Mystery CD-ROM Image file (Canoma)

edited March 2017 in Software
What I know: The file has a timestamp of January 2002, as does the included MS Word DOC file containing a verfied serial (meaning Google turned up hits on that).

It purportedly is of Metacreations Canoma 1.0.

The file is 224Mb in size. I have the hybrid ISO of Canoma 1.0, it is 96.4Mb in size, both Win&MAC tracks included.

I went so far as to install "Virtual CD 10.0", since it is reported to used the .FCD extension. Besides the fact that the program is the most worthless and program I've run across in some time, it apparently has no clude about the image file.

So for right now, I'm stuck:

Attached is the first bytes as viewed with a hex editor. Any insight will be appreciated. Right now, I'm going to try to scrub "Virtual CD" off my hard drive. It has created more virtual drive letters, virtual directories, and in general, blobbed up everything from the root of the HD with its crappy installer, to about 500 registry entries.
GAAAACK!
canoma_header.jpg

Comments

  • Have you used a version contemporary to the file?

    I would strongly recommend using a virtual machine to install software like that.
  • Hmmm, a version of ?what? contemporary to the file?

    You mean the software that made it? Are you saying you know what made it? Because I surely would like to know.

    In that time frame, I'm aware of "Virtual CD" a small virtual "driver".

    Referred to by others is http://www.virtualcd-online.com - VCD. It doesn't have a clue what this file is, and is a POS software anyway. One of those "we do all the thinking - which isn't much".

    ISOBuster - now there's a curiousity - the latest version will cheerfully open up the Canoma.FCD file. It reports a non usable data track, but claims there are 4 recoverable files - 3 correspond image product shots, and "Canoma.arc" which moreorless is the size of a proper ISO.
    The one JPG file - "Cube-2.jpg" is associated with Canoma, and is an image of a 3-d cube.

    Unfortunately, the $39.95 registration fee doesn't change it from saying that I need to register to extract these files, so no I have to fight for a refund.

    So the issue is my ignorance in knowing precisely what software packaged this all up.

    My best guess is this is a multi-file "container".
    Never dealt with it in all my years, and I'm flummoxed.

    As far as a virtual machine - for what? To add another layer of complexity? There's no virus I can't handle - nothing that cannot be fixed with a fresh install of an OS. It's just not that big a deal.

    But oddball archives - that always gets me interested.


    ampharos wrote:
    Have you used a version contemporary to the file?

    I would strongly recommend using a virtual machine to install software like that.
  • 02k-guy wrote:
    Hmmm, a version of ?what? contemporary to the file?

    You mean the software that made it? Are you saying you know what made it? Because I surely would like to know.
    That's probably what ampharos meant, but I have never seen a .FCD image. Let me do some research and I'll get back to you on that.
    02k-guy wrote:
    As far as a virtual machine - for what? To add another layer of complexity? There's no virus I can't handle - nothing that cannot be fixed with a fresh install of an OS. It's just not that big a deal.
    Convenience, that's why. When you're done playing with whatever it is you're doing, it's easier to delete a .VHD and .VMC file than to reinstall the entire OS.
    02k-guy wrote:
    But oddball archives - that always gets me interested.
    Ugggggh. Non-standard formats are a friggin' pain!
    02k-guy wrote:
    Right now, I'm going to try to scrub "Virtual CD" off my hard drive. It has created more virtual drive letters, virtual directories, and in general, blobbed up everything from the root of the HD with its crappy installer, to about 500 registry entries.
    GAAAACK!
    Good Lord! Well, that's something I'll steer clear of in the future, thanks for the heads up. That may be another reason why ampharos recommended using a VM, so crap like that doesn't clog up your host OS.

    EDIT: After some checking around, an article said to use Virtual CD versions 1, 2 or 3. Don't know which version you had, so the previous sentence may be irrelevant. Checking my own PC, PowerISO, a very versatile optical disk image tool that I like to use, has an option for mounting .FCD images. That's probably your best shot. Good luck!
  • "
    EDIT: After some checking around, an article said to use Virtual CD versions 1, 2 or 3".

