Ken
>David
It doesn't replicate, so it's not a virus. That's not splitting hairs,
that's just not paying heed to Daily Mail headlines.
cheers
John
> >Hmmh, I have Enigma:RT installed and there are no Starforce drivers in my
> >device manager (yes I have the view hidden checked). Of course I also use
a
> >NoCD patch to run it since the CD search in ERT is sloooow. Maybe its
> >different here in the North American release than where you live?
> >David
> Maybe it's the v213a patch that installs the Starforce drivers. I
> installed the game then installed the patch, then when I tried to run
> the game it asked me to reboot instead of asking for the code like it
> used to do. Then after the reboot and running the game it did the cd
> check exactly like TOCA2 does. And sure enough there were the
> Starforce entries in my Device Manager. I bought my copy in Canada.
But it seems to me that it DOES replictate. Everytime somebody
installs a demo a new version is installed. Everytime somebody buys
programs protected by this Copy Protection, then another system is
'infected.' Again...it uses a non-traditional method of distribution,
but it still is sent out to unsuspecting users via the internet
(downloaded demo) or via a retail box.
And please realize... I KNOW it's not a virus...but what I am
saying is.....YES IT IS. It's close enough to classic definition of a
virus so that it doesn't matter how it moves around the world or whether
it does harm to a system. The result is the same: User's systems get
infected by a program that hides itself, that lurks waiting to act, that
cannot be easily removed. It doesn't matter if I get run over by a huge
SUV or a Toyota Prius Hybrid car...I'm still feeling lousy either way.
dave henrie
>> Stranger and stranger. I bought mine in Canada too (1st day
>> available at local EB), played it on my old comp which did have the
>> starforce stuff (I assume becuase I played the TRD2 demo for all of
>> 5 minutes). Built new comp, installed ERT, immediatly patched to
>> 213a, a 55.8MB patch, then installed the latest noCD then played
>> ERT. No starforce stuff can be found on this machine though it was
>> easy to find on the old one. You sure you got them from ERT? I
>> checked their forums and saw no mention of starforce though someone
>> was complaining about a scratched CD not running.
> Yes, I'm postitive it is installing Starforce. I removed the Starforce
> ***with the utiltity available. Tries to run Enigma and again it
> said it had to load protection drivers and to rebooot the computer.
> Once again Starforce was there. Maybe I should get that nocd crack and
> then delete Starforce. Maybe I''ll just delete the whole game anyway
> as I don't like Enigma much.
You seem to be confusing replication with installation.
It doesn't copy itself, it is installed on the back of another application.
It's not close to a virus at all, and using such words is nothing more than
tabloid-esque scare mongering. It's no different to any number of curious
dlls or files that are installed along with retail software, usually for
copy protection purposes. It doesn't replicate, it's not a virus.
Sorry, but in my opinion, you're way wide of the mark, and just fuelling
more needless paranoia.
cheers
John
well ok, fine. Unasked, unwanted, uneasy to remove, it consumes
resources, it moves world-wide, it even leaves behind code after un-
installing the host. You are right, it is not a virus. BUT WHAT IS THE
DIFFERENCE? A virus hides on a system, a virus does not ask permission,
a virus is by design hard to remove, a virus moves world wide. Just
because one chooses unsuspecting consumers vs unsuspecting emailers as a
method of distribution, I just don't see any difference. Self-
replication is a means of distribution, not a definition of a program.
If I choose to ship an item via air cargo or truck it...the end result is
the the same...the product gets where I sent it. Even though the method
of shipping is vastly different.
A year or so ago, Intuit included copy protection on Turbotax that
could not be removed, indeed they were so secretive about it, they placed
some of the files in an area of the harddrive that windows itself could
not access. They finally released a utility that they 'said' removed the
offending code, and thus disabling TT, but I had no way of knowing or
checking if this was true. A normal virus is easier to locate, easier to
remove, and easier on my hardware. So forgive me if I'm inclined to lump
secretive, intrusive, code under a broad category. btw...This year I did
my taxes for free online. Screw intuit.
So again, yes I know it's not a virus. You are very correct in that
respect...but the end result is the same. the end result is the same, the
end result is the same.
dave henrie
As I tell me daughter when she's being taunted by her evil sibling, "You
know what you know." That is, have faith that what you think and that what
you're saying is The Truth, no matter how many nit-pickers try to peck it to
death with technicalities. I know what you mean (as I told you in an
earlier reply). you know what you mean, and so does everybody else who isn't
bound by the Ministry of Definitions amd its online minions. IOW, stop
being co-dependent, an enabler. Pour yourself three fingers of single malt
and relax....
--Avuncular Ol' Steve
> > It doesn't replicate, it's not a virus.
> well ok, fine. Unasked, unwanted, uneasy to remove, it consumes
> resources, it moves world-wide, it even leaves behind code after un-
> installing the host. You are right, it is not a virus. BUT WHAT IS THE
> DIFFERENCE? A virus hides on a system, a virus does not ask permission,
> a virus is by design hard to remove, a virus moves world wide. Just
> because one chooses unsuspecting consumers vs unsuspecting emailers as a
> method of distribution, I just don't see any difference. Self-
> replication is a means of distribution, not a definition of a program.
> If I choose to ship an item via air cargo or truck it...the end result is
> the the same...the product gets where I sent it. Even though the method
> of shipping is vastly different.
> A year or so ago, Intuit included copy protection on Turbotax that
> could not be removed, indeed they were so secretive about it, they placed
> some of the files in an area of the harddrive that windows itself could
> not access. They finally released a utility that they 'said' removed the
> offending code, and thus disabling TT, but I had no way of knowing or
> checking if this was true. A normal virus is easier to locate, easier to
> remove, and easier on my hardware. So forgive me if I'm inclined to lump
> secretive, intrusive, code under a broad category. btw...This year I did
> my taxes for free online. Screw intuit.
> So again, yes I know it's not a virus. You are very correct in that
> respect...but the end result is the same. the end result is the same, the
> end result is the same.
> dave henrie
