rec.autos.simulators

by **Jeff Jone** » Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:48:53

All due respect, but that's faulty reasoning. Many people -chose- CDRW
drives as their primary drives, and don't have a second CD drive. CDRW
drives are not as delicate as you make them out to be. CDRW drives are meant
to be used for multiple purposes, not the least of which is the simple
process of reading a CD. The problem people are having is having their N4
CD's read. The fault does not lie with the hardware, but with the screwed up
methods that copy protection schemes such as SecuROM use. Essentially, they
generate intentional physical faults on the CD that should never be there.
To blame that on Plextor, or Toshiba, etc, is just plain silly.

by **Don Burnett** » Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:52:31

I wasn't laying the blame on Plextor, or anything for that matter. Just
trying to understand where the main problem lies, and expressing that
obviously the reason I was having no problems is because in addition to my
cd-rw, i have a regular cd-rom that I use for everyday *** use.
It was just an observation.

--
Don Burnette

> > Just so I understand, the biggest reason folks are not being able to run
> it
> > is by running it in their cd-rw drives?
> > I installed a Plextor 8/24/32 CD-RW several months ago, and not once
> thought
> > about using it as my primary cd-rom drive. I left my plain jane vanilla
> > cd-rom drive in my machine for those purposes, cd-rw's tend to have a
> shelf
> > life anyways usually determined by the number of discs you burn - I
don't
> > want to be putting more wear on mine than necessary.
> > I only use my Plextor for burning cd's, all my games and so forth go
> through
> > my regular cd-rom.
> > I guess that's why I never have problems to date with the copy
protection
> > schemes.

> All due respect, but that's faulty reasoning. Many people -chose- CDRW
> drives as their primary drives, and don't have a second CD drive. CDRW
> drives are not as delicate as you make them out to be. CDRW drives are
meant
> to be used for multiple purposes, not the least of which is the simple
> process of reading a CD. The problem people are having is having their N4
> CD's read. The fault does not lie with the hardware, but with the screwed
up
> methods that copy protection schemes such as SecuROM use. Essentially,
they
> generate intentional physical faults on the CD that should never be there.
> To blame that on Plextor, or Toshiba, etc, is just plain silly.

by **Jeff Jone** » Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:55:26

That's just plain nonsense.

I can just about guarantee you that you put your main CD drive through much
more strain than all but the most active CD burners do with their CDRW
drives. There is not some mystical and delicate thing that lies beneath the
hood of CDRW drives, they use lasers to write with, just the same as your
reader does to read with.

You mention that you have a Plextor 8/4/32 drive (same as me) .. you do know
what the "32" is for right? It means the drive is intended to -read- CD's at
32x speed. Absolutely no differently than any other CDROM drive.

Besides, most of the posts I've seen complaining about failed N4 reads have
to do with DVD drives. Should they only use those drives to play DVD's?

by **Cliff Roma** » Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:53:56

Actually, I am like Don.. I do not like to use my Burner to do anything but
Burn CDs

Think about it.. EVERYTHING has a lifespan to it.. you may not know what it
is, but it has one. Your monitor may last for a total of 1500 hours, your
cd-rom may work for 1000 hours before it dies.. you never know. Anything
can and will break eventually. Heck, if you are unlucky.. it may have a
life of only a few hundred hours of use. You just never know.

My reasoning is why should I put more wear and tear into my Burner than I
need to? I would much rather pay $40 for a 50x cd-rom that can do all the
grunt work at a fraction of the price and do it faster.

by **Jeff Jone** » Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:42:14

I can understand your angle, but I still feel the reasoning is flawed. I
have two drives myself, a Toshiba DVD, and a Plextor CDRW. I use the Toshiba
for all installations, normal reading etc. But .. my point is, that it
really makes no difference which one you use. They both serve as readers,
they should both work the same for that purpose.

Before I got my DVD drive, I used the Plextor for everything, reading,
writing, and doing the dishes ... and guess what .. it survived! I've never
had a single problem out of it, and it's still going strong, hundreds of
burns later.

I used to know this guy back in the early 90's that wouldn't let you put a
floppy disk in his floppy drive if it had a hand-written label (he was
afraid that the ink would rub off in the drive and ruin it or something).
You guys being afraid to use your CDRW for reading CD's remind me of that
guy :) Just a little too paranoid. C'mon guys, these things have a MTBF
rating in the thousands of hours, they aren't delicate flowers :)

Hell, if my Plextor 8432 broke, I'd just use it as an excuse to buy one of
those new Plextor 16x burners!

by **Mike Grand** » Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:20:54

Interesting, I've got a HP CDR-W and a 52X Cdrom and never had a problem.
Even in testing i switched them back and forth with the N4 cd and didn't
have a problem. Is this brand specific maybe.

