rec.autos.simulators

GTR and Starforce

Steve Simpso

GTR and Starforce

by Steve Simpso » Mon, 09 Jan 2006 16:03:58

Starforce DOES NOT disable imaging, cloning or burning programs.  Some of
these programs MAY in some rare instances (usually on poorly configured PCs)
have a driver conflict with the Starforce CD driver.  In those instances,
it's usually a Windows/BIOS issue with the PC in question since Starforce
follows the 'rules' just like any other PC driver.

Steve Simpso

GTR and Starforce

by Steve Simpso » Tue, 10 Jan 2006 06:39:20

The blacklists only prevents you from running a copy of the protected game
from an emulator.  Pretty darn obvious really.  Most Safedisc and SecuROM
games do that too.  *** 120% works fine with a Starforce game installed
but obviously you can't use it to emulate the game or backup the disc.

Same with de***s, they only fail to work when the game itself is running.
Next...

Mika Takal

GTR and Starforce

by Mika Takal » Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:12:37

I just fail to see the proof. Starforce has had compatibility problems with
certain dvd/cd-drives, but that is just a problem that won't in any way ***
up your system - it just will not start the game. And these problems have
been largely corrected with updates to Starforce itself.

So, where's the proof again?

--
Mika Takala

himrlipi

GTR and Starforce

by himrlipi » Wed, 11 Jan 2006 01:02:03

I installed an original, legitimate, retail version of  Xpand Rally
and it ran beautifully. Once.

When I shut it down, I encountered horrible problems. Every mouse
click would open four or five programs and the system, once rebooted,
would only run in MS-DOS compatibility mode. Uninstalling Xpand Rally
did nothing. Uninstalling the Starforce drivers returned the system to
normal.

I had the Starforce cleaner utility on my drive and found that
installing a Starforce protected game removed it. Had to download it
again just to get rid of Starforce's drivers.

My crime? Having a copy of CD-Copier on my drive.

When I asked the folks at Starforce, who recommended that I upgrade
the version of Starforce on my system, if upgrading would solve the
problem, they made no guarantees. I decided then that I wanted nothing
more to do with any Starforce protected titles.



Steve Simpso

GTR and Starforce

by Steve Simpso » Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:42:21

You don't HAVE to.  In the extremely unlikely event that Starforce is
incompatible with your drive (just as likely as an incompatibility with
Safedisc or SecuROM) you can call up the folk at customer support and get an
activation key.  There was no evidence in your previous post, just people
moaning about not being able to get backups to work.

Steve Simpso

GTR and Starforce

by Steve Simpso » Wed, 11 Jan 2006 06:46:56

<rollseyes> If a copy protection allows you to easily make a backup then
what's the point of it?  What about Playstation 2 games?  It's not possible
to make backups of those and I don't hear too many people whinging.

Steve Simpso

GTR and Starforce

by Steve Simpso » Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:06:53

Wrong.  The only legality in making backups of a game resides in the EULA of
that game.

Mr Q

GTR and Starforce

by Mr Q » Fri, 13 Jan 2006 08:35:41


> Fact: the law says I am allowed to make a backup of any software I
> own. If you aren't going to abide by the law then you are no better
> than a pirate.

Maybe where you are, but it's not universal.

You may also find that while you do have the right to make a backup copy
there's not necessarily a law preventing the publishers making it
difficult for you to do so (and if you're in the USA the DMCA makes it
illegal for you to work around those measures).

Isn't it great what Big Business can do?  :)

--

Mr Q
-------------------

The Other Larr

GTR and Starforce

by The Other Larr » Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:32:20

The 'rings' is part of where they went wrong starting with Win2K.

It's my understanding that, starting with Win2K, MS allows certain elements
of the User Interface to run in Ring 0 for performance reasons.

If that is correct, what a dumb-ass thing to do.

-Larry



>>This should shut you, and any other Starforce supporter, up for good.

>>http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/561108232/m/2871061083/p/5

>>posted by I3thHouR

>>Let me start by saying I am a developer and a Webmaster of a number of
>>major Game related sites.

>>I have 25 years experience in the Business thus I make very sure that
>>I have fully researched what I comment about. My credentials precede
>>me, I do not agree with or endorse software piracy. However to play my
>>existing Starforce games I have had to crack them.

> [ snip ]

>>2. In Windows XP Starforce gives Ring 0 (super user level access) to
>>Ring 3 (Standard users). In normal English this basically means that
>>any third party application such as Trojans or Viri are given the
>>ability to have full access the both software and hardware.

