Victor Chew wrote:
From the official reply:
Quote:
We have passed this information to the development team in charge of your product. Please disregard the error message that you got since this was caused by the software and not an error from the hard drive itself.
Seems like this is a transient error that can be ignored for the time being?The text you quoted is from a user that posted what seems to be a generic response he received (not even a direct quote from WDC). For that specific user in particular, WDC seems to claim that the specific HDD is OK (after RMA), but there is no confirmation whether other versions of DLG would correctly and fully evaluate newish HDD models, or whether the strange result from DLG v5.20 is related to a particular HDD model or to a particular HDD controller (or whatever else).
In short, there is no official answer (except for a user quoting a generic email), which means:
_ "test with other DLG versions" may or may not be an adequate alternative - who knows!;
_ the issue is NOT related to UBCD, thus, users should (shall) report the problem to WDC, so it can be fixed. There is no workaround.
Victor Chew wrote:
Quote:
_ datalife.img.gz -> xxx.img. Why this strange name? Is there any conflict with some other name?
Don't quite understand this. Could you please elaborate?ubcd521.iso -> ubcd/images/datalife.img.gz -> xxx.img (instead of datalife.img, as it would be expected). I am asking about the reason to use a different file name. Is there any conflict with any other file or program?