if anything anyway?


#12

MK = Mark = old British weapon model naming convention…


I’d like to add to Zebra’s point:

These mods, most of the time, add significant performance to the 401, 411 family
and are generally safe, provided proper “recovery” elements are kept.

The warnings for keeping “safety copies” of the original EEPROM is critical and
must be heeded. There have been many examples of persons botching mods, without
original elements, wandering around, asking for EEPROMs.
(NOTE: after some experiments with “other” EEPROMs, it is possible to “resurrect”
a drive without the original EEPROM. Performance may not be optimal, but it’s
possible. For those who “lost” the original, be aware, there will be MANY hours
wasted and many coasters trying to find an acceptable one. Invest the 30 secs and
save the original!)

If it’s the first time, been up for too many hours or if you are not “technically” inclined,
it’s recommended you collect proper utilities and write down, in your
own words, the process you are about to execute. After a few iterations, the
procedure becomes very simple and easy to do.

Also, if you have multiple optical drives on your system, it would be wise
to disconnect all but the target drive. Some of the utilities are “semi-smart,”
and will default to “master device.” If you happen to have another LITEON on
the same channel, (included rebadged, OEM, etc.) you can see, if not paying
close attention, how easy it would be to flash the wrong drive. After a few
interactions, it becomes easy. (trust me, if you keep up with the mods, you
will get LOTS of “practice…”)

There appears to be problems, associated with “non-Intel” based motherboards,
where utilities fail to execute properly, terminate with errors and/or fail
scan tests. Do careful study prior to modding, especially if your motherboard
is “non-Intel…”

If an “add-on” IDE controller board is used, be careful as well. It is recommended
to use the motherboard IDE port when attempting these mods.

ASPI driver level has also caused concern. Some claim ADAPTEC v4.60
is the best and others claiming ADAPTEC v4.71x must be used in XP systems.

In closing, I personally have been using MK-3 with excellent results with +R/RW
media and 401 and 411 drive. (bought bulk Memorex x4 +R and x4 +RW and have
not tired -R stuff yet)

I had a negative experience with MK-4 beta release when applied to a 411.
The error rates became astronomical from the middle to the end of the disk.
Reconfiguring the drive back to MK-3 took 20 seconds and one re-boot, having
kept the original EEPROM. Also note, this was a beta test, and I was aware
of the risks.

MK4 performed exceptionally well with a 401.

Since the “modding/OC” topic impinges on “Moral/Ethical/EULA” issues, I hesitate
to provide source links to material…

Otherwise, have fun with all the goodies and THANKS to Team-Zebra for all the fun!

Back to pondering the significance of:

63: 01 04
100:
101: 47 65
103: FF
104: DF E4 37 27 2A FE D4 2B
10B: ectera, ectera, ectera! - hehee!


#13

Originally posted by bichi2
Back to pondering the significance of:

63: 01 04
100:
101: 47 65
103: FF
104: DF E4 37 27 2A FE D4 2B
10B: ectera, ectera, ectera! - hehee! [/B]

They’re only to confuse guys like you :bigsmile:

If you 're a real beta tester you would burn some more discs @8x and publishing the results to assist the development of V5.


jitter


#14

bichi2

Is correct about Zebra mod’s for some the mod is a wonder for others its not so good same for different versions of the mod. I have tried v1-4 i beta test for Zebra and I have an original 401s eeprom image actually one of 3 copies burned to a cd and put away, that I mod a copy each time i update a v#. the 401s bcause it was never a dvd-r writer lacks the dvd-r cal data on eeprom and because of this I think in most cases takes better to the mod to 811s state, i think the 411s has some dvd-r cal data and that the mod to 811s may, I really dont know change that and thats why in some cases 411s dont mod well to 811s or work on some mods but not later ones. Ok this is my 2 cents hope it helps.


#15

[i]"…If you 're a real beta tester you would burn some more discs @8x and publishing the results to assist the development of V5…"

jitter[/i]

Errrrr, excuse me, but feedback was provided to Beta Leader and consensus was “no-go” for this particular 411.

Results posted at Zebra’s home board, along with MK-4’ed 401.


#16

KenW,

Informative! - Thanks!
Having a play with differences between 401 and 411 code, relative to MK-4 mod.

Probably end up mucking-up something, but if I find anything interesting, I will report to Beta Leader for analysis…


#17

Originally posted by bichi2
Errrrr, excuse me, but feedback was provided to Beta Leader and consensus was “no-go” for this particular 411.

Two possibilities:

  1. Faulty disc
  2. V4

With one scan, possibility is 50:50. Based upon this, the patcher cannot be improved.

Got the point?


jitter


#18

jitter

When i beta test for Zebra I send him a number of burns k-probes i usually use about $15-20.00 of media both + and - R when testing a mod for Zebra. I know my burns are better with each update, at least in my case

401s@811s original eeprom dated Aug. 12, 2003


#19

KenW:

Good beta tester!

As Zebra said some time ago: Every patcher release should match the majority of drives very well and is getting better with each release (if not, it would be called patcher 95, patcher 98, patcher ME, … :bigsmile: ).

Everyone who’s familiar with statistics is knowing the importance of the samples taken into account. So, a single coaster means: Nothing. Hundreds of coasters of a crappy manufacturer are the same amount of unusable discs send to my by AOL every year :slight_smile:

As I cannot buy any Ricohs here any more (sold out), I’ll have to take CMCs. But my current results showing fairly well quality. Even when burning at 8x. At least better than MCC which have lost a lot of manufacturing quality in the last weeks (All discs are having scratched border zones :Z )


#20

[i]"…Two possibilities:

  1. Faulty disc
  2. V4

With one scan, possibility is 50:50. Based upon this, the patcher cannot be improved.
Got the point?

jitter…"[/i]

Nope, I don’t get your point.

I don’t see how your simple analogy supports your position. If the developer
had requested additional burns, I would have complied. Otherwise, given there
is a significant statistical vector at work and assuming the developer has more detailed knowledge of his work than I, the “CONSENSUS” was not to proceed any futher.

Since you claim to understand statistics,
I beleive my result fell into the realm of “law of diminishing returns…”

If you are indeed an active participant in the beta and have additional engineering
context, as well as represent the developer from an engineering perspective,
feel free to make the request and I will comply. Else, shut yer hole!