GTR and Starforce

>>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 ****-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.

>><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.

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

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
-------------------

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" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:32:46 GMT, Sean Cousins > wrote:
>
>>This should shut you, and any other Starforce supporter, up for good.
>>
>>http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums...2871061083/p/5
>>
>>posted by I3thHouR
>>
>>Let me start by saying I am a developer and a Webmaster of a number of
>>major Game related sites.
>>
>>I have 25 years experience in the Business thus I make very sure that
>>I have fully researched what I comment about. My credentials precede
>>me, I do not agree with or endorse software piracy. However to play my
>>existing Starforce games I have had to crack them.
>
>
> [ snip ]
>
>
>>2. In Windows XP Starforce gives Ring 0 (super user level access) to
>>Ring 3 (Standard users). In normal English this basically means that
>>any third party application such as Trojans or Viri are given the
>>ability to have full access the both software and hardware.
>
>
> Very interesting and interesting combination of statements. I'm by no
> means a starforce fan (it doesn't get installed here), but Ring0 ==
> Super User and Ring3 == Normal user!? Seriously!?
>
> Ring0 level is actually kernel level, almost nothing should be even
> attempting to access ring0 and micro$oft tightens things considerably in
> this area with win2k (I'm no m$ fan either) after the Win95/CiH virus
> caused many problems back in the day by surviving reboots due to hiding
> in CMOS memory after gaining ring0 access.
>
> Ring3 is 'application level'. 3rd party apps (office software / games
> etc) run at this level of the system.
>
> Neither Ring0 or Ring3 have anything to do with what user access the
> current user has.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> tk

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 Schürkamp" > wrote in message
...
> 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 61

As in any type engineering compromises must be made.

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

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

Mitch

..
"Larry (The Other Larry)" > 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.
>
> I suspect the spyware and virus authors just love it though.
>
> -Larry
>

"Larry (The Other Larry)" > 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" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Larry (The Other Larry)" > 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
>