Hello all,
Received GTR for X-mas, went to install it, read the biz about Starforce
Copy Protection and decided to abort the install.
Is Starforce a bad deal? Research on Google shows good and bad. Some folks
claim it slowed their PC down and screwed with cd-rom burning. While others
say it causes no problems. Please help a brother sim racer out and let me
know if I should install GTR or not. My PC is totally tweaked and running
perfectly at the moment for all of my sim racing pleasure. I certainly don't
want to jack it up from Starforce.
Thanks.
Ducwizard
Debate over Starforce copy protection in GTR and GTL
A user who received GTR for Christmas asked whether its Starforce protection was harmful. Many reported no problems, while others boycotted Starforce over reported burner conflicts, hidden driver installation and fears about activation servers disappearing; Todd Wasson and Mitch_A argued developers needed protection against piracy. The long thread moved into backup rights, the DMCA and Windows kernel ring levels.
With Todd Wasson (Performance Simulations)
Automated summary.
I have never had a problem with it.
Andi.
"Engineer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (16 lines)
> Hello all, > > Received GTR for X-mas, went to install it, read the biz about Starforce > Copy Protection and decided to abort the install. > > Is Starforce a bad deal? Research on Google shows good and bad. Some folks > claim it slowed their PC down and screwed with cd-rom burning. While > others say it causes no problems. Please help a brother sim racer out and > let me know if I should install GTR or not. My PC is totally tweaked and > running perfectly at the moment for all of my sim racing pleasure. I > certainly don't want to jack it up from Starforce. > > Thanks. > > Ducwizard >Andi Cole wrote:
> I have never had a problem with it.
Me neither. I've gone through a few PC upgrades and reinstalls without
any issue. From my own experience I would not hesitate, you will be
missing out on some great sims otherwise.
Cheers
Tony
In article <[email hidden]>,
Engineer says...
> Is Starforce a bad deal?
Had no dramas with starforce, apparently there's a challenge issued by
the creators to prove any of the faults that users have complained about
for a cash prize.
I have alcohol installed mainly for VMWare and starforce hasn't
complained about it and I have both GTR and GTL running no problems.
I think the major issue with starforce is the fact that it can take a
fair bit of time to verify an original disk (but apparently has been
fixed in later versions of starforce) mine takes about 10-20secs.
--
Cheers,
Rod.
Quoted text (9 lines)
> Received GTR for X-mas, went to install it, read the biz about Starforce > Copy Protection and decided to abort the install. > > Is Starforce a bad deal? Research on Google shows good and bad. Some folks > claim it slowed their PC down and screwed with cd-rom burning. While others > say it causes no problems. Please help a brother sim racer out and let me > know if I should install GTR or not. My PC is totally tweaked and running > perfectly at the moment for all of my sim racing pleasure. I certainly don't > want to jack it up from Starforce.it works fine, but there was a patch or something I had to do to get it to
work properly...
"Engineer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
I have not had any negatives with starforce. The experience of others varies
as you found out on google. One thing you could try is install the GTR demo
which has starforce (though perhaps not the most current version). If it
blocks your burner, which seems to be the chief trouble, you can always
remove the demo and use the starforce removal tool. If you are running XP
setting a restore point just prior to installing starforce is also a good
idea. Alternatly you could go to the starforce site and get the most recent
version of Starforce and see if that creates any trouble. Really, given the
variation of peoples experience with SF, the only way to find out is install
and see if bothers you
Dave
Quoted text (15 lines)
> Hello all, > > Received GTR for X-mas, went to install it, read the biz about Starforce > Copy Protection and decided to abort the install. > > Is Starforce a bad deal? Research on Google shows good and bad. Some folks > claim it slowed their PC down and screwed with cd-rom burning. While > others say it causes no problems. Please help a brother sim racer out and > let me know if I should install GTR or not. My PC is totally tweaked and > running perfectly at the moment for all of my sim racing pleasure. I > certainly don't want to jack it up from Starforce. > > Thanks. > > DucwizardIn the readme. file there is an explanation of how to remove Starforce after
installation. GTL has the same thing. I think it may have to be done
immediately after installation and before running the sim for the first
time.
Install the mod then delete Starforce.
Timmy
"Engineer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (16 lines)
> Hello all, > > Received GTR for X-mas, went to install it, read the biz about Starforce > Copy Protection and decided to abort the install. > > Is Starforce a bad deal? Research on Google shows good and bad. Some folks > claim it slowed their PC down and screwed with cd-rom burning. While > others say it causes no problems. Please help a brother sim racer out and > let me know if I should install GTR or not. My PC is totally tweaked and > running perfectly at the moment for all of my sim racing pleasure. I > certainly don't want to jack it up from Starforce. > > Thanks. > > Ducwizard >Thanks All! I did create a restore point in XP just before installing
GTR / SF. Installed it last night and so far all is well. GTR is really
nice too, didn't get much sleep. I can't wait to get GTL here in the
States! Thank you all again for your help / info.
Ducwizard
Timmy Ferrell wrote:
Quoted text (28 lines)
> In the readme. file there is an explanation of how to remove Starforce after > installation. GTL has the same thing. I think it may have to be done > immediately after installation and before running the sim for the first > time. > Install the mod then delete Starforce. > Timmy > "Engineer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>Hello all, >> >>Received GTR for X-mas, went to install it, read the biz about Starforce >>Copy Protection and decided to abort the install. >> >>Is Starforce a bad deal? Research on Google shows good and bad. Some folks >>claim it slowed their PC down and screwed with cd-rom burning. While >>others say it causes no problems. Please help a brother sim racer out and >>let me know if I should install GTR or not. My PC is totally tweaked and >>running perfectly at the moment for all of my sim racing pleasure. I >>certainly don't want to jack it up from Starforce. >> >>Thanks. >> >>Ducwizard >> > > >
Ducwizard wrote:
I'm in the states and have GTL. Got it here:
http://www.gogamer.com/cgi-bin/GoGamer.storefront/SESSIONID/Product/View/001GTL
It arrived in only two or three days :)
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Thanks All! I did create a restore point in XP just before installing > GTR / SF. Installed it last night and so far all is well. GTR is really > nice too, didn't get much sleep. I can't wait to get GTL here in the > States! Thank you all again for your help / info. > > Ducwizard >Oh, one other thing. A guy I talked to recently tried to hack the
starforce system just to see if he could do it in a short amount of
time (he couldn't). He reported that after tampering with it his CD
burner was locked up and he had other similar problems. Serves him
right, really, and he fixed it up eventually. I'm wondering how many
of the folks that have reported similar "problems" with Starforce were
up to no good :-)
"RodP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
And THEIR FUD was successful by your reply. It's working.
Their so called contest, if you read the rules, is a farce.
Their "prize" is ONLY if you can prove a HARDWARE failure.
No reward if your OS gets baked because of a SOFTWARE incompatibility with
STARFORCE.
Quoted text (8 lines)
> In article <[email hidden]>, > Engineer says... > >> Is Starforce a bad deal? > > Had no dramas with starforce, apparently there's a challenge issued by > the creators to prove any of the faults that users have complained about > for a cash prize.I'd say you hit the nail on the head Todd ;) One time where honesty does
pay.
Mitch
"Todd Wasson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Oh, one other thing. A guy I talked to recently tried to hack the > starforce system just to see if he could do it in a short amount of > time (he couldn't). He reported that after tampering with it his CD > burner was locked up and he had other similar problems. Serves him > right, really, and he fixed it up eventually. I'm wondering how many > of the folks that have reported similar "problems" with Starforce were > up to no good :-) >In article <cyfsf.40836$q%[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
> I'd say you hit the nail on the head Todd ;) One time where honesty does
> pay.
>
> Mitch
> That's my problem with Starforce. I am honest. I don't pirate. I
don't like that the developers treat me like a pirate. I do not want to
encourage them to continue to put that crap in their games. Therefore,
I will not buy any game/sim that has Starforce, no matter how badly I
want that game. I passed on GTR and Silent Hunter III because they
employ Starforce.
Voting with my dollars.
--
Yippee38
2005-12-28, Yippee38 wrote:
I passed on GTL. And I'm not buying Sony stuff anymore. But I'm afraid
noone cares, and in the end I'll not be able to buy anything anymore :-/
But the rFactor PCC mod is so much fun, who cares about GTL :-)
-peter
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > That's my problem with Starforce. I am honest. I don't pirate. I > don't like that the developers treat me like a pirate. I do not want to > encourage them to continue to put that crap in their games. Therefore, > I will not buy any game/sim that has Starforce, no matter how badly I > want that game. I passed on GTR and Silent Hunter III because they > employ Starforce.Peter <[email hidden]> writes:
Heck, nothing stops you from enjoying GPL! :)
I'm glad to hear somebody cares enought to send a message.
> But the rFactor PCC mod is so much fun, who cares about GTL :-)
No more talk about rFactor, please! I can't afford it...
/andreas
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Quoted text (11 lines)
> 2005-12-28, Yippee38 wrote: > > > > That's my problem with Starforce. I am honest. I don't pirate. I > > don't like that the developers treat me like a pirate. I do not want to > > encourage them to continue to put that crap in their games. Therefore, > > I will not buy any game/sim that has Starforce, no matter how badly I > > want that game. I passed on GTR and Silent Hunter III because they > > employ Starforce. > > I passed on GTL. And I'm not buying Sony stuff anymore. But I'm afraid > noone cares, and in the end I'll not be able to buy anything anymore :-/Another problem...
What if the company goes out of business and there's no longer an activation
server.
You now have a coaster instead of a CD/Game.
It's already happened once...
That's what scares me the most with "Product Activated" or "DRM" controlled
software. In one instant, millions of people can be left with useless
software/music.
And don't think the CEO of any such company will give one rats ass about you
if it happens.
-Larry
"Yippee38" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (18 lines)
> In article <cyfsf.40836$q%[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... >> I'd say you hit the nail on the head Todd ;) One time where honesty does >> pay. >> >> Mitch >> > That's my problem with Starforce. I am honest. I don't pirate. I > don't like that the developers treat me like a pirate. I do not want to > encourage them to continue to put that crap in their games. Therefore, > I will not buy any game/sim that has Starforce, no matter how badly I > want that game. I passed on GTR and Silent Hunter III because they > employ Starforce. > > Voting with my dollars. > > -- > Yippee38
Yippee38 wrote:
That's understandable and certainly your right to do so and really is
the best way to go about it. Personally, I wouldn't take issue with
Starforce in particular (unless it goofs up your system of course when
you weren't doing anything wrong, then that's a problem.) The fact of
the matter is devs really do need to use copy protection if they expect
to make any money at all.
I'm one of the developers of Virtual RC Racing, an RC car sim download
where the game with two tracks is totally free. After that we
primarily sell tracks as add ons. Naturally we have a copy protection
system there so people can't share the tracks, but one of the things we
started out doing was allowing I think three different installations so
if people had a laptop and a desktop or they got a new computer it
wouldn't be such a hassle for them to get going again.