--
Mike Grandy
Precision Racing
www.precision-racing.com

> >Add Snooker to this list. I terrible game with a terrible
copy-protection
> >scheme-- what a waste.

> So you've had problems with other copy-protection schemes on your
> system?

by **himrli..** » Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:15:06

So let me get this straight. The need for copy
protection increases in proportion to the total
number of sales, right? The bigger the potential
market, the greater the need for some unbreakable
encryption scheme. Which, I suppose, is why GPL
was offered with no copy protection whatsoever.
<g>

On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 19:01:34 -0600, rrevved

>>I would
>>love to hear a developer or publisher agree with your logic that preventing
>>casual copying is more important than preventing interested, paying,
>>potentially repeat customers from using the product.

>Marc, that is precisely what the publisher would say.

>They are applying copy-protection to prevent -casual- copying
>by a zillion users. They know that there are a small percentage
>of cd-roms that will have problems with the scheme, so they
>offer a money-back guarantee to customers that own those cd-roms.

>I'm pretty sure that publishers would like to not spend ANY
>money on expensive copy-protection schemes, but they would
>expose themselves to millions of dollars in lost sales, and the
>stockholders of the company would kick the execs out on their
>asses.

>As to your allusion to ...

> 'interested, paying, potentially repeat customers'

>..let me say this. -All- paying customers meet that criteria.
>You, me and the guy who buys it because the box has cool
>pictures on it. The 1,000,000 buyers that will have no
>problem and the 10,000 who will.

>You do the math.

Remove "hi" from address or it will bounce....

by **Cliff Roma** » Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:40:21

Its not about being scared.. I have had about 6 burners in my life. My
first one costing me $600.

Ever hear of people using Tape Rewinders for the VCR? That is the same
reason I use a normal cd-rom for my server machine (the one that has the
Burner).

My normal cd-rom is faster, cheaper (in case something does happen) and
allows me to do cd-to-cd copies. If that is flawed logic, sorry.. but you
are not the one that owns my machine so to be honest, my logic is the only
one that matters on my machine :)

> > Actually, I am like Don.. I do not like to use my Burner to do anything
> but
> > Burn CDs

> > Think about it.. EVERYTHING has a lifespan to it.. you may not know what
> it
> > is, but it has one. Your monitor may last for a total of 1500 hours,
your
> > cd-rom may work for 1000 hours before it dies.. you never know.
Anything
> > can and will break eventually. Heck, if you are unlucky.. it may have a
> > life of only a few hundred hours of use. You just never know.

> > My reasoning is why should I put more wear and tear into my Burner than
I
> > need to? I would much rather pay $40 for a 50x cd-rom that can do all
the
> > grunt work at a fraction of the price and do it faster.

> I can understand your angle, but I still feel the reasoning is flawed. I
> have two drives myself, a Toshiba DVD, and a Plextor CDRW. I use the
Toshiba
> for all installations, normal reading etc. But .. my point is, that it
> really makes no difference which one you use. They both serve as readers,
> they should both work the same for that purpose.

> Before I got my DVD drive, I used the Plextor for everything, reading,
> writing, and doing the dishes ... and guess what .. it survived! I've
never
> had a single problem out of it, and it's still going strong, hundreds of
> burns later.

> I used to know this guy back in the early 90's that wouldn't let you put a
> floppy disk in his floppy drive if it had a hand-written label (he was
> afraid that the ink would rub off in the drive and ruin it or something).
> You guys being afraid to use your CDRW for reading CD's remind me of that
> guy :) Just a little too paranoid. C'mon guys, these things have a MTBF
> rating in the thousands of hours, they aren't delicate flowers :)

> Hell, if my Plextor 8432 broke, I'd just use it as an excuse to buy one of
> those new Plextor 16x burners!

by **Marc Collin** » Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:47:52

You would have to be burning CD's all day long as a business to worry about
wearing out the drive. If you were doing that, the cost of a new CD-RW
would be insignificant.

Marc.

> Actually, I am like Don.. I do not like to use my Burner to do anything
but
> Burn CDs

> Think about it.. EVERYTHING has a lifespan to it.. you may not know what
it
> is, but it has one. Your monitor may last for a total of 1500 hours, your
> cd-rom may work for 1000 hours before it dies.. you never know. Anything
> can and will break eventually. Heck, if you are unlucky.. it may have a
> life of only a few hundred hours of use. You just never know.

> My reasoning is why should I put more wear and tear into my Burner than I
> need to? I would much rather pay $40 for a 50x cd-rom that can do all the
> grunt work at a fraction of the price and do it faster.

