Talk:MagicISO

Sounds like advert

this page sounds like an advert for magic iso (which it is) - needs amending or removing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.5.238 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of advertisement, the statement "Not to be confused with PowerISO or UltraISO." is rather an advertisement of them. (Why would you confuse these names which aren't really that similar?) 24.13.6.100 (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree that the article reads much like an advert. However - to some degree, articles like this are helpful. There is a wide range of technological "gadgets" like PowerISO on the market, some of which are confusing even to the sophisticated power user. An article such as this contains useful information. Perhaps it should be edited, but the article is helpful even as it is. Please, amend to your heart's content, but don't delete, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runaway1956 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, the article has helped me decide which one of the many ISO mount utilities available best suits my needs(i'm not saying which one). Even though, it appears to be written like an advertisement. I think that the notability of the article should not be disputed any more. In addition, there is an article named List_of_ISO_image_software which is an extensive list of similar products, and that links to this article. So i am going to remove the notability tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.144.78.201 (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Luigi Auriemna

I believe that the 'unofficial converter' link should be changed to "http://aluigi.altervista.org/mytoolz.htm". Luigi Auriemna is the author of this application apparently, and the other link is a wordpress blog that is an unneccessary frontend to his tool. not only is his tool apparently a cmdline one, it prompts with win32 save dlgs if run outside of a console. PidGin128 from 149.168.174.18 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Universal" Image Format?

How can it be universal if only one program supports it and that program isn't cross-platform? --70.167.58.6 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's it's name, don't question it, however PowerISO does support it too. --Hm2k (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the term "universal" in this case is intended to mean that it can support all known disc types.Drego5 (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But i read here that it only makes images of CDs and DVDs; not HDDs, nor floppies, etc. Did you mean all known file systems for optical discs ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the 'Universal' image format is anything but universal, it is an absolute headache! MagicIso uses a propriety image format to secure it's place in the ISO software industry by forcing people to adopt their software simply to use the data distributed in their format, distributed by people who have been likewise forced to use it. If anything, this page needs a discussion of this situation to warn potential users. (118.208.26.54 (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC))

GPL license & Luigi Auriemma

Last version

MagicISO is claimed to have been created in such a manner that the majority of sales are made in order to use pirated software stored in the UIF format. Luigi Auriemma, author of uif2iso has given two proofs here showing that newer versions have not only attempted to prevent conversion from the proprietary format but also the newer versions have directly copied code from Luigi in violation of the GPL license.

Discussion

I've moved this content for discussion, as the editor who last reintroduced it doesn't appear to have seen my edit summary.

If we can find a secondary, reliable source that addresses this, then we it would be fine to include some of this information in the article. Otherwise we're violating WP:SELFPUB, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's clear that you don't understand what the author has offered there. In this text file he has clearly outlined two cases, by providing you with code as proof. Since his code is open source, and the MagicISO code can be read using a debugger, you are able to see for yourself that it is in fact true, this making it de facto, in the same way that an article on the sky doesn't need sources to make the claim that the sky is blue, because you can see for yourself. Thus there is no need to supply any additional sources. --Hm2k (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're certain it does not violate WP:OR, then we should get another viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile there are still the NPOV and SELFPUB issues. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:3O

Hi!

The cited references appear to me to be primary sources, which are discouraged by WP:OR:

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors....Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.

Without a secondary source a reader would need to (a) understand the language that uif2iso is written in, and be proficient with using a debugger, in order to confirm Luigi Auriemma's claims. In my view this fails the "without specialist knowledge" part, even assuming that Luigi Auriemma can be considered a reliable source.

I'd be far happier with the disputed passage if a secondary source was provided as a reference. Until then I have to conclude that it fails WP:OR.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  05:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete this!

This is the 6th time this article has been created, and it's finally not being deleted, even though it contains roughly the same information. And though it's the same info, it's rather nicely written this time.

ThymeCypher (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Release dates mixup

It seems the website maintainer made a mixup of the dates, judging by the version history on the download page, it's supposed to be in this format: MM/DD/YYYY. The current release date on that page for 5.5.276 seems to be in a different format though: DD/MM/YYYY. I noticed this because the file date for Setup_MagicISO.exe according to the server's headers is actually: 2009/04/12 (YYYY/MM/DD), hence 2009-08-02 in the article was most certainly incorrect and that's why I corrected it to 2009-02-08. It might be a bit confusing but that's why I posted this explanation here. Correctional Officer (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. For future reference, it's preferred to write your rationale in the edit summary box instead. It's more useful to describe why you made the change, not what you changed. -- intgr [talk] 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Find sources

In order for this article to remain it's going to need more sources to establish notability...

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--Hm2k (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's ability to turn BIN to ISO

It seems unique that magic iso can turn bin to iso as other programs such as nero and imgburn do not seem to cater for turning bins to iso any chance a paragraph could cover this in a wiki written way of course! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.98.21.129 (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability tag

what's up with the ever returning notability tag? please visit the article [List_of_ISO_image_software] and observe there are lots of products similar to MagicISO. Many of these other products have their own wikipedia articles without the notability tags. If someone is going to post the tag again without taking the time to give a reasonable explanation, I will keep on removing it. If someone doesn't like the article, please improve it instead of deleting it (or at least try to). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.144.79.63 (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The notability tag requires that the article satisfy the general notability guideline. This article does not cite any reliable, independent sources that have significant coverage. Note that the last editor who restored it already explained this in the edit summary. -- intgr [talk] 20:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)