The amount of abuse was unbelievable, according to the boss who put
that policy in place in an effort to make things nice and easy for the
users. He reported that the numbers of people who were attempting to
activate the same tracks on one account hit seven to ten or more times
within days of the account activation was very frequent indeed, which
is obviously due to people trying to share accounts. Because of that
in V2 he sadly had to go down to allowing only one installation. Of
course, that upsets people, but the amount of sales lost is quite
significant according to him. I haven't seen sales records in awhile
so can't really verify it personally.
If it isn't Starforce, it's going to be something else. You'll most
likely wind up boycotting yourself right out of sim racing entirely
rather than having any significant impact. The boss' view from looking
at the sales numbers before and after the changes is that we lose a ton
more sales by having the less restrictive protection we had before due
to account sharing/piracy than we do with the current system where you
only are allowed one installation, which means file sharing is quite
common indeed. And in the end, he's got a lot of money invested in
this he needs to recover so that's unfortunately got to be the bottom
line...
Unfortunately that means the honest guys like you suffer and are
inconvenienced quite a lot. I see it in our forums and it bothers me,
but we can't do it both ways :-(
Quoted text (18 lines)
> In article <cyfsf.40836$q%[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] says... > > I'd say you hit the nail on the head Todd ;) One time where honesty does > > pay. > > > > Mitch > > > That's my problem with Starforce. I am honest. I don't pirate. I > don't like that the developers treat me like a pirate. I do not want to > encourage them to continue to put that crap in their games. Therefore, > I will not buy any game/sim that has Starforce, no matter how badly I > want that game. I passed on GTR and Silent Hunter III because they > employ Starforce. > > Voting with my dollars. > > -- > Yippee38Downloaded games are a whole 'nother animal. I think that if people
download a game, they somehow think it is freeware (or shareware) and
they should be able to install it on as many PCs as they'd like. I have
no problem with copy protection that requires a CD key, or requires the
CD to be in the drive (as I usually download the no-cd cracks).
However, I really don't think any copy-protection is really going to
stop people from pirating it. The real pirates (the ones in Russia and
China who are burning copies and selling them) aren't going to be
stopped by most copy protection schemes.
Starforce though is intrusive, and that's my problem with it. They can
use all the copy protection in the world, as long as it doesn't install
software on my machine.
--
Yippee38
> And THEIR FUD was successful by your reply. It's working.
>
> Their so called contest, if you read the rules, is a farce.
> Their "prize" is ONLY if you can prove a HARDWARE failure.
> No reward if your OS gets baked because of a SOFTWARE incompatibility with
> STARFORCE.
Has that happened to you? I don't know anyone who's had their Windows
damaged by Starforce. Starforce cleaner removes it 100% anyway so it can't
do any harm.
If anything, it's the pirates who are spreading FUD about Starforce because
they really don't like it (even though it's still relatively easy to bypass)
The bottom line is that you're either a communist if you hate copy
protection or you're a capitalist if you realise it's a necessary
incovenience. ;-)
"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:43b3363c$[email hidden]...
Yes. Now I haven't heard of anyone who's hardware has been damaged. That's
why this contest if a farce.
More than a few folks have mentioned issues with their SOFTWARE and
Starforce. Myself included.
See the simhq.com thread for that.
>
> If anything, it's the pirates who are spreading FUD about Starforce
> because they really don't like it (even though it's still relatively easy
> to bypass)
>
BS, Starforce NOCD cracks for most popular titles are readily available.
It's the only way I can use my Silent Hunter III DVD.
> The bottom line is that you're either a communist if you hate copy
> protection or you're a capitalist if you realise it's a necessary
> incovenience. ;-)
Ahhh, yah right .... piss poor analogy there. ;-)
So I own the game, install it and it screws up a perfectly running system.
That's not being inconvenienced, that's not hating copy protection, that's
supporting your hobby
then getting screwed by a subcontractor making a piss poor CP product.
Quoted text (10 lines)
>> And THEIR FUD was successful by your reply. It's working. >> >> Their so called contest, if you read the rules, is a farce. >> Their "prize" is ONLY if you can prove a HARDWARE failure. >> No reward if your OS gets baked because of a SOFTWARE incompatibility >> with STARFORCE. > > Has that happened to you? I don't know anyone who's had their Windows > damaged by Starforce. Starforce cleaner removes it 100% anyway so it > can't do any harm.In article <43b3363c$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
My guess is that you work for either RIAA, MPAA, or the news media.
> The bottom line is that you're either a communist if you hate copy
> protection or you're a capitalist if you realise it's a necessary
> incovenience. ;-)
That quite funny. So if you don't want to be treated like a criminal,
then you are a commie? You're a good guy if you support this kind of
crap?
You HAVE to work for the news media.
--
Yippee38
Quoted text (9 lines)
> > Has that happened to you? I don't know anyone who's had their Windows > damaged by Starforce. Starforce cleaner removes it 100% anyway so it can't > do any harm. > > If anything, it's the pirates who are spreading FUD about Starforce because > they really don't like it (even though it's still relatively easy to bypass) > >> Yes. Now I haven't heard of anyone who's hardware has been damaged.
> That's why this contest if a farce.
Some of the idiotic pirates were making these ridiculous claims, hence they
introduced the farcical contest to shut them up. It worked.
> More than a few folks have mentioned issues with their SOFTWARE and
> Starforce. Myself included.
> See the simhq.com thread for that.
These instances are very rare. I use Daemon Tools and Alcohol 120% and have
no issue with either.
Send an email to starforce directly if you're one of the very unlucky few.
[email hidden]
>> If anything, it's the pirates who are spreading FUD about Starforce
>> because they really don't like it (even though it's still relatively easy
>> to bypass)
>>
> BS, Starforce NOCD cracks for most popular titles are readily available.
> It's the only way I can use my Silent Hunter III DVD.
Excellent! So you can point all of us to NoCD cracks for GTL & GTR ?
That's great to hear.
Again, you're in the extreme minority. It's not good to make broad
generalisations. Lots of people have compatibility issues with software but
do you hear them running around saying all incompatible software should be
abolished?
Quoted text (10 lines)
>> The bottom line is that you're either a communist if you hate copy >> protection or you're a capitalist if you realise it's a necessary >> incovenience. ;-) > > Ahhh, yah right .... piss poor analogy there. ;-) > So I own the game, install it and it screws up a perfectly running system. > That's not being inconvenienced, that's not hating copy protection, that's > supporting your hobby > then getting screwed by a subcontractor making a piss poor CP product.First you say;
"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:43b4764d$[email hidden]...
>>> The bottom line is that you're either a communist if you hate copy
>>> protection or you're a capitalist if you realise it's a necessary
>>> incovenience. ;-)
Then you say;
> It's not good to make broad generalisations.
ROTFLMAO!
Quoted text (11 lines)
>> Has that happened to you? I don't know anyone who's had their Windows >> damaged by Starforce. Starforce cleaner removes it 100% anyway so it >> can't >> do any harm. >> >> If anything, it's the pirates who are spreading FUD about Starforce >> because >> they really don't like it (even though it's still relatively easy to >> bypass) >> > My guess is that you work for either RIAA, MPAA, or the news media.Quoted text (7 lines)
>> The bottom line is that you're either a communist if you hate copy >> protection or you're a capitalist if you realise it's a necessary >> incovenience. ;-) > > That quite funny. So if you don't want to be treated like a criminal, > then you are a commie? You're a good guy if you support this kind of > crap?Quoted text (10 lines)
>>>> The bottom line is that you're either a communist if you hate copy >>>> protection or you're a capitalist if you realise it's a necessary >>>> incovenience. ;-) > > Then you say; > >> It's not good to make broad generalisations. > > > ROTFLMAO!I dont like Starforce either but its very unobtrusive for the honest folk.
Trust me there is much worse than Starforce and if fools keep boycotting,
complaining and stealing we will see that day sooner than later.
In the mean time the last of the true Sim dev's will just dry up because
(already limited) sales have dropped due to SF boycotters. Beyond sales the
investors will refuse to invest in a developer that will not try and protect
the investors properties (whether it works or not). So thanks to you and
the rest of the idiots we no longer have simulations. Is that the goal?
Just look at Sony's copy protection/eula if you want to whine, not SF.
Nothing to do with political affiliation though Id hazard a guess to which
party the majority of pirates/whiners do belong ;) (let me guess you have a
ponytail)
He much to smart to work for the media but it sound right up your alley.
Mitch
"Yippee38" <
Quoted text (7 lines)
> That quite funny. So if you don't want to be treated like a criminal, > then you are a commie? You're a good guy if you support this kind of > crap? > > You HAVE to work for the news media. > -- > Yippee38
"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:43b47b46$[email hidden]...
Oh I saw it, just it was too funny you say that ... ;-)
Quoted text (13 lines)
>>>>> The bottom line is that you're either a communist if you hate copy >>>>> protection or you're a capitalist if you realise it's a necessary >>>>> incovenience. ;-) >> >> Then you say; >> >>> It's not good to make broad generalisations. >> >> >> ROTFLMAO! > > You missed the wink too? Man people are getting blind these days.... >
"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:k0%sf.48299$[email hidden]...
>I dont like Starforce either but its very unobtrusive for the honest folk.
This issue gets debated constantly. The twist this time is some of the
NON-Pirates are pissed.
Besides, who's PC is it anyhow, yours or Ubisofts?
If a game wants to install this form of CP, then WARN people
clearly on the box that a) It's Starforce and b) there's a potential risk to
their PCs.
Not like you can return the game after opening now adays any how.
Because a) and b) aren't happening, people have to resort to plan c).
Which is let everyone else try the game, and/or find out if in fact its SF
protected.
Then if they really want it, wait for a crack before buying, or don't bother
and pass.
> Trust me there is much worse than Starforce and if fools keep boycotting,
> complaining and stealing we will see that day sooner than later.
>
Everyone is intitiled to buy whatever games they want.
If you want to call that a boycott so be it. The decision to buy or not to
buy
is the ONLY way to voice our opinion in this market.
I don't buy software to float share holders boats, I buy it if I like it and
I trust
it. I buy a lot of software every year (I think I'm in the $700 bracket
now).
> In the mean time the last of the true Sim dev's will just dry up because
> (already limited) sales have dropped due to SF boycotters.
Where's your source for that?
The SF devs must be worried to some degree because of their contest/fud
event.
2005 saw a drop in game sales, but I don't think the SF "boycotters" caused
that.
>Beyond sales the investors will refuse to invest in a developer that will
>not try and protect the investors properties (whether it works or not).
Sound practice to me, or they could invest in companies that don't cause
"waves" with their CP software.
>So thanks to you and the rest of the idiots we no longer have simulations.
>Is that the goal?
>
So people who refuse to buy SF protected games, are idiots! Idiots who also
want to see the end of simulations? Yeah ... right, come on.
> Just look at Sony's copy protection/eula if you want to whine, not SF.
>
They are/were idiots in regards to that stunt. Caught with their pants down
big time.