> > > Sure there is, just read any of the cd-rw forums and you'll see folks
> > > talking about how many burns they hope to get out of their cd-rw's.

> > That's just plain nonsense.

> > > for us casual users it probably wouldn't mean a lot - but I still
didn't
> > > want to use my burner as my good ole day to day cd-rom.

> > I can just about guarantee you that you put your main CD drive through
> much
> > more strain than all but the most active CD burners do with their CDRW
> > drives. There is not some mystical and delicate thing that lies beneath
> the
> > hood of CDRW drives, they use lasers to write with, just the same as
your
> > reader does to read with.

> > You mention that you have a Plextor 8/4/32 drive (same as me) .. you do
> know
> > what the "32" is for right? It means the drive is intended to -read-
CD's
> at
> > 32x speed. Absolutely no differently than any other CDROM drive.

> > Besides, most of the posts I've seen complaining about failed N4 reads
> have
> > to do with DVD drives. Should they only use those drives to play DVD's?

by **Marc Collin** » Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:51:12

VCR rewinders help save a very complex mechanical device in the VCR from
being taxed (although VCRs are now cheap enough to render them frivolous).
There is no parallel in a ROM drive. Maybe we should go back to secondary
video accelerators so we aren't wearing out our main video card when we use
racing sims.??

Marc.

> Its not about being scared.. I have had about 6 burners in my life. My
> first one costing me $600.

> Ever hear of people using Tape Rewinders for the VCR? That is the same
> reason I use a normal cd-rom for my server machine (the one that has the
> Burner).

> My normal cd-rom is faster, cheaper (in case something does happen) and
> allows me to do cd-to-cd copies. If that is flawed logic, sorry.. but you
> are not the one that owns my machine so to be honest, my logic is the only
> one that matters on my machine :)

> > > Actually, I am like Don.. I do not like to use my Burner to do
anything
> > but
> > > Burn CDs

> > > Think about it.. EVERYTHING has a lifespan to it.. you may not know
what
> > it
> > > is, but it has one. Your monitor may last for a total of 1500 hours,
> your
> > > cd-rom may work for 1000 hours before it dies.. you never know.
> Anything
> > > can and will break eventually. Heck, if you are unlucky.. it may have
a
> > > life of only a few hundred hours of use. You just never know.

> > > My reasoning is why should I put more wear and tear into my Burner
than
> I
> > > need to? I would much rather pay $40 for a 50x cd-rom that can do all
> the
> > > grunt work at a fraction of the price and do it faster.

> > I can understand your angle, but I still feel the reasoning is flawed. I
> > have two drives myself, a Toshiba DVD, and a Plextor CDRW. I use the
> Toshiba
> > for all installations, normal reading etc. But .. my point is, that it
> > really makes no difference which one you use. They both serve as
readers,
> > they should both work the same for that purpose.

> > Before I got my DVD drive, I used the Plextor for everything, reading,
> > writing, and doing the dishes ... and guess what .. it survived! I've
> never
> > had a single problem out of it, and it's still going strong, hundreds of
> > burns later.

> > I used to know this guy back in the early 90's that wouldn't let you put
a
> > floppy disk in his floppy drive if it had a hand-written label (he was
> > afraid that the ink would rub off in the drive and ruin it or
something).
> > You guys being afraid to use your CDRW for reading CD's remind me of
that
> > guy :) Just a little too paranoid. C'mon guys, these things have a MTBF
> > rating in the thousands of hours, they aren't delicate flowers :)

> > Hell, if my Plextor 8432 broke, I'd just use it as an excuse to buy one
of
> > those new Plextor 16x burners!

by **Don Burnett** » Tue, 20 Feb 2001 01:04:03

Yeah, but we can run N4.
:)

Sorry, couldn't resist.
When I added my cdrw, I saw no reason to remove my cd rom drive - let it
take all the abuse from day to day use of a cdrom drive.

--
Don Burnette

> VCR rewinders help save a very complex mechanical device in the VCR from
> being taxed (although VCRs are now cheap enough to render them frivolous).
> There is no parallel in a ROM drive. Maybe we should go back to secondary
> video accelerators so we aren't wearing out our main video card when we
use
> racing sims.??

> Marc.

> > Its not about being scared.. I have had about 6 burners in my life. My
> > first one costing me $600.

> > Ever hear of people using Tape Rewinders for the VCR? That is the same
> > reason I use a normal cd-rom for my server machine (the one that has the
> > Burner).