    That's right it did. Don't have them - do you?


    Yeah, I did all that other stuff.

    I have Ultraiso, poweriso, magiciso, coom by yah iso - none of them know what to do with this particular .FCD file.

    I went and got a slightly older version of ISObuster, and did a proper patch on it so that it would let me extract the "recovered files", but its so poor a software that by the time I clean up whatever it is, I've wasted days.

    There's no fear of virus, it's just done with a vintage software I am not familiar with.

    I've got most everything popular from "back in the day" - everything but something that says it makes .FCD containers.

    Oh well. Was hoping somebody knew...
  • 02k-guy wrote:
    BigCJ wrote:
    EDIT: After some checking around, an article said to use Virtual CD versions 1, 2 or 3.
    That's right it did. Don't have them - do you?
    No, but I can look for them.
    02k-guy wrote:
    .Yeah, I did all that other stuff.

    I have Ultraiso, poweriso, magiciso, coom by yah iso - none of them know what to do with this particular .FCD file.
    Wow, everything errors out? Are you sure the file isn't damaged?
    02k-guy wrote:
    There's no fear of virus, it's just done with a vintage software I am not familiar with.
    I didn't say anything about virii, you did. Older software usually runs better on the older OSes, and unless it's software you really trust, I don't let it anywhere near my host OS. Even if something isn't infected, it could screw with the Registry like you said Virtual CD did. Better safe than sorry, and I'd rather not use my backups unless I have to (or have half a million random keys added to my Registry.)
    02k-guy wrote:
    Oh well. Was hoping somebody knew...
    Chill out! We'll get you squared away. Might not be in the next 3 seconds, but you'll find the answer. Damn.

    I'll edit this post with links if I find Virtual CD versions 1-3

    EDIT1: The oldest version Virtual CD had on their website is Version 4. Figures.

    It doesn't help that it has just about the most generic name possible... :P

    EDIT2: Yeah, old versions of Virtual CD are next to impossible to find. Anyone else wanna try? I'll keep it up, but it doesn't look good.

    Where did you get this .FCD file anyway? Since absolutely nothing wants to open it, it could be borked.
  • LOL !!!

    I'm not actually that upset.

    I have now in my posession every version of Virtual CD ever made.

    That includes the version 1.0 by Logicraft, versions 2, 3 from Microtest, versions 3.08 and higher from H&H.

    Also IMSI CD Copier, which used licensed code from the original Logicraft devs.

    BTW, if anybody wants any of this stuff, give me a shout. May be a few days until I get things sorted out. I'm talking to one "peter Van Hove from ISObuster right now.

    Laterz,,,
  • Just 2 questions

    1: Did the older versions of Virtual CD open the image?

    2: Where did you manage to find the old versions? I don't really want them, but they were nowhere to be found when I looked for them.

    PS Hope you manage to get refund from ISObuster.
  • Just 2 questions

    1: Did the older versions of Virtual CD open the image?
    No. None of them, from v1.x/2.x on up thru v10. Well, can't say that, but its too long to explain.

    As suspected, it was made by version. 6.0. Version 6.0 of Virtual CD - the company says it has a signed driver - but Windows 7 says it doesn't. Windows XP failed on install - 3 times. So no go. I checked the driver - it's not signed- they lied (or are ignorant, more likely).

    Also supposedly, versions 6 and later "can now directly import images made via earlier versions" - this too simply isn't so.

    So I hacked the image header, then hacked Virtual CD 4.x to allow me to load it. In order to do that, I had to make some test images in both the earlier and later versions so that I would know what the headers should look like. And there's more, so I'll stop. PITA all around.
    The fault doesn't lie with ISO Buster - it's actually a simple, well designed softeasre.
    Virtual CD on the other hand is absolute GARBAGE. Same kind of "let's make 50 separate little programs to do the job instaead of one EXE" - like that other famous bloatware NERO does.