> Nothing to do with political affiliation though Id hazard a guess to which
> party the majority of pirates/whiners do belong ;) (let me guess you have
> a ponytail)
>
It's not as easy as that. It's too easy to paint everyone with broad
brushes.
I suspect as many neoCons voted NO to SF as there have been neoLibs.
If you don't like Liberals, are you now a whiner? If you don't like Pepsi,
also a whiner?
I'm not sure what the solution is to piracy, maybe they should go after the
large piraters.
You don't hear that on the news do you.
We can't go after the largest pirates that live in Russia and China and most
of the 3rd world for that matter. Should we abandon the terrorists and
focus on the software pirates so you don't have to have SF on your PC?
What other choice is there but some form of protection on the end users side
that is reasonable? Starforce fully meets that need and for the honest
user it isnt a big deal.
If youre so worried about software installations maybe you need to avoid a
PC altogether? Did you use the MS auto update recently? How about a AV
definition file d/l? I don't like notepad (its not on the box) so I'm
boycotting Microsoft..... Does that make sense??
Lunatic activists that have more time on their hands than sense in there
heads...
Mitch
"4-Example" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > I'm not sure what the
solution is to piracy, maybe they should go after the
Quoted text (8 lines)
> large piraters. > You don't hear that on the news do you. > > > > > >Quoted text (8 lines)
> It's not as easy as that. It's too easy to paint everyone with broad > brushes. > I suspect as many neoCons voted NO to SF as there have been neoLibs. > If you don't like Liberals, are you now a whiner? If you don't like > Pepsi, also a whiner? > I'm not sure what the solution is to piracy, maybe they should go after > the large piraters. > You don't hear that on the news do you.
"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Nobody really cares if you want to boycott SF games but don't expect to go
> around spreading 'SF wrecks your Windows installation' BS without being
> questioned.
>
Because you don't have cancer, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Real people have been burned by SF. It's not BS, it's a fact.
Anyhow, you basically saying since you're immune it doesn't exist.
With a position like that, there's no point of debating this with you.
Later...
"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:GA0tf.40092$[email hidden]...
> We can't go after the largest pirates that live in Russia and China and
> most of the 3rd world for that matter.
Who's WE? Existing trade laws should be able to put pressure on these
markets.
>Should we abandon the terrorists and focus on the software pirates so you
>don't have to have SF on your PC?
>
??? The last security conference I was on stated that the two groups aren't
necessarily mutually
exclusive. Actually, probably the opposite. Piracy is a big business with
little impact if caught.
Forged M$ SQL server licenses rake in thousands for example.
Organized crime profits from that sort of piracy big time and some of this
money just might
be ending up in the hands of the Ts.
> What other choice is there but some form of protection on the end users
> side that is reasonable? Starforce fully meets that need and for the
> honest user it isnt a big deal.
>How about CP that works?
Other CP schemes don't seem to be getting the heat that SF is.
SF isn't hurting the dishonest user, that's my main point.
It delays things for a few days/weeks, but that's it.
> If youre so worried about software installations maybe you need to avoid a
> PC altogether? Did you use the MS auto update recently? How about a AV
> definition file d/l? I don't like notepad (its not on the box) so I'm
> boycotting Microsoft..... Does that make sense??
>
Yeah, it makes nonsense that you've now basically said don't bother, give
up, forget about
PCs. That's such an old put down.
Time is money, wasting time fixing/rebuilding a PC after a SF malware
incident
is just sooooo much fun. Again, see the SimHQ thread, others have had this
happened.
I'll admit it's a minority affected, but to deny it happens is putting your
head in the sand.
> Lunatic activists that have more time on their hands than sense in there
> heads...
>
So anyone with a contrary opinion on this issue is either an idiot or a
lunatic!
Wow, you aren't an engineer by chance?
>>"In the mean time the last of the true Sim dev's will just dry up because
>>(already limited) sales have dropped due to SF boycotters. "
Still waiting for an example on that one.
I don't think they've been affected much (not yet anyhow).
In article <43b47ac7$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...
> You didn't see the wink?
Nope. Totally missed it. Sorry about that.
--
Yippee38
In article <k0%sf.48299$[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...
> I dont like Starforce either but its very unobtrusive for the honest folk.
> Trust me there is much worse than Starforce and if fools keep boycotting,
> complaining and stealing we will see that day sooner than later.
> Are you implying that because I complain about Starforce and boycott it,
that I must be a pirate? Pirates couldn't care less about Starforce.
The problem truly is that the pirates can get around Starforce, or any
other copy protection.
--
Yippee38
2005-12-30, Mitch_A wrote:
> I dont like Starforce either but its very unobtrusive for the honest folk.
No it's not. It infringes on my legal right to make a backup copy. It
gets in the way, takes up system and disk resources. It fails so now and
them making games impossible for people to play...
> Trust me there is much worse than Starforce and if fools keep boycotting,
> complaining and stealing we will see that day sooner than later.
In that case the game publishers really haven't understood anything...
> In the mean time the last of the true Sim dev's will just dry up because
> (already limited) sales have dropped due to SF boycotters. Beyond sales the
> investors will refuse to invest in a developer that will not try and protect
> the investors properties (whether it works or not). So thanks to you and
> the rest of the idiots we no longer have simulations. Is that the goal?
Pfff, the goal is to get a normal non-crippled product. The publushers are
making the game for us, not for them. If they release crap they
shouldn't be surprised people don't buy it anymore.
And we all know it doesn't stop copying...
> Just look at Sony's copy protection/eula if you want to whine, not SF.
I did and I did :-))
-peter
Yippee38 wrote:
Yeah, I can understand that. I don't have GTR so don't think I've got
Starforce on my machine so don't know what that's like to deal with.
Unless GTL had it, then well, I didn't see anything at all if it
installed anyway. :-D
You're right about pirating. No matter what we do people may still
eventually crack it. Although we've gone over a year and so far it
hasn't happened. Fingers crossed... In our case though if we find
someone hacking it, since so much of it is online based we can quickly
squash it and make the hacker have to start over again by forcing an
update. Would be a bummer to do though because all the nice guys that
support us would have to deal with redownloading/installing everything
again :-(
Quoted text (16 lines)
> Downloaded games are a whole 'nother animal. I think that if people > download a game, they somehow think it is freeware (or shareware) and > they should be able to install it on as many PCs as they'd like. I have > no problem with copy protection that requires a CD key, or requires the > CD to be in the drive (as I usually download the no-cd cracks). > However, I really don't think any copy-protection is really going to > stop people from pirating it. The real pirates (the ones in Russia and > China who are burning copies and selling them) aren't going to be > stopped by most copy protection schemes. > > Starforce though is intrusive, and that's my problem with it. They can > use all the copy protection in the world, as long as it doesn't install > software on my machine. > > -- > Yippee38"Todd Wasson" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:
> Yeah, I can understand that. I don't have GTR so don't think I've got
> Starforce on my machine so don't know what that's like to deal with.
> Unless GTL had it, then well, I didn't see anything at all if it
> installed anyway. :-D
Yes, GTL has Starforce. You didn't notice anytning because the Rat
BASTARDs that code startforce don't ASK permission to install hidden files
on your computer. This sure smacks of a really big class action lawsuit.
dh
Dave Henrie <[email hidden]> writes:
I think you have just described very concisely why so many of us have a
problem with Starforce. Protection, sure. Installing crap on my computer
without telling, no no.
/andreas
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Quoted text (11 lines)
> "Todd Wasson" <[email hidden]> wrote in > news:[email hidden]: > > > Yeah, I can understand that. I don't have GTR so don't think I've got > > Starforce on my machine so don't know what that's like to deal with. > > Unless GTL had it, then well, I didn't see anything at all if it > > installed anyway. :-D > > Yes, GTL has Starforce. You didn't notice anytning because the Rat > BASTARDs that code startforce don't ASK permission to install hidden files > on your computer. This sure smacks of a really big class action lawsuit.> I think you have just described very concisely why so many of us have a
> problem with Starforce. Protection, sure. Installing crap on my computer
> without telling, no no.
Taken from the GTL readme which is displayed *before* Starforce is
installed.....
"Protection:
===================
GT Legends utilizes StarForce copy protection technology. You will be
required to enter the CD key provided with the distribution media, when you
install and run the game for the first time. You may also be asked to
restart your PC to finalize the StarForce driver installation the first time
you run the game."
It's not like Starforce is some unknown quantity. It's plastered all over
the web what it does and how it works. They don't make any secret about
what it installs (just how to defeat it) An uninstall utility is provided
which has been proven to 100% remove the driver. It's also been proven that
the driver uses NO system resources except when the CD is being verified.
I'm still yet to hear anyone give an example of a legitimate software
problem which has been caused by the installation of Starforce. All I've
seen is a lot of backpedalling when you actually challenge them about what
problems Starforce has caused.
Steve Simpson wrote:
Yeah, I think you may be right. I didn't even realize it was installed
when I ran GTL. Although come to think of it I do remember reading the
readme text you just posted there. Was just no big deal to me.
<shrug>
Quoted text (26 lines)
> > I think you have just described very concisely why so many of us have a > > problem with Starforce. Protection, sure. Installing crap on my computer > > without telling, no no. > > Taken from the GTL readme which is displayed *before* Starforce is > installed..... > > "Protection: > =================== > > GT Legends utilizes StarForce copy protection technology. You will be > required to enter the CD key provided with the distribution media, when you > install and run the game for the first time. You may also be asked to > restart your PC to finalize the StarForce driver installation the first time > you run the game." > > It's not like Starforce is some unknown quantity. It's plastered all over > the web what it does and how it works. They don't make any secret about > what it installs (just how to defeat it) An uninstall utility is provided > which has been proven to 100% remove the driver. It's also been proven that > the driver uses NO system resources except when the CD is being verified. > > I'm still yet to hear anyone give an example of a legitimate software > problem which has been caused by the installation of Starforce. All I've > seen is a lot of backpedalling when you actually challenge them about what > problems Starforce has caused."Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> writes:
> > I think you have just described very concisely why so many of us have a
> > problem with Starforce. Protection, sure. Installing crap on my computer
> > without telling, no no.
>
> Taken from the GTL readme which is displayed *before* Starforce is
> installed.....
Looks good, I must confess. I have never installed GTL however, so I
didn't know how sneaky it was. Installing crap without telling is "no
no". Apparantly GTL is ok in that regard.
My personal reasons for not buying GTL, though, is more down to lack of
a modern PC. I can do GPL, and if I had a more powerful machine I would
buy rFactor. :)
/andreas
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Just goes to show how powerful the internet and it's herds of unthinking
cows really are (it used to be the nightly news). When such nonsense as
this entire SF issue can pull even the most reasonable person like Dave
Henrie into their nonsensical rantings and ravings must mean something.
Pretty sad imo.
That a few minor issues (and a bunch of p/o'd pirates) can propagate this
into the realm of Area 51 or Bigfoot or even the grassy knoll tells me were
going the wrong direction..