> > My normal cd-rom is faster, cheaper (in case something does happen) and
> > allows me to do cd-to-cd copies. If that is flawed logic, sorry.. but
you
> > are not the one that owns my machine so to be honest, my logic is the
only
> > one that matters on my machine :)

> > > > Actually, I am like Don.. I do not like to use my Burner to do
> anything
> > > but
> > > > Burn CDs

> > > > Think about it.. EVERYTHING has a lifespan to it.. you may not know
> what
> > > it
> > > > is, but it has one. Your monitor may last for a total of 1500 hours,
> > your
> > > > cd-rom may work for 1000 hours before it dies.. you never know.
> > Anything
> > > > can and will break eventually. Heck, if you are unlucky.. it may
have
> a
> > > > life of only a few hundred hours of use. You just never know.

> > > > My reasoning is why should I put more wear and tear into my Burner
> than
> > I
> > > > need to? I would much rather pay $40 for a 50x cd-rom that can do
all
> > the
> > > > grunt work at a fraction of the price and do it faster.

> > > I can understand your angle, but I still feel the reasoning is flawed.
I
> > > have two drives myself, a Toshiba DVD, and a Plextor CDRW. I use the
> > Toshiba
> > > for all installations, normal reading etc. But .. my point is, that it
> > > really makes no difference which one you use. They both serve as
> readers,
> > > they should both work the same for that purpose.

> > > Before I got my DVD drive, I used the Plextor for everything, reading,
> > > writing, and doing the dishes ... and guess what .. it survived! I've
> > never
> > > had a single problem out of it, and it's still going strong, hundreds
of
> > > burns later.

> > > I used to know this guy back in the early 90's that wouldn't let you
put
> a
> > > floppy disk in his floppy drive if it had a hand-written label (he was
> > > afraid that the ink would rub off in the drive and ruin it or
> something).
> > > You guys being afraid to use your CDRW for reading CD's remind me of
> that
> > > guy :) Just a little too paranoid. C'mon guys, these things have a
MTBF
> > > rating in the thousands of hours, they aren't delicate flowers :)

> > > Hell, if my Plextor 8432 broke, I'd just use it as an excuse to buy
one
> of
> > > those new Plextor 16x burners!

by **BRH** » Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:22:19

I think that you might just have a bad CD! After reading the many problems
posted here, I decided to buy N4, just yesterday, and give it a try anyway.

Like you, I have a Yamaha CDR/RW (Model 6416, I think) which is perhaps only 6
months old, and N4 installed off of it this morning, and seem to be running
fine. (Except that I can't seem to get the car up to full speed, but I'm sure
that's a configuration issue.) I have not tried online yet, though. N4
wouldn't install using my (more recently purchased) Digital Research DVD drive,
but the Yamaha burner did the trick.

So, don't give up yet. Have you tried a full install? That would require less
disc access, and might therefore make a difference. Or, perhaps a simple
exchange of the CD where you bought it might do the trick!

Good Luck!

> I have a "legit" CD key and I cannot play on line. I can't play at all! It
> might have worked for Half Life and Q3 but it doesn't work for N4. Sierra
> offers a 90 day money back guarantee which I am going to take advantage of
> and would suggest that everyone who cannot get the game to play, do the
> same. I just bought my Yamaha CDR/RW a few months ago and I'm not about to
> buy another. There is nothing wrong with it, why should I replace it? It
> will be a cold day in hell before Sierra sees any money from me.

> --
> Alastair Ingram
> www.saxlessons.com

> > You would be wrong, the game was sitting on the shelves before the warez
> > version of N4 was out.

> > I love the whole cd-key scheme in games. I wish more games would use it
> for
> > online play. I think that is a bigger stopper of piracy than anything.

> > Having to have a legit cd-key to play online is what causes alot of people
> > to actually go out and buy a game. Half-Life and Q3 really showed that.

> > > > On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 15:25:33 GMT, "Marc Collins"

> > > > >Aside from a big raspberry...

> > > > >Two questions...

> > > > >1) Do you think Sierra wants to employ a copy protection scheme that
> > > > >prevents potential paying customers from running their product...of
> > > course
> > > > >not.

> > > > I think Sierra has to use stern copy-protection to -increase- the
> > > > sales of their products. As the casula user copying technology
> > > > increases with each new version of CloneCD, etc., they have to
> > > > improve their copy-protection or lose sales.

> > > Thats funny because the Warez groups I'm sure had the game out before
> > Sierra
> > > even did. This isn't any protection they can do that will protect their
> > > software. The ONLY thing they have limited is the ability to play
> online,
> > > and thats only due to the software key stored on their servers.

> > > Although you can still play online other places besides Sierras servers.

--
Bert

by **Cliff Roma** » Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:49:11

Tell you what Marc, I will not tell you what to run in your machine, you do
not tell me what to run in mine?

Sound fair?

Thank you and have a good day