    Just consider this; VCD 6.0 - occupies over 200Mb of disk space - just to virtualize a CD-ROM! Microsoft has a complete Virtual CD-ROM panel for XP that is only 200Kb!!

    See what I mean?
    2: Where did you manage to find the old versions?
    I don't really want them, but they were nowhere to be found when I looked for them.

    Here & there. My computers see the world as the largest flea market. Just takes knowing what doors to pry open, or knock on and ask politely.
    And.... I do have a pretty good stash of stuff - just remembering which pile to dig through is a chore tho.
  • BTW, this is why we standardize on common, open, well known file formats here.
  • Yeah, ISO and CUE/BIN rule when it comes to compatibility. Wonder if it's possible to convert the monstrosity OP has into an ISO from FCD or whatever it was. If so, I might be tempted to download it.
  • The image file I uploaded to WinWorld is a standard hybrid ISO. If you are in Windows, you will see the Windows installation. If you are on a PowerMac, you will see only Mac install files.

    Nothing to convert.

    There are a few, and I mean very few application CD-ROMs that make use of hidden track protection where MDF/MDS or some other weird, esoteric format has any value.

    Games - whole 'nuther ball of wax. And they all (by now) have been dealt with.

    I think SomeGuy is making a subtle reference to a certain site that requires uploaders to use only ONE specific application/format, make images of all docos in a certain image quailty, etc. Oh, yeah, you're supposed to kiss their rings, wash their feet, and then, if they get bored - after all that - they'll just dump your hard work without so much as a KMA.

    BUT: They have 40 terabytes of Windows 10 nightly builds that all gather round and comment on the slightly different hue of one of the ICONs for Task Manager.
  • I have already run in to a number of MDF images that will not convert or even properly write back to a CD with Alchohol 120%.

    But keep in mind they have ulterior motives for their high requirements. They get piles of dumb kids uploading virus infected mutilated crap they found on some torrent site. By setting the bar higher to something that isn't commonly found on torrent sites, they can save a lot of time as they don't have to clean things up or piece them back together.

    I've seen people badmouth Winworld over at their forums because such a high standard is not required here. But if they were to remove all the older crappy crufty garbage from their FTP, they would have almost nothing left!

    *sigh* but again, would it kill people to include label scans or even a photo? Ask about it and people act like you are asking them to build a rocket ship or some other major hardship.
  • I've read mrpijey's (aka Sketch the Cow on archive.org) rationale for insisting on a120. Seems to go beyond ferreting out the zitters.

    On the face of it - nothing is more disappointing than to open up a "freshly imaged ISO" only to find N.E.R.O." stamped in 15 places throughout the file. I've uploaded some here made with antique versions of Adaptec Toast, etc - believe me, if I had the choice, they'd be squeaky clean.

    He tries to walk the impossible line of not ever admitting to having, using or discussing "infringing content" while at the same time, insisting on Kyroflux quality for mundane software titles (like anything ever produced by Microsodft. Simply, ISO wroks for almost all of it.

    As for the imaging - yes, couldn't agree more. Those little details - like the small product codes printed on the floppy labels that tell you if its an OEM or retail or upgrade - worth a bunch.

    And I just like looking at the pretty pictures.

    PS: You & I would already be banned there for making "off-topic comments" - that says it all.
  • The problem with ISO is that it is restricted to a single session, which means that all sub-channel data is essentially lost completely. This includes not only data that is visible to the user (such as audio tracks), but also any information that is beneath that surface - information which would be essential for recreating a one to one "replica" of an original CD (or at the very least coming closer to that goal than if that information was simply discarded completely).

    And if this "doesn't apply" to Microsoft products, then this is false. Even Microsoft products have made use of the sub-channel data for telling the difference between a genuine and non-genuine copy, for example (my other post on BetaArchive linked to a story by Raymond Chen about how some encrypted copy of Microsoft Bob was stored on the Windows XP CD-ROMs in this way and for that exact purpose).