When these (ill use the term loosely) people start infringing upon a
developers right to protect his code/property then I have a huge problem.
I hear fools talking about boycotting sims that use SF and that really chaps
my hide. When the dev's finally just tell us to fuck off and head over to
the consoles en masse then what are we going to do?
Do you all really think Starforce is as bad as it can get? Just wait....
Then let the crying really begin...
I'd hazard a guess that the same people crying the loudest will use an AV
update or a Windows update without question yet still manage to whine about
SF.
I *hate* notepad and don't want it on my PC... It was put onto my PC
without my express permission and it wasnt written on the box that it was
part of Windows so I have a right (as an activist) to boycott MS or do
whatever is required to make sure my rights aren't compromised with that
nasty evil proggy "Notepad"....
Mitch
> I'm still yet to hear anyone give an example of a legitimate software
> problem which has been caused by the installation of Starforce. All I've
> seen is a lot of backpedalling when you actually challenge them about what
> problems Starforce has caused.
>
>
"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> writes:
[Rant snipped]
> I *hate* notepad and don't want it on my PC... It was put onto my PC
> without my express permission and it wasnt written on the box that it was
> part of Windows so I have a right (as an activist) to boycott MS or do
> whatever is required to make sure my rights aren't compromised with that
> nasty evil proggy "Notepad"....
You know, there are such things as Free Software. You don't have to run
Windows on your PC. :)
/andreas
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
I fthe sim developers dry up so be it, I won't buy any software that
installs crap on my system that I don't want. I'm voting with my wallet.
don
"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:YKUtf.40912$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (42 lines)
> Just goes to show how powerful the internet and it's herds of unthinking > cows really are (it used to be the nightly news). When such nonsense as > this entire SF issue can pull even the most reasonable person like Dave > Henrie into their nonsensical rantings and ravings must mean something. > Pretty sad imo. > > That a few minor issues (and a bunch of p/o'd pirates) can propagate this > into the realm of Area 51 or Bigfoot or even the grassy knoll tells me > were going the wrong direction.. > > When these (ill use the term loosely) people start infringing upon a > developers right to protect his code/property then I have a huge problem. > > I hear fools talking about boycotting sims that use SF and that really > chaps my hide. When the dev's finally just tell us to fuck off and head > over to the consoles en masse then what are we going to do? > > Do you all really think Starforce is as bad as it can get? Just wait.... > Then let the crying really begin... > > I'd hazard a guess that the same people crying the loudest will use an AV > update or a Windows update without question yet still manage to whine > about SF. > > I *hate* notepad and don't want it on my PC... It was put onto my PC > without my express permission and it wasnt written on the box that it was > part of Windows so I have a right (as an activist) to boycott MS or do > whatever is required to make sure my rights aren't compromised with that > nasty evil proggy "Notepad".... > > Mitch > > > >> I'm still yet to hear anyone give an example of a legitimate software >> problem which has been caused by the installation of Starforce. All I've >> seen is a lot of backpedalling when you actually challenge them about >> what problems Starforce has caused. >> >> > >"Mitch_A" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:YKUtf.40912$BZ5.11125
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
> most reasonable person like Dave
> Henrie into their nonsensical rantings and ravings must mean something.
> Pretty sad imo.
hey hey! I NEVER have claimed to be reasonable. Or logical...I did like
the part about rantings and ravings. Just as an aside...do you recall SF
informing users of their files until AFTER we screamed bloody murder?
dave henrie
>I fthe sim developers dry up so be it, I won't buy any software that
>installs crap on my system that I don't want. I'm voting with my wallet.
> don
Again I notice you don't give a reason *why* it's crap and *why* you don't
want it on your system...
Again I notice you don't give a reason *why* it's ***and *why* you don't
want it on your system...
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 00:22:57 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>I'm still yet to hear anyone give an example of a legitimate software
>problem which has been caused by the installation of Starforce. All I've
>seen is a lot of backpedalling when you actually challenge them about what
>problems Starforce has caused.
>
Just because you have never seen it break some piece of software
doesn't mean it hasn't. I've seen plenty of posts from people who
claim they can show you it break some other piece of software they
have on their PC.
> Just because you have never seen it break some piece of software
> doesn't mean it hasn't. I've seen plenty of posts from people who
> claim they can show you it break some other piece of software they
> have on their PC.
Links? Proof? I'm genuinely interested in what problems it can cause...
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 18:52:58 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>Links? Proof? I'm genuinely interested in what problems it can cause...
>
>www.simhq.com forums has a number of threads on SF with people who
claim they can reproduce problems caused by SF. Problems applying to
either virtual drive software or burner software. I've never
experienced any myself but I don't claim SF is problem free just
because I haven't experienced any issues.
Quoted text (8 lines)
>>Links? Proof? I'm genuinely interested in what problems it can cause... >> >> > www.simhq.com forums has a number of threads on SF with people who > claim they can reproduce problems caused by SF. Problems applying to > either virtual drive software or burner software. I've never > experienced any myself but I don't claim SF is problem free just > because I haven't experienced any issues.Quoted text (8 lines)
>>Links? Proof? I'm genuinely interested in what problems it can cause... >> >> > www.simhq.com forums has a number of threads on SF with people who > claim they can reproduce problems caused by SF. Problems applying to > either virtual drive software or burner software. I've never > experienced any myself but I don't claim SF is problem free just > because I haven't experienced any issues.I use alchohol and daemon tools to run games from images instead of
inserting the cd's(4 small grandchildren running around here most days). I
am also very picky about what is on my pc as I don't like having things
screwed up and spending a day rebuilding my system and reinstalling
everything I use. I feel when I purchase a game I should be able to use it
with no inconvience to me and I won't be bothered with games that load
software that can cause problems. I didn't buy Nascar 2002 or 2003 untill a
way to mount the image was available I'll do the same with any game. I will
be buying rFactor as soon as the V8 mod is out now that I know I can back up
the registration file so I don't have to reactivate it. If a backup wasn't
possible I'd pass on it also even though I'm a huge fan of the V8's.
don
"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:43b86b72$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)
> >I fthe sim developers dry up so be it, I won't buy any software that > >installs crap on my system that I don't want. I'm voting with my wallet. >> don > > Again I notice you don't give a reason *why* it's crap and *why* you don't > want it on your system... > >Quoted text (11 lines)
>I use alchohol and daemon tools to run games from images instead of >inserting the cd's(4 small grandchildren running around here most days). I >am also very picky about what is on my pc as I don't like having things >screwed up and spending a day rebuilding my system and reinstalling >everything I use. I feel when I purchase a game I should be able to use it >with no inconvience to me and I won't be bothered with games that load >software that can cause problems. I didn't buy Nascar 2002 or 2003 untill a >way to mount the image was available I'll do the same with any game. I will >be buying rFactor as soon as the V8 mod is out now that I know I can back >up the registration file so I don't have to reactivate it. If a backup >wasn't possible I'd pass on it also even though I'm a huge fan of the V8's.I am very sceptical towards sales peoples assessment of lost revenue
when it comes to copy protection. For one, these guys often think in a
very different way. I.e. "Ah, he has installed this track 12 times
during the last 3 months, that is 11 x the price of this tracks worth of
lost revenue".
Things don't work like that, as we all know. When I download a game off
some file sharing proggie, we're not talking lost revenue at all, since
I'll buy the game if it is *any* good at all. Most of the time I'll try
it, and ditch it 2 minutes after that, but you can't call that lost
revenue, since I would not dream of buying the game in the first place.
Same thing with movies. The movies I download from time to time are
movies I would not see in a theatre, or even less likely buy a DVD. Why?
Because I will not pay for crap! The movies I would get and see for free
are movies that I'd never pay for!
I wish game houses would rather spend their energy on making a game as
well as possible instead of protecting they property based on false lost
revenue assumptions made by people who have no clue whatsoever. The way
the business is protecting software these days seems to me to be
fighting for the ability to make heaps of money out of people who will
realize too late that their software is crap straight through. I would
be up for protection of software property if you could proove that it
would directly affect sales, but this is very rarely the case.
We're not talking protecting software worth hundreds of thousands of
dollars, we're talking about protection of something costing 39.99! I am
*pretty* sure most companies use copy protection based on their
economists false assumptions, and not the common sense often seen in
game programmers, who has a more natural approach: "The more people who
tries my piece of software, the higher sales number".
If you turn things around you could say that illegal copying of games is
a veritable potential money-maker, since a lot of people will buy a good
game if it is good.
---A---
On 28.12.2005 19:28, Todd Wasson wrote:
Quoted text (65 lines)
> Yippee38 wrote: > >>In article <cyfsf.40836$q%[email hidden]>, >>[email hidden] says... >> >>>I'd say you hit the nail on the head Todd ;) One time where honesty does >>>pay. >>> >>>Mitch >>> >> >>That's my problem with Starforce. I am honest. I don't pirate. I >>don't like that the developers treat me like a pirate. I do not want to >>encourage them to continue to put that crap in their games. Therefore, >>I will not buy any game/sim that has Starforce, no matter how badly I >>want that game. I passed on GTR and Silent Hunter III because they >>employ Starforce. >> >>Voting with my dollars. >> >>-- >>Yippee38 > > > That's understandable and certainly your right to do so and really is > the best way to go about it. Personally, I wouldn't take issue with > Starforce in particular (unless it goofs up your system of course when > you weren't doing anything wrong, then that's a problem.) The fact of > the matter is devs really do need to use copy protection if they expect > to make any money at all. > > I'm one of the developers of Virtual RC Racing, an RC car sim download > where the game with two tracks is totally free. After that we > primarily sell tracks as add ons. Naturally we have a copy protection > system there so people can't share the tracks, but one of the things we > started out doing was allowing I think three different installations so > if people had a laptop and a desktop or they got a new computer it > wouldn't be such a hassle for them to get going again. > > The amount of abuse was unbelievable, according to the boss who put > that policy in place in an effort to make things nice and easy for the > users. He reported that the numbers of people who were attempting to > activate the same tracks on one account hit seven to ten or more times > within days of the account activation was very frequent indeed, which > is obviously due to people trying to share accounts. Because of that > in V2 he sadly had to go down to allowing only one installation. Of > course, that upsets people, but the amount of sales lost is quite > significant according to him. I haven't seen sales records in awhile > so can't really verify it personally. > > If it isn't Starforce, it's going to be something else. You'll most > likely wind up boycotting yourself right out of sim racing entirely > rather than having any significant impact. The boss' view from looking > at the sales numbers before and after the changes is that we lose a ton > more sales by having the less restrictive protection we had before due > to account sharing/piracy than we do with the current system where you > only are allowed one installation, which means file sharing is quite > common indeed. And in the end, he's got a lot of money invested in > this he needs to recover so that's unfortunately got to be the bottom > line... > > Unfortunately that means the honest guys like you suffer and are > inconvenienced quite a lot. I see it in our forums and it bothers me, > but we can't do it both ways :-( >On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 23:07:36 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
There was a thread there in the Community forum that was more
informative but it is an older thread and has already been moved to
the archives. I've seen lots of claims of issues and I don't think
they are all lieing.
