In this thread we collect data on the uploaded disk images and extend a helping hand to the TGOD floppy manager(s) in filling out info as to some of the game specs (cracks, doc checks, versions, etc). If any vital information is missing - be so kind to let us know. Also, if you find any mistakes e. g. wrong titles, incorrect dates, broken/empty/incomplete archives, duplicates, wrong status and other inconsistencies - do kindly report here, please. Finally, if there are any installation issues in certain emulators - let us know. Thank you!

2059 The Simpsons: Bart vs the Space Mutants | 1 disk, no intro, doc-check cleanly removed

Is Hit-Squad release

http://i67.tinypic.com/2mx4ykx.jpg

1904 Cisco Heat

Missing copy protection, not work

Sorry, would it be possible to not put huge images directly on display? I'm on slow mobile connections most of the time and it takes forever.

Why not just link the image or upload right to the post? In the latter case, every user could decide for him or herself whether to have attached images displayed by default or just as a link.

Sorry
It will not happen again

Thanks, this is perfect

Exactly. Hungs in VirtualPC and requests the original disk in DosBox. Using a cracked installer, you get V1.33. I've seen 1.22, 1.23, 1.31, 1.32P and 1.37.


Given flyers80 has posted a picture of the original italian re-release, I presume protection has been removed for re-release. Affected files have dates from 1993. It's not an uncommon practice for re-releases to do away with protections.


I was indeed looking for an image with copy protection intact, so I do appreciate it when I can know such is the case. May not be on everyone's interest.


Right. I cannot know for certain, but taking into account the doc-check has disappeared completely and it lacks the unnecessary intro animation, but the installer has been altered not to include it, I looks to me as a re-release, where they tend to make things cheaper (by cutting the number of disks in half).

Hope these notes help. It takes a long time to check images, make notes of copy protection, or other facts. That's why I thought it might be on everyone's best interest to share whatever additional information we have on the images.

Maybe we could aim for a set of standard info to go along with the images, such as whether they have any kind of protection, come from a re-release, and of course, show some kind of version number. Any suggestions?

Thanks!!

Updated.



Updated.



Positively so. Updated.



Well, considering that most of the images in our archive contain original files by default, whether with working copy protection or not, and the fact that Wandrell always does indicate cracked versions, it's still a little insufficient. Point taken, however.



Yes, thanks to flyers80, we have already confirmed it.



Yes, thank you for your kind assistance.



I believe the best way to pull it off is to add a few extra fields to the image profile to be filled out regardless. Example:


Copy protection: None/Cracked/Faulty
Version: (x.x/Unknown)
Re-release: (Yes/No/Unknown)
Video: (CGA/+EGA/+VGA)
...

But i'm afraid it's a little too late and may take too much time to re-arrange and fill everything out. Either way, it requires Wandrell's attention to pass final judgment.

318 Outrun 1989 English 2 x 5.25" DS DD (360kB)

Missing copy protection, not work

1859 Prehistorik

Missing copy protection

Updated.

About #4, Day of the Tentacle: This was originally dumped by me. I'm surprised to find a note about "WinImage" being attached to it now. I don't even have that tool, so I'm wondering where this comes from. Could anyone clarify?

My guess is, the software you used probably owes its dumping method to WinImage, which is a common practice among multi-format applications. Nearest example is WinRAR which doesn't have its own unique algorithm to compress files into a ZIP archive (would be quite absurd otherwise), and uses the native one instead. I believe we're facing the same situation here and the app of your choice derives its method from WinImage. Matter of fact, the system name of your images indicate clearly that they originate from WinImage (according to UltraISO):

http://oi63.tinypic.com/5bdwfd.jpg

I made all my images with dd. However, I see that the attribution has been changed to Wandrell, so probably, they have been exchanged.

Oh right, i didn't even pay attention to that. Well, then i take it all back.

No, don't - you confirmed the comment does indeed reflect the state of the images. I guess mine were defective.

I have a question of policy then: is replacing a good idea?

Let's say some of my disks were defective, i.e. the set was unusable. Nevertheless, some disks were good. By replacing, they are now lost forever (I assume). Replacing with a set which is working, but which is a bad dump. In addition, mine may have been a different version.

So how to handle such cases?

From what i've seen, Wandrell has never replaced any dumps, even when i personally asked him to update some of the files. He collects them ALL as long as they differ in version or even quality. In your case he may have rejected it cause those were likely non-IMA/IMG images.

I can't say whether his method is good or bad, but personally i would replace/remove a lot of files to abridge the archive and keep some of the bad dumps only as long as there is no good replacement. Of course, the original uploaders should retain their contribution points regardless.

Wandrell: sorry for using 3rd person mode, just thought i could clarify things a little sooner seeing you're absent.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle (2174)

The title is wrong
title correctly is "Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles" (i uploaded european version)

Fixed.