    The MDF format is similar enough to ISO that it can easily be converted to ISO, and in fact can even be read as an ISO file without conversion under programs such as WinImage and also by many emulators, which is clearly an advantage that it has over other, more proprietary formats that have long since been abandoned by now.

    I also see similar arguments for why the Kryoflux "doesn't apply to the PC". A lot of people seem to have this idea that the Kryoflux is only for the Amiga (probably thanks in large part due to the Software Preservation Society preferring to ignore the IBM PC and Apple machines entirely), and even those who see a use for it for the PC are mainly only interested in using it for preserving games and never for anything beyond that (such as business-oriented software and operating systems, among other such things). They don't realize that there is much more to the Kryoflux than even just archiving copy-protected disks, such as simulating read errors, for example.
  • If you want a standard format that saves sub-channels and junk, use a CUE/BIN set. MDF may be similar to ISO, but that still doesn't change the fact that MDF is proprietary and CUE/BIN isn't.

    I was unaware that BOB was on XP discs, hidden on sub-channels or otherwise. Funny, the XP disc image I created is an ISO and works fine.

    I also had no clue Kyroflux worked with Amiga or any other platform. I really need to research and learn a little about Kyroflux.

    Lastly,
    02k-guy wrote:
    PS: You & I would already be banned there for making "off-topic comments" - that says it all.
    That's why WinBoards Prevails, and I don't use BA. I'm ashamed of the fact that I even registered there.
  • If MDF eventually becomes a formal open standard, we might take another look at it. The main concern currently is simply that it may change, and while some other tools may interoperate with it now, some bits may still specifically require Alcohol 120%.

    Certainly there are some disks that can only be functionally archived with that format. If anyone sees a specific issue with any release that is missing something, please point it out.

    (I have actually seen a couple CDs where you actually DIDN'T want anything other than ISO because it had garbage that actually prevented it from loading the disk on newer drives - dump the ISO on an older drive, burn to a new CD, and everything is perfect)

    At the end of the day BA, Archive.org, Vetusware, etc are just other archives with different objectives. Where possible, all should work together to make sure things are preserved.

    (But since we are talking about it I will mention one little thing that bugs me - BA makes a big deal about removing all serial numbers. While I am all for "anonymizing" submissions where possible, I feel all software should have everything that is needed to install and run, where possible. Otherwise all you have is a pile of random bits, and can not serve to educate or inform.)
  • SomeGuy wrote:
    If MDF eventually becomes a formal open standard, we might take another look at it. The main concern currently is simply that it may change, and while some other tools may interoperate with it now, some bits may still specifically require Alcohol 120%.

    Certainly there are some disks that can only be functionally archived with that format. If anyone sees a specific issue with any release that is missing something, please point it out.

    (I have actually seen a couple CDs where you actually DIDN'T want anything other than ISO because it had garbage that actually prevented it from loading the disk on newer drives - dump the ISO on an older drive, burn to a new CD, and everything is perfect)
    The MDF format can still easily be converted to ISO using freely available tools, and is quite a simple process in itself. If the MDF dump has any problems being read under newer CD or DVD drives than the original probably did also. Keeping the disk image in both formats would at least allow for those who wanted the original to download the MDF image, and also for those who wanted to use it in a newer drive to download the ISO image.
    SomeGuy wrote:
    At the end of the day BA, Archive.org, Vetusware, etc are just other archives with different objectives. Where possible, all should work together to make sure things are preserved.
    I agree here. I have seen a lot of people here (and in general) complain about how "bad" other sites are, as well as unfairly weighing the negative sides of those sites against the positive sides of this site, rather than weighing the negative and positive sides of each site equally.
    SomeGuy wrote:
    (But since we are talking about it I will mention one little thing that bugs me - BA makes a big deal about removing all serial numbers. While I am all for "anonymizing" submissions where possible, I feel all software should have everything that is needed to install and run, where possible. Otherwise all you have is a pile of random bits, and can not serve to educate or inform.)
    The reason why serial numbers are not allowed on BetaArchive is due to the site's position on legality. The site rules state that certain types of illegal software are not allowed to be distributed there. This includes not only serial numbers, but also cracks, as well as software that the original copyright holders specifically requested to be removed.
  • And if this "doesn't apply" to Microsoft products, then this is false. Even Microsoft products have made use of the sub-channel data for telling the difference between a genuine and non-genuine copy, for example (my other post on BetaArchive linked to a story by Raymond Chen about how some encrypted copy of Microsoft Bob was stored on the Windows XP CD-ROMs in this way and for that exact purpose).