Quoted text (9 lines)
>I've looked right through the Silent Hunter III forum at simhq which is >where most of the noise about SF seems to be located. Again, I can't see >anyone who's having an software issue which is related to something >destructive about Starforce. There are lots of idiotic topics such as he >one below where people can't even type in a CD key properly and then go off >on a rant about Starforce ::rollseyes:: > >http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=129;t=000082 >
Asgeir Nesoen wrote:
> I am very sceptical towards sales peoples assessment of lost revenue
> when it comes to copy protection. For one, these guys often think in a
> very different way. I.e. "Ah, he has installed this track 12 times
> during the last 3 months, that is 11 x the price of this tracks worth of
> lost revenue".
>
No, they don't think that. Sales people are not any dumber than the
rest of us.
In our particular case with VRC, when I said there were 7-11 downloads
of a track, I don't mean it was installed on the same machine that many
times. We don't know how many times you install the software, add on
tracks, or whatever else. However, when you sign up with us and
activate the game (really you're activating the first two free tracks)
some hardware ID and software key data is sent to our servers. When
you start buying tracks and then want to activate them, that key better
match up or else it won't activate.
What we did initially is allowed tracks to be installed on three
different machines per account. We were trying to be nice and figured
the vast majority of folks were honest and wouldn't abuse the system by
setting up VRC on their friend's systems. We figured a lot of people
have a desktop PC and a notebook, and maybe some students have a
computer in their dorm or some folks have one at work to play with on
lunch breaks and so forth.
When I said we were getting all these downloads, that means we very
frequently had people trying to install John Doe's tracks on other
computers. I.e., when you see an alarming amount of instances where
one account owner is trying to install his purchased tracks on 5-15
different computers, we have a serious problem on our hands.
Does that mean lost sales? I understand your point about how you might
try something that you wouldn't have bought anyway. That's not really
an excuse, but I understand where you're coming from. And yes, a
certain percentage of people probably did just that. I find it
unlikely though because we give the sim away for free along with two
free tracks. That's plenty for someone to fire it up for a couple of
minutes and decide it's not their bag, so why are they going and
installing someone else's tracks without paying for them if the sim
sucks so much they'd never buy anything? That doesn't compute,
although perhaps it's happened.
However, you must admit that in addition to that group of people, there
is also another segment of folks that will simply do whatever they can
to avoid paying. On top of that, there is another group of people that
will simply boycott you and not bother because they hate copy
protection and want to make a statement. Making any statement at all
about whether, in purely the financial sense, a developer should put in
copy protection, and if so, at what level of intrusiveness and
inconvenience, really boils down to the percentages of people in those
groups. There are competing forces here and really the only folks that
have a good feel for the final equation are the developers/publishers.
The ones with the investments at stake and the sales/downloads and
other figures staring at them in the face when they proceed to make
decisions to maximize profits as any business aims to do.
1) If you have no copy protection at all, you will gain some sales
from the massive distribution you'd get. (However, if you have a demo
available, it's questionable whether or not you're really getting more
exposure, and if you are, is it significant?) At the same time you
will lose sales from the group of people that would have bought it had
they not been able to get it easily for free, especially with the
publisher's blessing. In addition, a portion of the group of people
that hate copy protection will go ahead and buy your game now. So the
question there is, how big are all these contributions? You lose sales
from some groups and gain it from others. Developers that have
released software (or musicians or whomever that release work via the
internet) and have tried it with and without copy protection along with
a demo will all tell you that sales go up when you put in the copy
protection.
2) If you have copy protection, then it goes without saying that you
are losing sales among the folks that hate copy protection and boycott
anything that uses it. However, you are gaining sales among a certain
percentage of the group that wanted it and would pay for it, but would
have taken it for free instead given the chance. Again, the decision
is made based on which of these dollar values is bigger.
In our case, it's safe to say that we vastly underestimated the
percentage of the population that would simply avoid paying if they
could do it. We have placed in more stringent copy protection by only
allowing one computer per account. The result of this policy change
has definitively, unquestionably been an increase in overall sales.
Your theory would be correct if the "avoid paying for it if I can get
if for free" crowd was much smaller than it actually is.
The truth of the matter is that this portion of the population VASTLY
outnumbers the "copy protection boycott" crowd. Copy protection is not
going away. If only 1% of the population out there was "dishonest," so
to speak, we could do away with copy protection entirely and indeed
probably get an increase in sales for the very reasons you describe.
However, the percentage is high enough that the theory does not work.
At least in our case that's precisely what we found. Sad, but true.
Believe me, I don't like it any better than you do. I think our lead
programmer literally spent about three or four months doing nothing but
anti-hacking/cheating and copy protection stuff. That's a hell of an
investment and didn't make VRC come out any faster. We have to pass
that cost right along to you guys in the end, which is sad. Again, the
honest folks wind up paying for the piracy. It's somewhat ironic that
a good portion of them are now striking back at the developers for
protecting themselves. It's sort of a double whammy for us, really,
but the need to protect VRC far outweighs any loss we get as a result
of people being upset that we only allow one computer per account.
If they're such crap, why bother getting them?
Anyway, this is an idealistic view, really. It's easy for someone to
claim that they would have paid for a bootleg game if they liked it,
but it's much easier still to put it off indefinitely or find an excuse
not to do it. Logically it really doesn't make sense anyway to do it
so to me sounds like a sorry excuse. That's why we make demos. It
gives you a chance to try before you buy.
> I wish game houses would rather spend their energy on making a game as
> well as possible instead of protecting they property based on false lost
> revenue assumptions made by people who have no clue whatsoever.
Do you work in the industry? Ever written and sold your own software?
Managed a company that did? Seen sales figures from two different
policies on the same product? If not, it's a bit silly to simply
assume that the folks that have are just collosally stupid for
disagreeing with your view.
The way
> the business is protecting software these days seems to me to be
> fighting for the ability to make heaps of money out of people who will
> realize too late that their software is crap straight through. I would
> be up for protection of software property if you could proove that it
> would directly affect sales, but this is very rarely the case.
>
No, that's what demos are for.
Tell you what, I've spent over five and half years on Virtual RC
Racing. I've earned every dollar that comes my direction. You can
imagine me with horns sticking out of my head with a red face and
goatee if you must. ;-)
> We're not talking protecting software worth hundreds of thousands of
> dollars, we're talking about protection of something costing 39.99!
No offense, but that's such an uneducated, asonine, illogical comment I
think I'll leave it alone. Please do rethink that.
I am
> *pretty* sure most companies use copy protection based on their
> economists false assumptions, and not the common sense often seen in
> game programmers, who has a more natural approach: "The more people who
> tries my piece of software, the higher sales number".
>
We don't have an economist and don't need one. It's real easy:
Release the game allowing three machines per account, then change it to
one and watch what happens to the sales. It's not rocket science. In
our case the "after" numbers were a lot bigger than the "before"
numbers. No assumptions were made at all. In fact, the only false
assumption we had was right at the start when we tried to predict how
many people would abuse the system. We were off by something like a
factor of 10. It's a much gloomier world out there than you think.
> If you turn things around you could say that illegal copying of games is
> a veritable potential money-maker, since a lot of people will buy a good
> game if it is good.
>
Obviously. And if you do it on a large enough scale it will rightfully
land you in prison. You'll understand all this as soon as you spend a
few years creating something and then watch people steal it and
verbally attack you for ripping them off by asking them a measely $40
or whatever to get a copy.
Quoted text (10 lines)
> Things don't work like that, as we all know. When I download a game off > some file sharing proggie, we're not talking lost revenue at all, since > I'll buy the game if it is *any* good at all. Most of the time I'll try > it, and ditch it 2 minutes after that, but you can't call that lost > revenue, since I would not dream of buying the game in the first place. > Same thing with movies. The movies I download from time to time are > movies I would not see in a theatre, or even less likely buy a DVD. Why? > Because I will not pay for crap! The movies I would get and see for free > are movies that I'd never pay for! >Here's a question for you...
What good does it do ME ? If it wants to use up my resources, what's in it
for ME ?
-Larry
"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:43b86b72$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (8 lines)
> >I fthe sim developers dry up so be it, I won't buy any software that > >installs crap on my system that I don't want. I'm voting with my wallet. >> don > > Again I notice you don't give a reason *why* it's crap and *why* you don't > want it on your system... > >> Here's a question for you...
>
> What good does it do ME ? If it wants to use up my resources, what's in
> it for ME ?
For starters, it doesn't use your resources. Ultimately what's in it for
you is higher quality sims since piracy is reduced. If you don't believe
that goes on then check out Todd's example in this thread.
Steve Simpson wrote:
Sheesh - it's like those damn video card drivers. Why should I be FORCED
to install drivers just so I can play a game? Game publishers will be
INSISTING that I buy a monitor next. :P
<sarcasm mode off>
I actually have had one Starforce related problem: a cheap (Aus$10) game
I bought for my 5 year old had Starforce (who knows why) but didn't
include the key (yes, it was a legit disc). Back to the shop it goes ...
--
Mr Q
-------------------
Quoted text (9 lines)
>>Here's a question for you... >> >>What good does it do ME ? If it wants to use up my resources, what's in >>it for ME ? > > > For starters, it doesn't use your resources. Ultimately what's in it for > you is higher quality sims since piracy is reduced. If you don't believe > that goes on then check out Todd's example in this thread.Show us one instance where Starforce or any copy protection for that matter
that has reduced piracy. The hackers and crackers have and will continue to
find ways around copy protection. GTL was listed in the newsgroups within
days of it's release. That's my biggest problem with the majority of these
intrusive copy protection schemes, in the end they don't do squat to stop
the problem. They might slow it down but they don't stop it and it doesn't
make them any more money as the people who've pirated the software would
most likely not buy it anyway.
"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)
>> Here's a question for you... >> >> What good does it do ME ? If it wants to use up my resources, what's in >> it for ME ? > > For starters, it doesn't use your resources. Ultimately what's in it for > you is higher quality sims since piracy is reduced. If you don't believe > that goes on then check out Todd's example in this thread. > >Quoted text (8 lines)
> Show us one instance where Starforce or any copy protection for that > matter that has reduced piracy. The hackers and crackers have and will > continue to find ways around copy protection. GTL was listed in the > newsgroups within days of it's release. That's my biggest problem with the > majority of these intrusive copy protection schemes, in the end they don't > do squat to stop the problem. They might slow it down but they don't stop > it and it doesn't make them any more money as the people who've pirated > the software would most likely not buy it anyway.
Steve Simpson wrote:
Indeed. The group is really huge, guys. Not 1% or something like
that. Much, much bigger...
