[Offer] Spinrite v1.2b [5.25]

callmejack

This is Spinrite v1.2b

This is a very early version of Spinrite, dated Sept. 20th 1988.

https://mega.nz/file/DfhjjA7L#jrItB3nmoi4SGd2Mw1kzYScHkurn4xBEJo4fYJIB2Io

callmejack

Strangely before use on a PC it asks to boot from floppy disk (a copy) in order to configure itself

johnlennon364

Nice Found @callmejack

ibmpc5150

Thanks very much.

I introduced version 1.2a in 2019.

https://forum.winworldpc.com/discussion/comment/158318#Comment_158318

I wonder you've dumped disk from original media with write protection.

Once disk is booted, configulation is done.
(The sector is also changed from 0:2104h~0:2129h)

I attached modified disk.

callmejack

@ibmpc5150 do you know what it does during the boot process (apart from changing the sector you mentioned)? Why does it really need to do this initial step ?

ibmpc5150

@callmejack

1) Boot SpinRite disk at first.
--> But SpinRite disk should not be write-protected. Otherwise, the following message is shown.




Diskcopy disk from original one, then insert copied disk without write-protection.
Reboot SpinRite disk (copied)
--> Copied SpinRite disk will be modified.




2) Remove SpinRite disk (copied and modified) and re Boot System, then Re-insert SpinRite disk (copied and modified) and run SPINRITE.COM






*Would you please re-dump your SpinRite disk from original? (Not from copied disk)

I think your dumped disk seems to be just like copied disk.

I attached Initialized disk. (Offset is from 2104h~2129h, filled byte as 00h.)
(My version 1.2a disk is also filled byte as 00h from 2104h~2129h)

callmejack

The original disk is write protected by design (no write enable tab) so I’m sure it has not been modified.
It’s strange that it looks like it was modified. I was able to run my copy after this special step of initialisation and my question is more on a technical level, why does it need this step? What information would it collect by booting from the disk that it cannot otherwise ?

ibmpc5150

@callmejack

My 2.1a disk is filled byte 00h from Offset 2104h to 2129h (Sector 16:0104 to Sector 16:0129)

But your disk is Not filed byte as 00h.

As you know, once disk is boot up, any configulation value is written between Sector 16:0104 to Sector 16:0129.

My version 1.2a is filled byte as 00h, but your 1.2b is not.

Anyway, it seems to be strange on your version 1.2b.

callmejack

That’s strange in deed. It would make sense that the initial value is 00h before configuration, like on your disk. I don’t have an explanation why my 1.2b disk was mastered this way.
Is your disk also without write enable tab (cannot be written at all) ?

ibmpc5150

I don't know why.

Anyway, my version 1.2a is filled byte 00h between Sector 16:0104 to Sector 16:0129 as default.
(Your version 1.2a is not)

This is my additional screenshot of version 1.2a

callmejack

Great! Your copy seems to be the earliest available on the internet, it would be good to post it on winworldpc.

ibmpc5150

@callmejack
I don't upload unverified disk image.

callmejack

@ibmpc5150 you don’t have an original disk but only a copy?

tarlabnor

I don't upload unverified disk image

Sometimes it's better to have an unverified copy of a rare program than not to have it at all.
For example, I have a copy of early NAV (Norton AntiVirus) 1.0 beta 19. Chances to find it on original disk are nearly 0 (zero). Moreover, I have no idea how it was distributed among testers - maybe on a floppy, maybe just as an archive. Again, it's an early pre-release. Still it's a good, complete and working copy, which is better to save for the history than to lose it forever.

callmejack

I really appreciate that the team of this web site is doing a great job checking (and sometimes fixing) disks before publication and making sure they have original content dumped.
But I also agree with you that this should not prevent publishing material that is not 100% verified. Maybe it could be possible to have an indication that the content is not verified so that people are aware of this. This could also induce a dynamic so that people seeing a post for non verified software could jump in and post their version.

SomeGuy

I try to note image quality when I can, but I rarely know for sure unless it is something I dumped myself, or I have a Kryoflux dump I can analyze.

Honestly, I have seen some titles that are very poorly mastered with all kinds of errors. Many software vendors just did not care, and were not consistent.

ibmpc5150

Is it better to have than to not have it?

I want to ask what kind of person's life this data is directly related to?

I never provide fully verified material, even if it's rare.
If you want the material so urgently, I think it would be better to try to find it and get it on your own rather than forcing it on someone who doesn't want it.

Please note that this material was dumped by me in the past, but it is not my diskette and the owner is separate. He even asked me not to post material anywhere, including WinWorld.

Whenever someone else uploads a material, I don't write "It is now verfiied" for no reason. I always say that when the material that I do not upload coincides with the material that someone else posted.

There is a reason why I do not post data, and please do not comment on it even if you do not respect it.

callmejack

@ibmpc5150 well if the owner of the disks specifically told you not to post it, then fine, you can just tell us this and not make a big problem out of it. I’m not being rude or disrespectful, I’m just asking questions and suggesting something.

callmejack

@SomeGuy

Many software vendors just did not care, and were not consistent.

Yes that’s most probably what happened.