    Good God man - a weirdo Microsoft Bob is justification for making everyone go through needless hoops? I got to tell you - I have physical and digital media of most all MSDN ISOs. It's because of the OS or application - not some kids romper room easter egg.

    The instances requiriing special attention are few and far between. When they occur, an exception can be made. It aproaches /irrational/ when each and every damned software and game be "preserved" using an esoteric format that offers little and actually increases complexity where none is needed.

    Outside of the protected game titles, the vast majority of CDs can be imaged using just WinImage or so many equally inexpensive tools.

    The exceptions - they can be dealt with as they occur - and that won't happen often. As far as the theory that it exacts good images from clueless newbies - no - they'll screw it up no matter what demands you dictate.

    A big part of running a successful site /has/ to be tolerance for those lacking "sooper sekrit knowledge". It's only a few minutes of time, and a few pennies of bandwidth. I rather enjoy reading when someone asks a totally clueless question and someone with patience takes the time to square them away. It's gonna happen time and again (hopefully) as each generation wonders how things were done "once upon a time".
  • 02k-guy wrote:
    The instances requiriing special attention are few and far between. When they occur, an exception can be made. It aproaches /irrational/ when each and every damned software and game be "preserved" using an esoteric format that offers little and actually increases complexity where none is needed.
    Exactly. This is one of the smartest statements I've seen in a while.
    02k-guy wrote:
    Outside of the protected game titles, the vast majority of CDs can be imaged using just WinImage or so many equally inexpensive tools.
    It doesn't even take WinImage. There are free utilities that work extremely well. Don't get me wrong though, WinImage is a top-tier program and I use it often.
    02k-guy wrote:
    The exceptions - they can be dealt with as they occur - and that won't happen often. As far as the theory that it exacts good images from clueless newbies - no - they'll screw it up no matter what demands you dictate.
    Exceptions are few and far between, thank goodness. The n00bs will make mistakes, but it's all a part of the learning process. Just guide them gently and if they give half an effort, it'll all work out for the best.
    02k-guy wrote:
    A big part of running a successful site /has/ to be tolerance for those lacking "sooper sekrit knowledge". It's only a few minutes of time, and a few pennies of bandwidth. I rather enjoy reading when someone asks a totally clueless question and someone with patience takes the time to square them away. It's gonna happen time and again (hopefully) as each generation wonders how things were done "once upon a time".
    If I'm not mistaken, that's a big part of why the Boards are here. Everybody learns something and a few eyes get opened in the process; users can come away a little smarter (and a little better) than they were before. And I have to agree, the threads where the clueless learn a bunch can be the most worthwhile to peruse.

    Now, in an attempt to get the thread somewhat back on track, what were those other programs that worked with Alcohol 120% images? Might be a good thing to have in store should I come across any MDFs.
  • This is an example of how folks, in seeking some kind of - I dunno "purity" for lack of a better word, can't see the forest for the trees.

    https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22754

    mrpijey says:"I get so mad when people insist on using non-standard formats... I will have to manually convert each image from these crap HD-Copy/DDI formats to raw IMG... will take forever. I need to find some tool that can convert these through a command line or queue, because I am not going to convert these one by one."

    Well aren't we special?

    Now, this is about an "offer' of several warez CDs that originated from some China outfit. I can point you right now to where they ALL are on archive.org, and where they have been laying for some time on a russian ftp site.

    But that's not my point.