:-(
Todd
Quoted text (16 lines)
> > Show us one instance where Starforce or any copy protection for that > > matter that has reduced piracy. The hackers and crackers have and will > > continue to find ways around copy protection. GTL was listed in the > > newsgroups within days of it's release. That's my biggest problem with the > > majority of these intrusive copy protection schemes, in the end they don't > > do squat to stop the problem. They might slow it down but they don't stop > > it and it doesn't make them any more money as the people who've pirated > > the software would most likely not buy it anyway. > > There are ways around Starforce but they are very inconvenient and > difficult. There haven't been any 'NoCD' cracks for most Starforce games. > > My main point in all of this is that I don't blame game developers for > wanting to stop the rampant ripping off of their products. It might be a > battle that's unwinnable but I don't blame them for trying and I can't > believe how quick some people in this group are to side with pirates.On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:26:12 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>For starters, it doesn't use your resources. Ultimately what's in it for
>you is higher quality sims since piracy is reduced. If you don't believe
>that goes on then check out Todd's example in this thread.
>
Here's proof for you that Starforce fucks with some systems.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/sniperelite/review.html?sid=6139869&page=2
It's also worth mentioning that this game uses Star Force copy
protection, so it won't work with certain hardware configurations. On
the first system we tried, Star Force wouldn't recognize the disc, but
it worked just fine on another test system.
Michael Horton wrote:
One thing in GTL and GTRs favour - they're both half the price of normal
games (in Aus.). At least the publishers seem to be standing behind the
"piracy drives costs up" message by lowering prices for hard to pirate
titles.
--
Mr Q
-------------------
Quoted text (8 lines)
> Show us one instance where Starforce or any copy protection for that matter > that has reduced piracy. The hackers and crackers have and will continue to > find ways around copy protection. GTL was listed in the newsgroups within > days of it's release. That's my biggest problem with the majority of these > intrusive copy protection schemes, in the end they don't do squat to stop > the problem. They might slow it down but they don't stop it and it doesn't > make them any more money as the people who've pirated the software would > most likely not buy it anyway.On 03.01.2006 22:26, Todd Wasson wrote:
Well, at least they are over here in Norway. I am partly referring to
the kind of dicussion about illegal DLing of music here in Norway, and
the amount of stupidity displayed by the industry here really is
staggering. Sales people often have a very different way of thinking, a
way which has nothing to do with reality (I have heard people heavily
into economy say "how can you afford having that valuable painting on
your wall" when I reply "it doesn't cost me a dime to have it hanging
there"... :-)).
> <snip>
Well, I was not referring to your particular game, since the model of
marketing your game is not the usualy way of marketing a game, far from
it. In a way you published your game as a demo, where all the plugins
can be bought. In that case my argument is dead since there is no excuse
when you can freely DL a game and test it to your hearts content. With
other marketing methods, however, this can be a different ballgame
altogehter as you may well understand. The inability to test a game
before you buy it is an excuse, if not a good one. Your way of marketing
a game is a very good way of marketing a game, since you want to present
the quality and depth in all its splendor to anyone interested, and
trying to make money out of that interest, and not peoples inability to
try something before they buy.
I agree completely. My point was that I believe figures of lost revenue
and market analysis can be vastly more complicated than they occur to
be. People fail to understand that they have to consider the two strong
marketing forces here: Heavy protection will limit availability,
availability will sell more. The actual numbers will vary from business
to business, model of marketing etc etc
>snip>
>(However, if you have a demo
> available, it's questionable whether or not you're really getting more
> exposure, and if you are, is it significant?)
If you have a truly superb product, outstanding and appealing, a demo
will help you no end. You may recall the impact of the GPL demo. Yes, I
know that GPL was a ground breaker in every single department and can
hardly be representative for most demos and games, but it still prooves
the power of letting people try before they pay.
> 2) If you have copy protection, then it goes without saying that you
> are losing sales among the folks that hate copy protection and boycott
> anything that uses it. However, you are gaining sales among a certain
> percentage of the group that wanted it and would pay for it, but would
> have taken it for free instead given the chance. Again, the decision
> is made based on which of these dollar values is bigger.
Musicians offering their music by way of download will also see that
their strategy will affect much more than just their sales figures of
just one record. They will sell a bit less at first, yes, but the fact
that they're present on the net, offering people legit downloads, will
create possible future sales numbers as well. This is extremely
difficult to assess in any way, though. And ditto out of focus for sales
people in the game biz.
Furthermore, I think that focusing on getting at the people who'll never
pay for a game is a bit of shooting birds with cannons, since they'll
always get around protection, it is just a matter of time. I think that
this is what makes people here react and disagree with protection
strategies to the extent that they'll vote with their dollars, since
protection can be very intrusive and possibly mess up existing systems
and create hassle for normal people, paying for games. Because they feel
that they are subject to heavy procedures of which they are not targets
at all.
I cannot disagree with this, and I never meant to either. We're talking
statistics here, statistics that I really think have been over
simplified over the years by people who do not understand the nature of
internet. You may note that I am talking generally, not specifically.
<snip>
I am watching those movies because I can, not because I choose this
method of watching it rather than DVD or in a theatre. We all know that
a movie has a personal price; for some people it is worth 2 USD, and
they will never buy the DVD or go watch it. And these people will not
represent a revenue loss for anybody. For others it is worth 30 USD, so
they'll go buy it for 24.99 USD and feel good about making a bargain.
The problem is that it is very difficult to assess the personal value a
give movie, or game has. Again, this is something that has to do with
quality and taste, in the personal sense, and is very difficult to
quantify, especially by a sales person who has his own very weird (to
me) standard of what is revenue loss and not.
And not every game house out there produce demos. A recent development
in games marketing is cranking up sales figures by launching massive PR
campaigns, using hype, what I call mass psychology effects, instead of
working relentlessly to produce a product that stands by itself. A game
programmer wants to sell his game because it is damn good, but his sales
person may want to sell a game on a very different basis. You can crank
up sales figures by making your product better, or by spending even more
money on PR campaigns, fooling people to think that this is something
they need. This of course coincide with the fact that game houses these
days target a huge portion of potential game buyers.
Of course I am generalizing. Naughty generalization is the basis of any
discussion! And I don't think that I need to know everything about a
given subject in order to talk about it publicly. If we were to employ
that attitude, we'd experience a silence so shocking and boring that
we'd instantly go back to the "talk about something of which you have
little konwledge" strategy!
I am not claiming that all sales managers are utterly stupid and knows
zip about the net. I am saying that quite a few are. Those I have met.
My initial point was that I doubt the analysis' of sale people in regard
of the net and its users.
Hehe, I must not image you in any way, since I am not categorizing
anybody except the economists and the sales managers. I never diz people
present. ;-)
I am referring to the lengths some companies have gone in order to
protect their software. Software of little value for society, little
value for users, but high value for the software house/publisher. I am
just pointing out the bad balance between means of stopping someone from
stealing a game and the personal value a game may have for a customer.
Again, I have no argument against the way you protected your game since
it seems fair and square, and people can try your game before they cash
out for the tracks.
Yes, it may be gloomier than I think, but it may also well be much
*less* gloomy than sales managers think! And that was my single initial
point, albeit badly put into words, obviously.
You know as well as I do that people will never go to jail if they DL a
game illegally, try it, and then wipe it or go buy it. And I claim that
a fair share of users out there fall in this category. Or maybe I am
referring to racing sim enthousiasts, being the tiny group that it is.
Yes, of course I admit trying out NR2003 before I got it. But nobody can
claim they lost revenue due to it, because I bought it. I tried GP4 too,
and ditched it. Would I have cashed out the money for that game just to
find out it was not my cup of tea? Certainly not! If you *think* that
Geoff Crammond lost the 29.90 GBP of revenue due to that, then you'll
protect the game houses right to sell crappy things and no way to find
out beforehand. This is very much the case in pop music, since the
criteria for buying a bill board hit is based on sales figures, not
quality and personal taste.
Why do you think Microsoft doesn't press charges against everyone having
ever illegally copied a Microsoft product? Because they think it is an
excellent way of ensuring that the same people will demand MS software
wherever they get jobs, and letting students use their software ensures
a very long lasting source of revenue. I know that MS cannot be used as
a valid example in the gaming industry, but still, it prooves some of my
point.
And stop saying that I don't understand why you protect your games,
because I do.
I'll try to sum up my point somehow:
The fact that people play games for free illegally does not necessarily
mean lost revenue, since it is unknown if they'd cash out for the game
*if* they could not play it for free. I *know* that I fall into this
category in the film dept. The fact that I choose to spend a couple of
hours watching a movie DLed from the net does not mean someone is going
to loose revenue. And I am questioning the sales analysis concerning
this. I think the entire discussion boils down to this.
It would be interesting to know how great a difference in revenue your
company saw after limiting installation to one machine.
