Specman

edited May 2009 in Infoseek database
When looking through WOS database I came across this title:

Specman
http://www.worldofspectrum.org/infoseekid.cgi?id=0010659

This title imo isn't a perfect tape image as it claims. It displays letters, while it should display UGD graphics. The UGD graphics are present in the block on the tape (this block is even present twice) but aren't loaded as I believe.

So it's corrupted version, I think.
Post edited by Ralf on

Comments

  • edited May 2009
    You can manually fix this by BREAKing in and running

    LOAD "" CODE USR "a"
  • edited May 2009
    I've often wondered why the "Perfect" qualifier is used against the TZX file type name on WoS. Is there a separate "non-Perfect" type, or other distinct TZX designations that make the qualifier necessary? The TZX format specification doesn't use the word "perfect" at all, and doesn't seem to have multiple types - except for the slight variations in the different version formats.

    Then there's the matter that they're not all perfect, anyway, as there's (inevitably) some duff ones which are incomplete or won't load (although from looking at it, it would seem that the Specman TZX is a correct representation of the tape, and the failure to load the UDGs is just a programming omission).

    Does "Perfect TZX" mean that it conforms to the TZX specification, whereas otherwise it doesn't? I checked old forum postings - and even my old emails and c.s.s. postings - but couldn't find anything to clarify things. I even Googled it FCS, but although the term's often bandied about the only page I found which professes a definition is patently wrong.
  • edited May 2009
    I'm pretty sure I've got the original...

    When I get some time, I'll dig it out and re-dump it.

    Steve
  • edited May 2009
    I've often wondered why the "Perfect" qualifier is used against the TZX file type name on WoS. Is there a separate "non-Perfect" type, or other distinct TZX designations that make the qualifier necessary? The TZX format specification doesn't use the word "perfect" at all, and doesn't seem to have multiple types - except for the slight variations in the different version formats.

    Then there's the matter that they're not all perfect, anyway, as there's (inevitably) some duff ones which are incomplete or won't load (although from looking at it, it would seem that the Specman TZX is a correct representation of the tape, and the failure to load the UDGs is just a programming omission).

    Does "Perfect TZX" mean that it conforms to the TZX specification, whereas otherwise it doesn't? I checked old forum postings - and even my old emails and c.s.s. postings - but couldn't find anything to clarify things. I even Googled it FCS, but although the term's often bandied about the only page I found which professes a definition is patently wrong.

    The term is indeed somewhat misleading (but the best I could come up with in 1998, long before WoS had forums) - they're all valid TZX files, following the specs.

    What makes it "Perfect" is more about the source and decoding.

    TAP (or Z80) files converted to TZX images are not perfect. Neither are images created from tapes whose titles were put there through copy programs.
    It must be the genuine product, which means either an original tape or a complete tape-to-tape audio copy.

    The decoding is the other bit. Early versions of Taper defaulted to rounding all pauses between blocks to the nearest second. Timings were sometimes off as well. That ruins the TZX file.

    The preservation team checks the above, especially our resident tape monkey (Hi Andy! :-P) takes long steps to verify timings.
    When all conditions are met to assume (or know) it's a genuine copy, it gets the verdict "Perfect".

    WoS accepts Perfect TZX files from only 2 sources: the TZX Vault and SPA2 (the maintainers of these sites are WoS team members as well).
    TZX files not considered Perfect are still added to WoS, through my own archive updates. Those are shown as Unverifiable backup.

    A title gets off the STP list only when a Perfect image has been created.

    Edit: there's also some explanation, as a FAQ, on the STP project page.
  • edited May 2009
    mheide wrote: »
    ...
    When all conditions are met to assume (or know) it's a genuine copy, it gets the verdict "Perfect".
    ...
    TZX files not considered Perfect are still added to WoS, through my own archive updates. Those are shown as Unverifiable backup.

    So then you've got Certified TZXs and Uncertified TZXs? - or maybe Verified and Unverified? - then you're not offering a hostage to fortune.

    You could even have distinctive "certified by" & "uncertified" format icons to show at the left in the Infoseek displays.
  • edited May 2009
    WoS accepts Perfect TZX files from only 2 sources: the TZX Vault and SPA2 (the maintainers of these sites are WoS team members as well).
    TZX files not considered Perfect are still added to WoS, through my own archive updates. Those are shown as Unverifiable backup.

    Now I understand
    I always wondered why my Polish programs which I sent to WOS have unidentifable backup status even if I submitted them with inlay scans and mentioned that they were dumped from original cassettes

    So you need to belong to the inner circle to have the honour of calling your .tzx files perfect ;-)
  • edited May 2009
    Well, after having a lot of trouble with the tape from this thread

    http://www.worldofspectrum.org/forums/showthread.php?t=24842

    ...and finally extracting a working TZX I've sent It through the usual form. If not beeing from any official source is any inconvenience, please, I will happily accept any suggestion about what to do with It or where to send It :-)

    --
Sign In or Register to comment.