    This is my point; Those warez CDs were made by collecting up years of stashes from old FTP dumps and Usenet over 20 years ago. And I will bet money that a good deal of those diskette images were made by my cronies and myself and delivered to Usenet on alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc.old. I absolutely KNOW this to be true because most scene releases were just dumps of floppies into directories and the ARJed or multi-part PKZipped into chunks that could be stored on a floppy - because THAT IS ALL WE FREAKING HAD DAMMIT!!! Only us guys on Usenet too the effort to image the disks, because there was this sense that History would care down the road.

    So, it is not like those guys in China just made those images last year - they are recycling the work us idiots did years before.

    Sorry to cause mrpijey so much bother. :roll: heheheh

    So "mjpijey" is "getting so mad" about something that happened over two decades ago. There were no standards then. FCK, I cannot remember all the diskette imaging tools - diskdupe, diskcopy fast, HD-Copy, dozens of them. And then sitting there, picking away with a CP CopyIIPC board to figure out where the twisty bits were. HAH! It was just simpler to disassemble & patch all that than to try and accurately image.

    So there you people are on BA demanding "purity" when in fact, much of this stuff had been hax0red to get working floppies to release to the scene anyway.

    But by God, we're going to force everybody to "standardize". Except that - there's no more "old stuff"' being made. It's not like its an ongoing problem.

    We went thru this same crap when Jeff Arnold came out with bin/cue for GoldenHawk CDRWin.Yeah, it was a godsend to gamers. But suddenly EVERYBODY had to use that - even on stupid programming CDs like Borland's crap. Well guess what all the warez groups rebelled and basically told the dump sites to kiss our butts.

    And it's the same with CD-ROMs and DVDs. You got one or two weido CDs, and now everyone must use some special tool on EVERYTHING. That's losing site of the forest for the trees.
  • Well, "purity" seems to be defined differently in different places. The formats are (mostly) standardized now, so there really aren't reasons to use oddball images when making them today. On the other hand, old images from waaaaaay back in the day are different; if that was the best format you could find, okay, so be it. Can't be helped, just do whatever was necessary to get the job done. Biggest obstacle there is keeping the oddball program that works with the image format you used. Speaking of image tools, wasn't the first version of WinImage released in '93?

    The reason everyone jumps on board with a particular format, like CUE/BIN is because it makes everything easier. Most disk emulation software supports C/B, and that makes it possible for almost everyone to use that format, making it popular. It'll probably hold it's place as a standard for a long while yet, so there's no worries about using it now.

    CUE/BIN has the advantage of sub-channels. If a disc hasn't any of that garbage, ISO it.
    02k-guy wrote:
    And it's the same with CD-ROMs and DVDs. You got one or two weido CDs, and now everyone must use some special tool on EVERYTHING. That's losing site of the forest for the trees.
    I friggin' hate non-standard formats that only work with one tool. (Glaring at you, Alcohol).
  • BigCJ wrote:
    Well, "purity" seems to be defined differently in different places. The formats are (mostly) standardized now, so there really aren't reasons to use oddball images when making them today. On the other hand, old images from waaaaaay back in the day are different; if that was the best format you could find, okay, so be it. Can't be helped, just do whatever was necessary to get the job done. Biggest obstacle there is keeping the oddball program that works with the image format you used. Speaking of image tools, wasn't the first version of WinImage released in '93?

    The reason everyone jumps on board with a particular format, like CUE/BIN is because it makes everything easier. Most disk emulation software supports C/B, and that makes it possible for almost everyone to use that format, making it popular. It'll probably hold it's place as a standard for a long while yet, so there's no worries about using it now.

    CUE/BIN has the advantage of sub-channels. If a disc hasn't any of that garbage, ISO it.
    02k-guy wrote:
    And it's the same with CD-ROMs and DVDs. You got one or two weido CDs, and now everyone must use some special tool on EVERYTHING. That's losing site of the forest for the trees.
    I friggin' hate non-standard formats that only work with one tool. (Glaring at you, Alcohol).

    ^^^--What he said.
Sign In or Register to comment.