---A---
Quoted text (12 lines)
> Asgeir Nesoen wrote: > >>I am very sceptical towards sales peoples assessment of lost revenue >>when it comes to copy protection. For one, these guys often think in a >>very different way. I.e. "Ah, he has installed this track 12 times >>during the last 3 months, that is 11 x the price of this tracks worth of >>lost revenue". >> > > > No, they don't think that. Sales people are not any dumber than the > rest of us.Quoted text (17 lines)
> > When I said we were getting all these downloads, that means we very > frequently had people trying to install John Doe's tracks on other > computers. I.e., when you see an alarming amount of instances where > one account owner is trying to install his purchased tracks on 5-15 > different computers, we have a serious problem on our hands. > > Does that mean lost sales? I understand your point about how you might > try something that you wouldn't have bought anyway. That's not really > an excuse, but I understand where you're coming from. And yes, a > certain percentage of people probably did just that. I find it > unlikely though because we give the sim away for free along with two > free tracks. That's plenty for someone to fire it up for a couple of > minutes and decide it's not their bag, so why are they going and > installing someone else's tracks without paying for them if the sim > sucks so much they'd never buy anything? That doesn't compute, > although perhaps it's happened.Quoted text (14 lines)
> > However, you must admit that in addition to that group of people, there > is also another segment of folks that will simply do whatever they can > to avoid paying. On top of that, there is another group of people that > will simply boycott you and not bother because they hate copy > protection and want to make a statement. Making any statement at all > about whether, in purely the financial sense, a developer should put in > copy protection, and if so, at what level of intrusiveness and > inconvenience, really boils down to the percentages of people in those > groups. There are competing forces here and really the only folks that > have a good feel for the final equation are the developers/publishers. > The ones with the investments at stake and the sales/downloads and > other figures staring at them in the face when they proceed to make > decisions to maximize profits as any business aims to do.Quoted text (8 lines)
> > In our case, it's safe to say that we vastly underestimated the > percentage of the population that would simply avoid paying if they > could do it. We have placed in more stringent copy protection by only > allowing one computer per account. The result of this policy change > has definitively, unquestionably been an increase in overall sales. > Your theory would be correct if the "avoid paying for it if I can get > if for free" crowd was much smaller than it actually is.Quoted text (15 lines)
> > >>Things don't work like that, as we all know. When I download a game off >>some file sharing proggie, we're not talking lost revenue at all, since >>I'll buy the game if it is *any* good at all. Most of the time I'll try >>it, and ditch it 2 minutes after that, but you can't call that lost >>revenue, since I would not dream of buying the game in the first place. >>Same thing with movies. The movies I download from time to time are >>movies I would not see in a theatre, or even less likely buy a DVD. Why? >>Because I will not pay for crap! The movies I would get and see for free >>are movies that I'd never pay for! >> > > > If they're such crap, why bother getting them?Quoted text (7 lines)
> > Anyway, this is an idealistic view, really. It's easy for someone to > claim that they would have paid for a bootleg game if they liked it, > but it's much easier still to put it off indefinitely or find an excuse > not to do it. Logically it really doesn't make sense anyway to do it > so to me sounds like a sorry excuse. That's why we make demos. It > gives you a chance to try before you buy.Quoted text (13 lines)
> > > >>I wish game houses would rather spend their energy on making a game as >>well as possible instead of protecting they property based on false lost >>revenue assumptions made by people who have no clue whatsoever. > > > Do you work in the industry? Ever written and sold your own software? > Managed a company that did? Seen sales figures from two different > policies on the same product? If not, it's a bit silly to simply > assume that the folks that have are just collosally stupid for > disagreeing with your view.Quoted text (17 lines)
> > The way > >>the business is protecting software these days seems to me to be >>fighting for the ability to make heaps of money out of people who will >>realize too late that their software is crap straight through. I would >>be up for protection of software property if you could proove that it >>would directly affect sales, but this is very rarely the case. >> > > > No, that's what demos are for. > > Tell you what, I've spent over five and half years on Virtual RC > Racing. I've earned every dollar that comes my direction. You can > imagine me with horns sticking out of my head with a red face and > goatee if you must. ;-)Quoted text (9 lines)
> > > >>We're not talking protecting software worth hundreds of thousands of >>dollars, we're talking about protection of something costing 39.99! > > > No offense, but that's such an uneducated, asonine, illogical comment I > think I'll leave it alone. Please do rethink that.Quoted text (19 lines)
> > > I am > >>*pretty* sure most companies use copy protection based on their >>economists false assumptions, and not the common sense often seen in >>game programmers, who has a more natural approach: "The more people who >>tries my piece of software, the higher sales number". >> > > > We don't have an economist and don't need one. It's real easy: > Release the game allowing three machines per account, then change it to > one and watch what happens to the sales. It's not rocket science. In > our case the "after" numbers were a lot bigger than the "before" > numbers. No assumptions were made at all. In fact, the only false > assumption we had was right at the start when we tried to predict how > many people would abuse the system. We were off by something like a > factor of 10. It's a much gloomier world out there than you think.Quoted text (13 lines)
> > >>If you turn things around you could say that illegal copying of games is >>a veritable potential money-maker, since a lot of people will buy a good >>game if it is good. >> > > > Obviously. And if you do it on a large enough scale it will rightfully > land you in prison. You'll understand all this as soon as you spend a > few years creating something and then watch people steal it and > verbally attack you for ripping them off by asking them a measely $40 > or whatever to get a copy.2006-01-05, Mr Q wrote:
>
> One thing in GTL and GTRs favour - they're both half the price of normal
> games (in Aus.). At least the publishers seem to be standing behind the
> "piracy drives costs up" message by lowering prices for hard to pirate
> titles.
Well, in The Netherlands they were 50 EUR when released, more than most
other games... I guess they publisher didn't stand behind that there...
-peter
"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Ultimately what's in it for you is higher quality sims since piracy is
> reduced.
Oh....., hmmmm, ummmm... Screw it.
BULLSHIT!
-Larry
Larry (The Other Larry) wrote:
Ok guys, here's once for you. I just bought GT
Legends.....and......wait for it......my DVD drive can't read the disc
at all. The disc is genuine and new, the DVD drive works fine, I also
have a virtual drive - not sure but think this may be part of the
problem. I know this isn't a support forum - and I await atari & GT's
response but in case this is related! All my other spec is at least as
good as the recommended, just can't get to install the ruddy thing!
------------------------
Disk & DVD/CD-ROM Drives
------------------------
Drive: C:
Free Space: 171.9 GB
Total Space: 234.9 GB
File System: NTFS
Model: Maxtor 7Y250M0
Drive: D:
Model: SONY DVD RW DW-D22A
Driver: c:\windows\system32\drivers\cdrom.sys, 5.01.2600.2180
(English), 8/4/2004 12:00:00, 49536 bytes
Drive: E:
Model: VOBID InstantDrive CD SCSI CdRom Device
Driver: c:\windows\system32\drivers\cdrom.sys, 5.01.2600.2180
(English), 8/4/2004 12:00:00, 49536 bytes
Quoted text (11 lines)
> "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > Ultimately what's in it for you is higher quality sims since piracy is > > reduced. > > Oh....., hmmmm, ummmm... Screw it. > > BULLSHIT! > > -LarryOk guys, here's once for you. I just bought GT
Legends.....and......wait for it......my DVD drive can't read the disc
at all. The disc is genuine and new, the DVD drive works fine, I also
have a virtual drive - not sure but think this may be part of the
problem. I know this isn't a support forum - and I await atari & GT's
response but in case this is related! All my other spec is at least as
good as the recommended, just can't get to install the ruddy thing!
------------------------
Disk & DVD/CD-ROM Drives
------------------------
Drive: C:
Free Space: 171.9 GB
Total Space: 234.9 GB
File System: NTFS
Model: Maxtor 7Y250M0
Drive: D:
Model: SONY DVD RW DW-D22A
Driver: c:\windows\system32\drivers\cdrom.sys, 5.01.2600.2180
(English), 8/4/2004 12:00:00, 49536 bytes
Drive: E:
Model: VOBID InstantDrive CD SCSI CdRom Device
Driver: c:\windows\system32\drivers\cdrom.sys, 5.01.2600.2180
(English), 8/4/2004 12:00:00, 49536 bytes
Reply
That's my main gripe with starforce as well. I don't mind about copy
protection, as long as it allows me to play my games without digging out
the CD. CDs will eventually break, one way or the other.
I don't want to be caught in the middle of the anti-piracy wars where
the good guys try to make the life of the bad guys as hard as possible.
I am not a part of that conflict, and I don't want to be bothered by it
an any way. The thing is, would we allow perfectly good and law-abiding
citizens to be subject to curfew to fight the after-dawn gangs? Would we
allow bosses to read every single employers mail because one employer
leaks?
I would think that starforce is the prime target for hackers these days,
as breaking it will give someone a great deal of kudos, and I'll be
surprised if stays intact for a substantial amount of time...
Starforce doesn't work on every system, and this is the main problem
with it, AFAIK. And retailers won't let you return a game because you
broke open the CD case. How is that for revenue? I can perfectly well
understand the aggression of all those people seing problems with
starforce one way or the other.
I think it tends to end up with the older-than-time problem of not seing
other peoples problems. For all those with perfectly working starforce
games, starforce seems like a brilliant idea, for those having problems
with it, it seems like a bad idea, bad to the extent that they would
like to stay clear of fancy and hyped driving sims. That is the amount
of aggravation starforce can create. To put it differently: You're
passionately in love with driving sims, a new game arrives, a game that
everyone talks about, but you don't buy it because you have had such bad
experience with the CD driver issue. I would say that the "issue" in
this case was significant, if I were a sales manager!
---A---
On 05.01.2006 05:02, Michael Horton wrote:
Quoted text (27 lines)
> Show us one instance where Starforce or any copy protection for that matter > that has reduced piracy. The hackers and crackers have and will continue to > find ways around copy protection. GTL was listed in the newsgroups within > days of it's release. That's my biggest problem with the majority of these > intrusive copy protection schemes, in the end they don't do squat to stop > the problem. They might slow it down but they don't stop it and it doesn't > make them any more money as the people who've pirated the software would > most likely not buy it anyway. > > > > "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >>>Here's a question for you... >>> >>>What good does it do ME ? If it wants to use up my resources, what's in >>>it for ME ? >> >>For starters, it doesn't use your resources. Ultimately what's in it for >>you is higher quality sims since piracy is reduced. If you don't believe >>that goes on then check out Todd's example in this thread. >> >> > > >Some fair points there. Maybe I'm too devoted to sim racing, but if the
greatest sim ever came out tomorrow and didn't work with my DVD drive, I'd
buy a new drive without even blinking. :(
I'm fairly certain it ain't the drive.
-Larry
"Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Some fair points there. Maybe I'm too devoted to sim racing, but if the
> greatest sim ever came out tomorrow and didn't work with my DVD drive, I'd
> buy a new drive without even blinking. :(
>
>
>
We'll i'll let you know what Atari say (assuming that I do get a
reply!). Definately not the DVD drive because it works for all other
games (Civ 4 gives me problems sometimes - say 1 unreadable out of 10
tries). Got to be some kind of conflict somwheer so we'll see what the
dixdg tells them! Or else its £17.99 down the toilet!
Sounds like your virtual drive is the problem. Ran into that with
Xpand Rally. Long correspondence with the Moscow office. They finally
admitted that virtual drives *could* be a problem.
On 5 Jan 2006 15:01:56 -0800, "Neil Fish - UK" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
Quoted text (31 lines)
>Ok guys, here's once for you. I just bought GT >Legends.....and......wait for it......my DVD drive can't read the disc >at all. The disc is genuine and new, the DVD drive works fine, I also >have a virtual drive - not sure but think this may be part of the >problem. I know this isn't a support forum - and I await atari & GT's >response but in case this is related! All my other spec is at least as >good as the recommended, just can't get to install the ruddy thing! > >------------------------ >Disk & DVD/CD-ROM Drives >------------------------ > Drive: C: > Free Space: 171.9 GB >Total Space: 234.9 GB >File System: NTFS > Model: Maxtor 7Y250M0 > > > Drive: D: > Model: SONY DVD RW DW-D22A > Driver: c:\windows\system32\drivers\cdrom.sys, 5.01.2600.2180 >(English), 8/4/2004 12:00:00, 49536 bytes > > > Drive: E: > Model: VOBID InstantDrive CD SCSI CdRom Device > Driver: c:\windows\system32\drivers\cdrom.sys, 5.01.2600.2180 >(English), 8/4/2004 12:00:00, 49536 bytes > > >Reply> I'm fairly certain it ain't the drive.
Of course you are.
On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:04:46 -0600, himrlipid wrote:
>Sounds like your virtual drive is the problem. Ran into that with
>Xpand Rally. Long correspondence with the Moscow office. They finally
>admitted that virtual drives *could* be a problem.
Starforce blacklists all virtual drive and cloning software.
> Starforce blacklists all virtual drive and cloning software.
I've got Alcohol, Daemon Tools 4.0 and Nero 7 installed and all work fine as
do Starforce games. I guess it's possible that there may be a driver
conflict on some systems though.
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 22:39:58 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>> Starforce blacklists all virtual drive and cloning software.
>
>I've got Alcohol, Daemon Tools 4.0 and Nero 7 installed and all work fine as
>do Starforce games. I guess it's possible that there may be a driver
>conflict on some systems though.