> Very interesting and interesting combination of statements. I'm by no
> means a starforce fan (it doesn't get installed here), but Ring0 ==
> Super User and Ring3 == Normal user!? Seriously!?

> Ring0 level is actually kernel level, almost nothing should be even
> attempting to access ring0 and micro$oft tightens things considerably in
> this area with win2k (I'm no m$ fan either) after the Win95/CiH virus
> caused many problems back in the day by surviving reboots due to hiding
> in CMOS memory after gaining ring0 access.

> Ring3 is 'application level'. 3rd party apps (office software / games
> etc) run at this level of the system.

> Neither Ring0 or Ring3 have anything to do with what user access the
> current user has.

> Regards,

>  tk

Uwe Sch??rkam

GTR and Starforce

by Uwe Sch??rkam » Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:59:44


> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:32:20 -0500, "Larry \(The Other Larry\)"
>>The 'rings' is part of where they went wrong starting with Win2K.

>>It's my understanding that, starting with Win2K, MS allows certain elements
>>of the User Interface to run in Ring 0 for performance reasons.

>>If that is correct, what a dumb-ass thing to do.

>>-Larry

> I can't comment on this as I really don't know for sure, but as you say,
> if this is the case, then it'll be a complete waste of time what they
> tried to achieve with only half a job done, but after what we've seen
> come from Redmond over the years, I really wouldn't put it past them to
> behave in such a strange manner and call it a 'solution'.

didn't they mess with NT in much the same way in order to "improve gui
performance"? I think I can hear Dave Cutler rotating in his grave 8-P

Cheers, uwe

--
GPG Fingerprint:  2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F  67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

The Other Larr

GTR and Starforce

by The Other Larr » Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:32:38

It is possible this started with NT4.  It's been too long for me to
remember.

Either way, dumb ass idea putting parts of the user interface in the
supposidly highly-protected ring-0.

I suspect the spyware and virus authors just love it though.

-Larry



>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:32:20 -0500, "Larry \(The Other Larry\)"
>>>The 'rings' is part of where they went wrong starting with Win2K.

>>>It's my understanding that, starting with Win2K, MS allows certain
>>>elements
>>>of the User Interface to run in Ring 0 for performance reasons.

>>>If that is correct, what a dumb-ass thing to do.

>>>-Larry

>> I can't comment on this as I really don't know for sure, but as you say,
>> if this is the case, then it'll be a complete waste of time what they
>> tried to achieve with only half a job done, but after what we've seen
>> come from Redmond over the years, I really wouldn't put it past them to
>> behave in such a strange manner and call it a 'solution'.

> didn't they mess with NT in much the same way in order to "improve gui
> performance"? I think I can hear Dave Cutler rotating in his grave 8-P

> Cheers, uwe

> --
> GPG Fingerprint:  2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F  67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

Mitch_

GTR and Starforce

by Mitch_ » Thu, 19 Jan 2006 03:09:14

As in any type engineering compromises must be made.

Im sure not going to pretend I know why MS made those choices but Im not
presumptuous enough to comment on it without all the facts.

With MS products EVERYONE is a self proclaimed EXPERT....  Thats the biggest
problem I see ;)

Mitch

.


Mika Takal

GTR and Starforce

by Mika Takal » Thu, 19 Jan 2006 04:08:42



So, if something makes the OS hang, the user interface hangs too, requiring
a swift reset button activity?

There are compromises that are quite necessary to have running as high
priority / ring as possible. Some parts of user interface are part of those
things.

--
Mika Takala

The Other Larr

GTR and Starforce

by The Other Larr » Thu, 19 Jan 2006 04:51:30

That was part of all the griping back when this was discovered.  The UI
could actually take out the kernal, which is bad bad bad.

-Larry




>> It is possible this started with NT4.  It's been too long for me to
>> remember.

>> Either way, dumb ass idea putting parts of the user interface in the
>> supposidly highly-protected ring-0.

> So, if something makes the OS hang, the user interface hangs too,
> requiring a swift reset button activity?

> There are compromises that are quite necessary to have running as high
> priority / ring as possible. Some parts of user interface are part of
> those things.

> --
> Mika Takala


rec.autos.simulators is a usenet newsgroup formed in December, 1993. As this group was always unmoderated there may be some spam or off topic articles included. Some links do point back to racesimcentral.net as we could not validate the original address. Please report any pages that you believe warrant deletion from this archive (include the link in your email). RaceSimCentral.net is in no way responsible and does not endorse any of the content herein.