>And since it does not seem possible to know whether a system will have
problems or not and Starforce comes to us from Moscow, loading a
Starforce game becomes a form of Russian Roulette.
Enjoy the buffet. I'll be here all week.
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 22:39:58 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>I've got Alcohol, Daemon Tools 4.0 and Nero 7 installed and all work fine as
>do Starforce games. I guess it's possible that there may be a driver
>conflict on some systems though.
>Might depend on version of Starforce too. There are a few variations
of SF. I've seen people post that X game wouldn't run on a SF
protected game until they removed the virtual drive software.
Not directed at you Sean, just a general statement here...
So the Starforce people take it upon themselves to deny the use of a program
(that has substantial legal uses) because they don't like it.
It's our computers, not there's. They have no right to make that call.
Of course someone will chime in with the ever sickening "If you don't like
it, don't buy it" statement, but that's not the point here.
-Larry
"Sean Cousins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (7 lines)
> On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:04:46 -0600, himrlipid wrote: > >>Sounds like your virtual drive is the problem. Ran into that with >>Xpand Rally. Long correspondence with the Moscow office. They finally >>admitted that virtual drives *could* be a problem. > > Starforce blacklists all virtual drive and cloning software.Quoted text (9 lines)
> Not directed at you Sean, just a general statement here... > > So the Starforce people take it upon themselves to deny the use of a > program (that has substantial legal uses) because they don't like it. > > It's our computers, not there's. They have no right to make that call. > > Of course someone will chime in with the ever sickening "If you don't like > it, don't buy it" statement, but that's not the point here.On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:03:58 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>Starforce DOES NOT disable imaging, cloning or burning programs.
http://forum.alcohol-soft.com/index.php?showtopic=13836
Starforce base version there is 3.3.36.1, when updated with latest
patch - some 3.3.37.2... Those high versions are known to blacklist
dtools/alcohol image drives...
http://www.star-force.com/products/prof30/features.htm
The copies of the protected software made in RAW mode using CloneCD,
CDRWin, BlindWrite or similar, are absolutely unusable since the
embedded protection requires a licensed CD in the drive, not its copy.
http://www.daemon-tools.cc/dtcc/archive/index.php/t-1673.html
we ARE working on a solution for StarForce3. HOW this solution works,
will be posted here as soon as we are ready to go. In the meantime,
only solution to work from virtual drives is to "shutdown" the
IDE-Drives. F.e.shut them down in bios or pull the ide-plug. But
believe me, we don't forget about StarForce :)
http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=6924
This Starforce spokesman is full of BS. StarForce has a documented
blacklist of software it will disable completely. And yes, there
are documented reports of StarForce not only wipind USB drives of
all data, but of irrepreably damaging perfectly legitimate software.
This is not a case of paranoia or false allegations, it is a matter
of observed practices and bahaviors of this program.
And if Starforce doesn't blacklist then why do these programs exist in
the first place?
http://www.ggmania.com/?smsid=20399
# StarForce Nightmare v1.12 - StarForce Nightmare is able to
deactivate CDROM & DVDROM drives to hide them from certain
protections, like StarForce v3 & SecuROM v7
# StarFucker v0.83 Beta - StarFucker is able to deactivate CDROM &
DVDROM drives. Works for SecuROM v5.0X.XX, StarForce v3.4.49.X &
StarForce v3.4.63.2.
http://m1012.gamecopyworld.com/games/pc_worms_mayhem.shtml
# Mount the DISC.MDS DVD-Image in DAEMON Tools v4.00.
# Use StarForce Nightmare to avoid StarForce v3 blacklisting of DAEMON
Tools:
And finally, from the mouth of Starforce themselves.
http://www.firingsquad.com/features/starforce_interview/page2.asp
FiringSquad: What advantages does a driver-level copy protection
utility offer over other methods of copy protection?
Abbie Sommer: The drivers are what prevents the use of kernel debugger
utilities such as SoftICE, Cool Debugger, Soft Snoop etc. Also the
drivers prevent emulators from spoofing a drive, and thwart burning
tools such as Alcohol 120%.
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. Alcohol 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 debuggers, they only fail to work when the game itself is running.
Next...
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Here's proof for you that Starforce fucks with some systems. > > http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/sniperelite/review.html?sid=6139869&page=2 > It's also worth mentioning that this game uses Star Force copy > protection, so it won't work with certain hardware configurations. On > the first system we tried, Star Force wouldn't recognize the disc, but > it worked just fine on another test system.On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 00:12:37 +0200, "Mika Takala"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
Having to buy a new DVD drive means it has fucked up your previously
perfectly good working PC. See my other post for more evidence.
Quoted text (14 lines)
>> Here's proof for you that Starforce fucks with some systems. >> >> http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/sniperelite/review.html?sid=6139869&page=2 >> It's also worth mentioning that this game uses Star Force copy >> protection, so it won't work with certain hardware configurations. On >> the first system we tried, Star Force wouldn't recognize the disc, but >> it worked just fine on another test system. > >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 fuck >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?On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 07:39:20 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>The blacklists only prevents you from running a copy of the protected game
>from an emulator.
Point proven...NEXT!
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.
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 07:39:20 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
Quoted text (8 lines)
>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. Alcohol 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 debuggers, they only fail to work when the game itself is running. >Next... >On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 07:39:20 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>Alcohol 120% works fine with a Starforce game installed
>but obviously you can't use it to emulate the game or backup the disc.
Then it is blacklisting that legitimate program. It is perfectly legal
to make a backup of any game or program. You don't read too well do
you? Your nothing but a piss-ant Starforce boot licker, take a hike.
> Having to buy a new DVD drive means it has fucked up your previously
> perfectly good working PC. See my other post for more evidence.
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.
>>Alcohol 120% works fine with a Starforce game installed
>>but obviously you can't use it to emulate the game or backup the disc.
>
> Then it is blacklisting that legitimate program. It is perfectly legal
> to make a backup of any game or program. You don't read too well do
> you? Your nothing but a piss-ant Starforce boot licker, take a hike.
<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.
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:46:56 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
><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.
>
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.
Quoted text (9 lines)
>><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. >> > > 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.On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:06:53 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>Wrong. The only legality in making backups of a game resides in the EULA of
>that game.
>EULA's don't take precedence over the law. In fact, in many countries
those EULA's mean fuck all. If you actually read an EULA you will see
they even admit to that fact.
On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:06:53 +1000, "Steve Simpson" <[email hidden]>
wrote:
>Wrong. The only legality in making backups of a game resides in the EULA of
>that game.
>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.
Issues concerning Starforce.
1. They are based in Moscow so exempt from a number of the laws that
we in the West rely upon. The 3rd Party Companies that use their copy
protection are not exempt.
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.
3. As many of you will be aware XP does have DMA/IDE issue that’s
dates back to its creation. In which if packets are lost during the
reading or writing of a disk. XP interprets this as an error and steps
the IDE speed down. Eventually it will revert to 16bit compatibility
mode rendering a CD/DVD writer virtually unusable. In some
circumstances certain drives cannot cope with this mode and it results
in physical hardware failure (Most commonly in multiformat CD/DVD
writer drives). A sure sign of this step down occurring is that the
burn speeds will get slower and slower (no matter what speed you
select to burn at). Starforce on a regular basis triggers this silent
step down. Until it reaches the latter stages most peeps do not even
realise it is happening.
Excluding the Hardware failure, the normal way to cure this is to
uninstall all the CD/DVD drivers and the Primary/Secondary IDE
controllers. (Then reboot). If you did not know about Starforce, you
can now be faced with another problem. Normally windows searches and
reinstalls the drivers. However with Starforce present this can cause
the system to either fail to find the hardware or fail to find the
drivers. Creating the illusion that the hardware has failed.
This gets even worse if you have SCSI hardware/virtual drives. SCSI
virtual printer driver (basically any SCSI hardware/Virtual drivers
present) As these may have to be removed before the other hardware
becomes visible.
4. Because Starforce are aware of these issues (Including the Trojan
Gateway) this is exempt from the EULA and could be deemed as "Gaining
access with malicious intent". Not only would starforce be liable, but
also the 3rd party company that endorsed/used that application.
Ubisoft really need to do themselves a favour and dump Starforce. They
have earned their quotas on the existing titles. So there is no reason
not to make full bypasses available in a legit format.
An example of my system using Starforce from a Ubisoft Game. My Athlon
64Bit 3200+ Clawhammer started running like its components where stuck
on treacle, My Burn proof DVD writers created more coasters than they
use at a state banquet and overall it was about as stable as a one
legged man in a hurricane.
It's not my intention to put the industry out of business (They are
achieving that under their own steam), however using so called copy
protection that is nothing more than a glorified Trojan Gateway is not
the way to stay in business.
Trojan Gateway:
I do not make such a comment lightly and I have proof of this
occurring and of exploits already using it. I have openly challenged
Starforce to prove otherwise and their response was not to comment or
to refer to the EULA (As if the EULA exempted them from installing
malicious software). Although to be fair technically Starforce is not
malicious, it just leaves the door wide open for software that is.
In my professional capacity I am aware that a number of corporations
that had been previously flexible about staff playing games during
normal breaks. Now ban the usage of any 3rd party Games in the work
place (Because of the Starforce security issues). Also a number of us
who review games are now refusing to touch any games protected by
Starforce as we are not prepared to compromise our system stability
and security anymore.
So basically if us reviewers will not handle them and the customers
are now boycotting them. How exactly do Ubisoft intend to continue to
sell games?
Sean Cousins wrote:
> 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
-------------------
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:35:41 +1100, Mr Q
<[email hidden]> wrote:
That's it, I'm joining Fight Club.
Quoted text (8 lines)
>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? :)On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:32:46 GMT, Sean Cousins <[email hidden]> wrote:
[ 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
Quoted text (13 lines)
>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.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
"tk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (47 lines)
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:32:46 GMT, Sean Cousins <[email hidden]> wrote: > >>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, > > tkOn Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:32:20 -0500, "Larry \(The Other Larry\)"
<[email hidden]> wrote:
>"tk" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:32:46 GMT, Sean Cousins <[email hidden]> wrote:
[ snip ]
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'.
tk
Quoted text (14 lines)
>> 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. >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. > >-LarryOn Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:46:51 GMT, tk wrote:
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
Quoted text (16 lines)
> 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'.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
"Uwe Sch�rkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted text (26 lines)
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:46:51 GMT, tk wrote: >> 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 61As 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
.
"Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ne7zf.115407$oG.15870@dukeread02...
Quoted text (10 lines)
> It is possible this started with NT4. It's been too long for me to > remember. > > Either way, dumb ass idea putting parts of the user interface in the > supposidly highly-protected ring-0. > > I suspect the spyware and virus authors just love it though. > > -Larry >
"Larry (The Other Larry)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:ne7zf.115407$oG.15870@dukeread02...
> 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
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
"Mika Takala" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:fjbzf.3690$[email hidden]...
